Jump to content

Talk:Gigafactory Nevada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Gigafactory 1)

Status of article

[edit]

This might warrant a paragraph at wiki/Tesla_Motors, but it doesn't warrant a page on its own. Yet. It is at best a promotion of Tesla Motor Co.'s plans to build a factory somewhere. Note that the 2 references are Tesla Motor Co 'blog' pages.
Wayne 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm initially agnostic on your comment; even though I did stumble on this article today and have endeavored to improve it a bit.
However, if you want to have the article deleted, there is a process for that. See WP:AfD. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly getting a lot of media attention, which suggests that it's a notable subject. I've added a few reputable sources to the article as external links, with the hope that someone with the time and interest may want to add content based on those sources and convert those external links to references. (For example, they mention California's bid to host one of the Gigafactories, and a 2017 date for start of production, either of which would be new content for this article.) Before correcting a tempting typo, note that the newest of those sources really is dated in the future, matching the date on the printed edition of The Economist.  Unician ∇  02:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many date formats, in text and in references. Should we use the format common to Tesla articles ("2016-10-09" for refs, October 9 for text ) ? Are there tools to perform mass conversions? Are there other ref tools to set date format as default, as CiteGen only shows "9 October 2016" ? TGCP (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to convert dates - not sure how it works. TGCP (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

In this edit, Jesseschulman added the Gigafactory location as plain text, “GPS Coordinates -39.536660, -119.445541”, which was then reverted. I'm guessing that we'll want to use that in a template, such as {{coord|39.536660|-119.445541|display=title}}. Do we need a source for coordinates?  Unician ∇  05:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates can be roughly estimated from this photo http://cleantechnica.com/files/2015/01/Tesla-Gigafactory.jpg which has 1-800-DIAPERS warehouses in the background. Hard to find better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.226.251 (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

More here, especially on the recent Nevada-provided subsidies to this specific manufacturing plant. Apparently, several specific pieces of legislation are involved. [online.wsj.com/articles/tesla-nevada-tax-breaks-incentives-package-approved-1410507190Tesla Receives Nevada Tax Breaks], Wall Street Journal, 12 Sep 2014.

OK... Epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Self-sufficient

[edit]

There is a lot of talk about the factory suposedly is to be energy self sufficient through solar/eolic power plants. It would be great if some solid information could be provided regarding this matter. An EV car battery manufactured using renewable energy would truly be groundbreaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.201.91 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future gigafactories

[edit]

This section of the article mention Japan as the location for a second factory, but the source only says that the company "courted partners in Japan for its so-called gigafactory". The Bloomberg article (original CSM's source) has nothing about other GFs. Actually, the last shareholder letter of the company (Q3 2015) and a recent tweet by its CEO indicates that India is the top candidate for building a second battery factory. --Freedatum (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gigafactory's battery pack

[edit]

This section could be made better as in :

- split the cell description from the pack description (may there be more than 1 type of cell used in other designs?)
" The most used cell in Tesla battery packs is form factor 18650, 18mm diameter, 65mm long; it is similar in size to cells in laptop battery packs. "
"Each 18650 round-wound cell is enclosed in a steel housing, through which the heat, emerging through charge and discharge chemical reactions, is dissipated to its surroundings. When built in to a pack, the space between cells is filled with coolant."

(in other articles it is claimed, that some of per-cell safety features are removed in favor of the fire-retardant filling in/out of the cell and other advanced monitoring)

"The cost of 1 kWh capacity of such cells is estimated at 190-200 USD, compared to flat folded batteries costing 240-250 USD per 1 kWh"
- rewrite the Roaster pack description (and cite source maybe?)
- is the Roadster pack actually produced AT the Gigafactory ? There were indications, that so far it was producing PowerWall units?
"The Tesla Roadster battery pack assembles 6831 of these cells in a 69 parallel connected blocks, grouped into units (9 blocks connected serially) and further connecting 11 units serially - a 69P99S configuration."
"The Roadster battery pack weighs about 408 kg, stores 56kWh of energy and provides about 215 kW continuous (?) power. Cells are assembled in protective steel casing, and accompanied with charging, monitoring and cooling system (cooling system function can be reversed to keep cells above freezing temperature in colder weather)."
- any sources that mention how the pack of ModelS and other are architectured ? (there was something about Model3 having different battery architecture)
- there were indications that the GF1 so far only assembles cells together, and is in plans to open production of cells themselves when it expands.

