Quantcast
Photo credit: Doug Derwin

Silicon Valley Investor Spending $2 Million to Persuade Elon Musk to Dump Trump

A Silicon Valley venture capitalist said he is willing to spend millions to convince Elon Musk to dump Donald Trump over his "disastrous" climate change policies, and he is pressuring the Tesla/SpaceX CEO to withdraw from the president's business councils.

Doug Derwin's $2 million campaign includes billboards, TV ads and full-page ads in newspapers. On Monday, he launched ElonDumpTrump.com, a website that features videos of Tesla owners upset over Musk's ties to Trump.

"Musk's support for Trump, and his failure to speak out against Trump's policies, are inconsistent with Tesla's values," a campaign petition states.

Over the past month, Derwin has deployed mobile billboards around the offices of Elon Musk's various companies. Photo credit: Doug Derwin

Musk is one of the most admired leaders in tech and is very outspoken on the dangers of climate change. But in December, Musk caught some flak when he joined the Strategic and Policy Forum, an advisory board for the president on business issues.

Bloomberg reported that Derwin decided take action after learning that Musk was meeting with the new president, who is a climate change denier and is rolling back critical environmental regulations. Derwin, who was actually in the process of purchasing a Tesla, decided to cancel his order and donated the $150,000 for the cost of the car to the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Trump was using Elon to legitimize himself," Derwin told Bloomberg. "It says a lot to low information voters that Trump can't possibly be that bad because here is Elon Musk hanging on his every word. That's why I canceled the order. A principled opposition is important here."

Derwin told the Guardian he is particularly incensed by the president's onslaught of environmental regulation rollbacks.

"I want Musk to speak up against Donald Trump's climate change policies," he added. "His failure to do so sends the message that it's not really a big deal and not worth his time."

Photo credit: Doug Derwin

Derwin plans to set up information booths at college campuses to persuade young engineers to avoid working at Musk's companies. He also said he will pay people who've made deposits for the upcoming Tesla Model 3 to cancel their orders.

Derwin said he will stop the campaign and donate one million dollars to a charity of Musk's choice if he severs ties with the administration and speaks out against the president.

In previous statements, Musk said he is committed to pushing Trump on issues like immigration and climate change but was also uncomfortable about the criticism he has received for joining the committees.

"Really don't want to get in politics. I just want to help invent and develop technologies that improve lives. Feels so bizarre," Musk tweeted in February.

Keep reading... Show less
The world's first reflight of an orbital class rocket. Photo credit: SpaceX

SpaceX Launches and Lands World's First Recycled Rocket

SpaceX made history last night after launching and landing the first-ever recycled rocket, a feat that CEO Elon Musk hailed as a "milestone in space."

The Falcon 9 rocket booster, which was recovered from sea after its maiden flight last year, lifted off again from Florida on Thursday evening and sent a communications satellite into orbit. It then landed on SpaceX's awesomely named drone ship, "Of Course I Still Love You," in the Atlantic Ocean.

The California-based private space flight company spent 15 years trying to prove that rockets, which are typically discarded after a single flight, could be recovered and reused, according to Reuters.

Recycling rockets this way could drastically reduce the cost of space travel.

"The potential is there for (an) over 100-fold reduction in the cost of access to space. If we can achieve that, it means humanity can become a space-faring civilization and be out there among the stars. This is what we want for the future," Musk said.

Ever the overachiever, the SpaceX boss also tweeted that his next goal is to relaunch the booster in 24 hours.

"Incredibly proud of the SpaceX team for achieving this milestone in space! Next goal is reflight within 24 hours," Musk's tweet said.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
SolarCity Gigafactory in Buffalo, New York. Photo credit: SolarCity

4 Dying Nuke Plants vs. Fleet of Gigafactories: Which Will Gov. Cuomo Choose?

By Harvey Wasserman and Tim Judson

Elon Musk's SolarCity is completing the construction of its "Buffalo Billion" Gigafactory for photovoltaic (PV) cells near the Niagara River in Buffalo, New York. It will soon put 500 New Yorkers to work inside the 1.2 million-square-foot facility with another 700 nearby, ramping up to nearly 3,000 over the next few years.

