Tesla workers start arriving at Nummi plant

[n2doc]

Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, October 2,

The vacant auto factory next to Interstate 880 in Fremont started to show faint stirrings of life Friday when Tesla Motors took occupancy of the plant, which had once built cars for General Motors and Toyota.

Tesla, which recently floated a $226.1 million public offering to fund its expansion, agreed in May to purchase what used to be called the Nummi factory for $42 million.

Tesla held no ceremonies and kept a deliberately low profile as it took its first baby steps toward mass production.

"Acquiring the Tesla factory is a milestone on our path," said spokesman Ricardo Reyes.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/02/BUHH1FN6LA.DTL

[gateley]

1. WooHoo!

:woohoo: :bounce:

K&R! I wish Tesla the greatest success! If I could afford one of their cars, that's what I would buy -- to support them and their vision!

[ROBROX]

2. BUILD BABY BUILD

Finally something good which this country can use. If I had the money I would buy something new. I sure hope the cost goes down and the sales BOOM.:toast:

[DrGregory]

7. Just remember...

Finally something good which this country can use.
==================================================

Just remember; an electric car like the Tesla is
NO CLEANER than the powerplant used to charge the batteries.

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

8. Just remember

you're as full of it today as you were yesterday
The power plant that is supplying the energy to charge the batteries are a lot cleaner than the beater you drive. I'd bet money on that and I'm not a betting man.

[DrGregory]

9. Non Sequitur

you're as full of it today as you were yesterday
The power plant that is supplying the energy to charge the batteries are a lot cleaner than the beater you drive. I'd bet money on that and I'm not a betting man.
===================================================

First, as usual, your response above IN NO WAY counters what I said.

An electric car is NO CLEANER than the power plant that charges the batteries.

I read posts from chowderheads that claim the electric car is "emission free" or
that there is ZERO CO2 pollution with the electric car. Those are the IDIOTS
that I'm addressing with my remark.

Yes - power plants are cleaner per unit energy produced. However, when you have
an electric car, the power plant has to produce MORE energy than would the internal
combustion engine. Not all the energy produced at the power plant makes it to
the motor of the car.

First, there are transmission line losses. On average, about 7% of the energy from
the power plant is lost as heat in the overhead transmission lines. Second, the
rectifier / filters that change the AC to DC that charges the batteries will consume
another 20% in heating. Put your hand on one of your battery chargers for the many
rechargeable batteries that people have today - they get warm. Additionally, the
batteries are not 100% efficient either. Typically they lose about 20% of the energy
during charging due to ohmic heating loss. Upon discharge, they lose another 20%.
Then the car's traction motor is about 95% efficient - so 5% is lost there.

So overall, typically only about HALF the energy produced at the power plant makes
it to the wheels of your electric car. The rest is dissipated as heat during one
of the many steps between power plant and car. So the power plant has to produce
TWICE as much energy per mile as does the onboard engine, and that pretty well makes
it a wash when one considers that the power plant is cleaner per unit energy generated.

It is however not TWICE as clean if the plant is fossil-fueled.

However, if the power plant is renewable or nuclear, then they are more than twice
as clean. Nuclear power accounts for the bulk of the low CO2 emission electric
power. The plants themselves don't produce CO2, and the CO2 emitted by their
support functions; mining, enrichment.... is marginal.

One again, your manifest lack of science education has led to an INCOMPLETE analysis.

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

10. Nuclear energy is no where near clean

when taken into account all phases of nuclear energy from the mining of the fuel, the processing of that to the building of the plant itself.
Hydro is our cleanest source of energy even after taking in all phases of the building of the dams and the power stations and they supply damn near as much of our over all electrical energy as nuke plants do.
You are full of it if you think you are correct in saying that half of the energy needed to recharge the EV's batteries is lost before it gets to the ground as propulsion. A sizeable chunk yes but half no. Maybe with a lead acid battery that would be close to correct but we're not talking about lead acid batteries here.
I believe nothing that you say at this point as the time you've been here you've been proven to be so full of shit. Oh and your wise ass I'm somebody and you're a nobody is duly noted

Most of us live pretty close to the plant that is generating our power so the 7% loss in transmissions is a lie to. That may be the case when the power is transferred hundreds of miles but not when it is right next door to us which is the case in most cases.

Your bullshit is getting old dude real fast.

Now go piss down someone else's legs and tell them that it's raining, I know better.

We'll not be increasing our percentage of nuclear energy any time soon if ever.

[DrGregory]

11. Clueless, as always..

You are full of it if you think you are correct in saying that half of the energy needed to recharge the EV's batteries is lost before it gets to the ground as propulsion. A sizeable chunk yes but half no. Maybe with a lead acid battery that would be close to correct but we're not talking about lead acid batteries here.
I believe nothing that you say at this point as the time you've been here you've been proven to be so full of shit. Oh and your wise ass I'm somebody and you're a nobody is duly noted

Most of us live pretty close to the plant that is generating our power so the 7% loss in transmissions is a lie to.
======================================

For someone who has zip knowledge of science and engineering; you are making
lots of assessments above your level of expertise.

The 7% figure IS ACCURATE. Yes - even though you live close to the plant; 7% is
lost in transmission. This is going to be an even BIGGER problem when you have
to locate a solar plant or windfarm out in the middle of nowhere, like some desert.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 <13> and 6.5% in 2007<14>"

Just where did you get your assessment of "sizeable chunk"; but not twice.