(in this rewriting this section I only reused information it already contained, have NOT checked or sought any sources) 146.90.156.187 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory lede...

[edit]

The lead paragraph currently reads

> The Tesla Gigafactory 1 is a lithium-ion battery factory which is under construction (and in production) primarily for Tesla Motors at the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center in Storey County, Nevada, US.[1][2][3] The factory became operational in the first quarter of 2016.[4]

This contradicts itself. If the factory is operational, how can it still be under construction?

Elwoz (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are building/assembling Powerwalls in the current factory space using battery cells produced elsewhere. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

[edit]

Wouldn't it be more clear if the article was titled Tesla Gigafactory? Are other companies building gigafactories? Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Tesla Gigafactory?  Unician ∇  07:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "gigafactory?" Presumably it's a really big factory, but it's not explained. 174.6.101.144 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the article be renamed to "Tesla Gigafactory" without any number. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to Gigafactory 1 when Elon Musk referred to it as such using the introduction of Tesla Energy and the Powerwall and Powerpack. Video --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today: [1]

The fact that Musk called the battery plant "Gigafactory 1" also implies that there will be more Gigafactories in the future. The surprise, however, is that some of those factories don't have to necessarily be built by Tesla, according to Musk. Instead, the company will continue its policy of open sourcing its technology so others can use it.

"There will need to be many Gigafactories in the future," Musk said. "Many companies will build Gigafactory-class plants of their own."

Opening, and actuals

[edit]

When the factory opens, it's time to get actual numbers on employees, production, and floor space, and use those. There's too much projected data from PR in this article. WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

There is no mention of actual dimensions of the structure, floor or work area. Projected future size is mentioned, as is the area of the factory site but not the current structure. Can someone find these details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmostly (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another measure of size is employee number; 4,500 workers at $22/hour, + several more. [ Hidalgo, Jason (2015-06-16). "List: Every Tesla gigafactory job and how to get them". Reno Gazette Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-30. ] TGCP (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From measurements on Google Earth - it seems that the factory (at it is on Jan 1st 2020) is basically a set of eight perfect 500 foot squares...or at least so damned close to 500' that it pretty much has to be exact - aligned on a perfect North/South axis. That makes the building 3,000' long by 1,000' wide at the widest point. Still trying to figure out how tall it is. SteveBaker (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

While the Gigafactory is clearly in Storey County, does it belong to a particular city of community? The Tesla website lists its address as being in Sparks, Nevada, but Sparks is located in Washoe County and does not (to my knowledge) extend into Storey, so I fail to see how the factory could possibly be in Sparks (though I expect Tesla was interested in the name association there). Clark appears to be the closest community, but is the Gigafactory actually in Clark? I don't know how that would be determined. 73.149.43.153 (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2016 (—UTC)

ZIP codes frequently cross county lines. Look at a map for ZIP 89434 -- Sparks is essentially the only town of any reasonable size to choose from. If Tesla was intention was deception it would have chosen Reno.

107.77.214.85 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why would it choose Reno? Sparks is the cooler name, and "reasonable size" is perfectly relative. FWIW, Fernley is the closest incorporated city, but it's only slightly closer than Sparks. 73.149.43.153 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gigafactory 2

[edit]

So I have a draft up at DRAFT:Gigafactory 2 -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gigafactory 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gigafactory 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential scandal

[edit]