The production of some 10,000 solar panels per day will put thousands of New Yorkers to work doing the installations. The panels will produce electricity cheaper, cleaner, more safely and more reliably than any fossil or nuclear source of power, including fracked gas, thus fueling a bright industrial future for the state.

With a little common sense from the governor, upstate New York could have many more of these massive factories, create many thousands of good, stable, high-paying jobs and solve its energy problems along the way.

All he has to do is shift over the absurd, wrong-headed $7.6 billion hand-out he now wants to give the Illinois-based Exelon Corporation for continuing to run four extremely old and dangerous nuclear reactors.

Those four reactors employ a total of about 2,100 people. They came online in 1969, 1970, 1975 and 1988 respectively. Aside from being dangerously decrepit, they run the risk of early shutdown because of general mechanical deterioration, rising maintenance costs, a shortage of replacement parts and the likelihood of major component failures.

At some point all operating reactors will also face escalated safety standards certain to result from the next Fukushima-like disaster, an ever-more likely reality as the global nuke fleet ages and deteriorates. Because the nuclear industry is failing throughout the U.S. and Europe, there is an ever-narrowing pool of workers qualified to keep the plants going. Because the electricity they produce is so expensive, they will drain a huge pool of resources from a state-wide economy in desperate need of industrial rebirth.

By contrast, SolarCity's solar panel plant will be productive for decades. It's called the Gigafactory because it will produce a gigawatt's (1 million kilowatts) worth of solar panels every year, about the same as a nuclear reactor. (Depending on climate and sunlight, PV capacity produces electricity equivalent from about a half to a third of the capacity from an atomic reactor, assuming the reactor doesn't blow up, melt down or shut for other reasons).

The cells produced at "Buffalo Billion" will spread throughout New York and the nation, revolutionizing our energy system. The energy those cells will produce will create far more jobs than subsidized nukes and would emit no greenhouse gases. The nukes they'd replace currently emit billions of gallons of hot wastewater annually, a major contributor to climate chaos.

Should the money Gov. Cuomo has earmarked for those old Exelon nukes be shifted to solar, New York's economy would be revolutionized.

The template for such a plan has already been established by Pacific Gas & Electric at California's last two reactors. Surrounded by earthquake faults at an oceanfront site nine miles west of San Luis Obispo, the Diablo Canyon nukes are being phased out in an agreement between the state, the utility, environmental, labor and local government groups.

Pacific Gas & Electric has admitted that the power Diablo produces can be replaced with 100 percent renewables. The company has also agreed to retain the plant's 1,200 workers through the phase-out and retrain them for jobs in the renewables industry at when the plant shuts down. Surrounding communities will also be compensated for lost tax revenues.

Gov. Cuomo should take heed. The $7.6 billion he's earmarked for these four upstate nukes comes with a price tag of $3.64 million per retained job. But in the solar/efficiency field, the state is producing jobs manufacturing clean energy technology with far better long-term prospects for just $148,000 per job.

Rather than having all the jobs in the nuclear basket, that $7.6 billion could also help fund a diversity of facilities that have an actual future in a global economy experiencing a revolutionary green transformation.

SolarCity's Gigafactory in Buffalo will cost the state about $750 million to build. SolarCity is investing another $900 million for manufacturing equipment and build-out.

At full capacity, the PV Gigafactory and its local suppliers will employ 2,900 workers, almost 40 percent more than all four old nukes combined. It will support about 2,000 more jobs statewide. Thus the SolarCity facility will account for about 5,000 jobs—close to three times as many as at the four old reactors. Its cheaper, more reliable energy will fuel a far healthier economy, free of the worry of catastrophic melt-downs and explosions.

Right now some 8,000 New Yorkers work in the solar installation business. They are too often installing imported panels because China has made a huge investment in its PV export business. Panels made in Buffalo will keep that money in New York.