I spelled out exactly where the losses were. For example, I used an efficiency
of 80% for the charger. I actually used the "high end" value. From one of the
industrial electronics companies involved:

http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Sealed_Lead_Acid_Battery_Applications

"The above losses don't include losses in the charging circuit which may
have an efficiency of anywhere from 60% to 80%"

...and don't go saying - "that page refers to lead acid". The loss here is
NOT in a battery - it is in a charger - the conversion of AC power line current
to DC for the battery. Those are losses in rectifiers, resistors, capacitors,
... that have nothing to do with the battery technology.

You also have to remember that the effect is MULTIPLICATIVE. If you lose a fraction
"X" in one step, and fraction "Y" in another; then amount that gets through is

(1 - X) * (1-Y)

You string several factors less than unity together, and you get small numbers
fairly quickly. Try doing some elementary school arithmetic.

The fact that you don't believe anything I say PLEASES me NO END.
It just means that you won't be getting better educated.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

12. We won't???

We'll not be increasing our percentage of nuclear energy any time soon if ever.
===============================================

We have power companies with plans right now. The Obama
Administration gave loan guarantees to several new reactors
already. Did you not see the news when President Obama
himself announced the loan guarantees for TWO new reactors
at the Vogtle plant in Georgia:

http://www.ajc.com/news/vogtle-nuclear-plant-near-308302.html

With the first few plants breaking the logjam, I'm sure
many more orders will be placed when we demonstrate that
we can build / operate new plants successfully.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

13. Such eloquence...

Most of us live pretty close to the plant that is generating our power so the 7% loss in transmissions is a lie to. That may be the case when the power is transferred hundreds of miles but not when it is right next door to us which is the case in most cases.

Your bullshit is getting old dude real fast.

Now go piss down someone else's legs and tell them that it's raining, I know better.
====================================

My previous post that cited that the US average transmission loss is 7%
totally blows away the UNINFORMED opinion above. Why would someone who
is NOT an electrical engineer, doesn't have any knowledge of science and
engineering; attempt to characterize the magnitude of the loss when he
has NOTHING to work with - no expertise, no data, no education in the field...

The only response I get are crude analogies...

Such eloquence, such turn of a phrase...

However, eloquence and vulgarity are poor substitutes
for knowledge and brain power.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

14. Remember also

Remember also - the State of California had a
law on the books, set to take effect about now.

This law required that 2% of the cars sold in
California had to be all electric vehicles.

The California legislature REPEALED the law.

California hosts 3 of the US Dept of Energy's
national labs. The national labs told the
legislature that electric cars in California
at the present time would be COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

Before you change to electric cars - you have to
change the power grid. Any additional load on the
California grid due to electric cars, will be met
with energy that California ships in via transmission
lines. These transmission lines lead to Wyoming,
and loads of COAL power plants.

The Labs told the legislature that the environmental
degradation due to the burning of more coal will
more than offset the benefits of burning less gas.

Electric cars will have their day - it's just NOT NOW!!

The lead lab in getting this reversal from the California
legislature was Lawrence Berkeley. Lawrence Berkeley is
THE lab for all matters of energy efficiency and use. The
then Director of Lawrence Berkeley was Dr. Steven Chu -
who is now President Obama's Secretary of Energy.

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

15. Rectifiers consume 20% through heat. Really?

I am really skeptical that a 0.65 Volt component can waste 20% of the energy.

Besides, that is old technology. We use zero-crossing circuits without rectifier diodes now.

[DrGregory]

17. Who said "diode"?

Besides, that is old technology. We use zero-crossing circuits without rectifier diodes now.
---------------------------------------------------

Who said "diode"? I didn't say diode - I said "rectifier";
a term that includes old fashioned diodes and zero-crossing circuitry.

Rectifier is the whole CLASS of devices.

This is what we in science call a "straw man" tactic.

You take something someone said, interpret it in a way
that is useful for your side, and then proceed to attack
the interpretation that you made.

When used in a scientific circles - it is regarded as SLEAZY.

I gave the cite to one of the companies that makes the items;
and they quote the efficiency of the chargers to be in the
range of 60% to 80%

In order to be conservative, I chose the most efficient value
for the chargers.

The chargers for batteries are not just rectifiers, and filters.

Especially, for new batteries like the lithium-ion; the manufacturers
of which specify / constrain the charging rates and voltages. Therefore,
the chargers for lithium-ion are quite complex and have to tailor the
voltage and charging rate to the depleted condition of the battery.

That's a LOT of regulation and voltage / current control; which eats
into your efficiency.

The old lead-acid batteries weren't as finicky as the newer lithium-ion,
and you didn't need as sophisticate a charging circuit.

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

18. Straw man - My sweet aunt

Dr. Capitals is as obnoxious as anybody on this forum

[Tommy_J]

3. Go Elon go!

[DCKit]

4. Guess the obituary was premature.

Last I heard, Tesla was bankrupt and shut.

That's what I get for believing the MSM propaganda.

Anyone else hyped about Chevron's (I think) patents running out on the Ovionics NimH batteries in 2014? Even if Li batteries drastically drop in price, the competition won't hurt.

[jgraz]

5. That's awesome. It was going to be depressing driving past that empty factory.

I'm glad to see East Bay workers getting a break for once.

[madokie]

6. One of the important steps to getting our economy back up and running

is to put people back to work building things we can spend our money on. Oh I realise that I'll not be able to buy one of their EV's but there will be many who will be able to. At some point the price of EV's will get down to what I can afford and when they do I will be buying.

[wtmusic]

16. 2010 Nissan Leafs are going for $22K

with fed and state rebates - no markup from MSRP.

Not yet, but they will be made in Smyrna, TN.

[pscot]

19. Was that Milestone or Millstone?