I am wait and see on this potential scandal, but there are allegations of theft and drug trafficking at the subject of this article. If this story has growing coverage beyond this USA Today article, it should be included int his article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell if this is a disgruntled ex-employee spreading lies or if it is a company whitewash to hide the truth. Need further references saying what government officials have found out about it.  Stepho  talk  00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what I am saying is WP:TOOSOON & WP:NOTNEWS; if WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE occurs than include. While what I am saying plays into notability of an event, this is an event that would fall into the scope of this article, but should be included if only more becomes of it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.  Stepho  talk  03:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was added again; little to no continued coverage has occurred for this event over the past four years and it seems to be unsubstantiated so I removed it. SashimiJones (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to recommend slimming it down, that is one thing. But the account was reported by, i.e. received significant coverage from, independent third party reliable publications, and that has not changed. QRep2020 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself does not seem to be notable; it was the subject of a few news articles around four years ago and no new information about the allegations has been published since. Although the fact that the allegations were made is verifiable, the truth of the claims is unsubstantiated. Thus, it seems that undue weight is given to the claims of a single individual here. I would suggest moving the content to a separate article, but this content is already included in the criticism of Tesla article. As the allegations have had little to no effect on the operation of Giga Nevada, it is inappropriate to include them here. It certainly does not deserve its own subsection. SashimiJones (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's inaccurate to say tesla operates the factory.

[edit]

The relationship between Panasonic and Tesla for the Gigafactory is tenant and landlord. It's not accurate to say that Tesla operates the factory. Tesla's responsibilities end at the building envelope or "shell". They don't hire any of the workers, own any of the equipment, or even manage any of the workers that produce the batteries. They simply buy the batteries produced in large deals, eg. 3 years at a time.

It's very concerning that my edit was reverted and removed from the revision list. The source I added is clearly an outline of this relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.175.240 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's the source you cited: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312514403635/d812482dex101.htm
This agreement does nowhere state that Panasonic will be the sole manufacturer in the building. Matter of fact, I recall hearing that the building is partitioned such that Panasonic and Tesla have clearly defined sections of the building they work in. I'll try to find the source that stated this.War (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. This article shows that Giga Nevada is operated by both Tesla and Panasonic: https://electrek.co/2020/11/03/tesla-gigafactory-nevada-supposed-to-look-like/ War (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that Panasonic makes cells, and occupies most of the factory area. Tesla then assembles cells into batteries (a battery is defined as a collection of cells). Suggestions on how to make that more clear : Panasonic's variety of cell production lines, links to videos, employee table as in TRIC overview (the 7,000 number is obsolete), description of the other suppliers, motor&gearbox etc. Lots to add. TGCP (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down the source for that table seems to show that they used the total employment of Tesla from 2009, quoted as 1000-4999. So it was never really useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.175.240 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? The six TRIC table sources are from 2016 or later. Tesla didn't have any factories in 2009, so it seems you have misunderstood something. TGCP (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly but the article is still misleading whether or not some minority of the facility is used to assemble battery packs or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.175.240 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
47.184.175.240, Your opinion does not seem to be supported by the sources. You can add to the article by finding sources that describe how Panasonic, Heitkamp&Thurer and Valeo are making cells, as mentioned above. TGCP (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suitability of including Karl Hansen

[edit]

I don't think including this information at all is warranted per WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS, but for now I have substantially reduced the content for the following reasons: First, whether drugs were involved at the factory, while relevant to Tesla as a company, is not relevant to the factory or production itself. Second, the article erroneously claimed that Hansen was fired for not being a team player; all sources in fact state that a different employee was fired. Hansen is not described as 'fired' in any secondary source. Third, the claim that Hansen is participating in an FBI investigation is not supported by any secondary source. Finally, the entire section with allegations from the interview with TSLAQ has been removed because the interview is simply Hansen stating allegations which have not been fact-checked or included in any reliable secondary source. Wikipedia shouldn't be simply amplifying claims; it should be an authoritative source on what is known about a topic. If claims or allegations have a signficant impact on a topic, they should be included, but that's not the case here.

When I was reading this article I got to the section at the end and thought "wow, this sounds bad, the factory must be really mismanaged." On checking up on this story, I was surprised to find that a few years later there have been no new developments except that Hansen's lawyer turned out to be funded by short sellers and that another individual involved in the case had to pay a settlement to Tesla. Including information of dubious credibility is a disservice to readers, and this information is already available on the criticism page. I still think the section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashimiJones (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gigafactory_Nevada&oldid=1207422415"