Meanwhile a plant making solar panel wafers in Rochester, built for about $700 million, employs about a 1,000 workers. The Soraa LED lightbulb plant in Syracuse has created 420 permanent local jobs.

Tesla is now pouring thousands of high-efficiency batteries out of its $3.5 billion state-of-the-art facility in Nevada. By mid-2017, it will employ 1,700 workers and about 6,500 when the plant is running at full capacity in 2020. Such a factory could easily be built in New York, again at a fraction the cost of Cuomo's nuke bailouts.

Worldwide, nuke power is in an advanced state of collapse. Westinghouse, the proud purveyor of the first electricity to come from Niagara Falls, has been bankrupted by its failed nuke construction projects and may take Toshiba down with it.

Those uninsurable old upstate nukes, three of them nearly a half-century old, could do the same to New York. The choice being made here is between a failed technology in the process of collapse or a 21st Century industry in the process of remaking the world.

If Gov. Cuomo wants to take New York forward, instead of locking it into a failed radioactive past, he'll follow California's lead. A small fraction of that $7.6 billion could retain and retrain the workers at those four upstate nukes and compensate the local communities and help them rebuild their economies and tax bases. As the results from a 2015 report by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Alliance for Green Economy show, supporting reactor communities and workers should cost far less than any bailouts.

The rest of those billions can then create tens of thousands of solid, state-of-the-art jobs producing cheap, clean, safe green energy components in factories and installation sites sure to guarantee New York state a modern, competitive industrial future.

It's an easy choice, Gov. Cuomo. Fund four dying nukes with 1,100 jobs or a prosperous Solartopian future for New York state with tens of thousands of permanent positions in a a booming sustainable economy.

Keep reading... Show less

Elon Musk Tweets Offer to Fix Australia's Energy Crisis in 100 Days

Tesla boss and prolific tweeter Elon Musk has made an audacious bet to solve South Australia's energy woes by building a 100-megawatt battery storage farm. If the system is not operational in 100 days, the AUD$33 million (USD$25 million) technology will be provided for free.

It all started on Thursday when Atlassian CEO and Australian billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes tweeted an article to Musk that cited a similar offer from Lyndon Rive, who heads Tesla's battery division.

Rive said he would "commit" to installing the 100-300 megawatt hours of batteries to help stop South Australia's recent string of blackouts.

"We don't have 300MWh sitting there ready to go but I'll make sure there are," he said.

Cannon-Brookes then tweeted to Musk asking him if he could really make this happen if the funds were available and the politics were sorted out. Incredibly, Musk didn't just cement the offer, he wagered that Tesla could do it in less than 100 days or else the whole installation would be given free of charge.

"That serious enough for you?" Musk added.

In response, Cannon-Brookes called Musk a "legend" and asked for seven days to "sort out politics and funding." He also asked for a price quote via private message.

Musk replied with an actual figure—$250 per kilowatt-hour for 100MWh systems—noting that Tesla is being more transparent about the prices of its products.

Like with many of Tesla/SpaceX CEO's seemingly far-fetched promises, there's a good chance the proposed South Australia battery farm could actually spark to life and under deadline.

That's because, if you recall, Tesla built a similar plant in Ontario, California in just 90 days.

That facility, described as the largest operating lithium ion project in the world, consists of 396 stacks of Tesla Powerpack units spread across 1.5 acres. The batteries can store up to 80 megawatt hours, or enough energy to power 15,000 homes for four hours.

Batteries have been touted as a way to solve renewable energy's intermittency problem. Batteries, like the ones Tesla is churning out from its massive Nevada Gigafactory, are designed to "enable so-called 'load-shifting' by charging during times when electricity prices are lower due to less demand, and discharging when demand and prices are high," as Bloomberg described. Tesla's cells can also store solar power generated during daytime and release it at night, and serve as backup during outages.

South Australia has suffered a slew of power outages in the last six months, including a February blackout during a 104-degree heatwave.

As The Verge explains, there are many reasons, including political ones, behind the blackouts. But Tesla's latest offer doesn't just help solve blackouts, it could help the country transition to a more sustainable energy future:

"The Australian Energy Market Operator has blamed the blackouts on a number of factors, including higher-than-expected demand, but the topic has become a political battleground, with the Australian government pointing to the failure of renewable energies to cover usage.

"Coal-fired power plants have been closing across Australia in recent months, hiking energy bills and contributing to blackouts like those suffered in South Australia. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has pushed for a return to the fossil fuel as part of a 'coal-fired future,' but Tesla's battery technology may help wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources persist in Australia. Musk's battery farms can store huge amounts of energy generated by these renewable sources and siphon it off during busy times, theoretically eliminating blackouts."

According to The Advertiser, Premier Jay Weatherill confirmed on Friday that he had reached out to the pair. Discussions with Tesla and Atlassian are reportedly planned for next week.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Photo credit: Tesla

New Solar Farm Powers Hawaii at Night

Tesla unveiled a new 13MW solar farm on the Hawaiian island of Kauai Wednesday, bringing the state closer to its ambitious goal of sourcing 100 percent renewables by 2045.

The farm includes nearly 300 Tesla Powerpack batteries, which provide 52 MWh of capacity and will allow the farm to sell stored power during the evening. The company estimated that the farm will offset 1.6 million gallons of fossil fuel usage per year in the state, which relies heavily on oil-fired power plants and has some of the highest electric rates in the country.

According to The Verge:

It's the first major solar-plus-storage project for Tesla since its $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity last year, and Tesla said in a statement that it "will work with energy providers around the world seeking to overcome barriers in the way of building a sustainable, renewable energy grid of their own."

Stationary storage is "something I think will probably be as big as the car business long term," Tesla CEO Elon Musk said during a tour of the Gigafactory last year. "And will actually have a growth rate probably several times that of what the car business is per year. The growth in stationary storage is really under appreciated. That's a super-exponential growth rate."

For a deeper dive:

Bloomberg, Mashable, TechCrunch, Engadget, The Verge, Business Insider

For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.

SpaceX to Fly Two Tourists to the Moon in 2018

By Sydney Robinson

Private space exploration company SpaceX has announced its most ambitious mission yet—a plan to orbit the moon in 2018.

The company headed by scientific and tech mind Elon Musk claims that their mission is on-target, including having recruited two astronauts that have elected—and paid a hefty chunk of change—to have the privilege of going into space.

If everything goes as planned, the two space tourists would launch in late 2018 in a Dragon 2 capsule launched by SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket. They would float past the moon before being pulled back in by gravity and returned to the Earth's surface.

If SpaceX is successful in their venture, the two volunteers will be the first of humanity to take the trip in more than 40 years. Since the successful trips around and on the moon more than 40 years ago, no man (or woman) has made it anywhere close to the big cheese in the sky—mostly due to the fact that scientists felt they had gathered enough information and could not justify another expensive and dangerous trip around the moon just for the sake of doing it.

Still, SpaceX clearly has something to prove and taking a trip around our small orbiting crater is an important next step. SpaceX has announced plans in the past to take humanity all the way to Mars in the next few years, so this trip will be considered a vital prerequisite for that ambitious project.

Meanwhile, some are skeptical that SpaceX is attempting too much too soon.

Mary Lynne Dittmar, executive director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, said in the New York Times:

"It strikes me as risky. I find it extraordinary that these sorts of announcements are being made when SpaceX has yet to get crew from the ground to low-Earth orbit."

While the tourists would be trained, they would mostly be relying on automated systems during their trip, meaning that they would have nowhere near the survival training that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts experience. If something were to go wrong, they wouldn't be much help in saving themselves or their spacecraft.

This new venture of private companies tackling the space race is a test for the government and society. If SpaceX can prove its worth by safely transporting these tourists and returning them back home, safe and sound, it will go a long way in proving that the private tech and space company has what it takes to get us to Mars.

Reposted with permission from our media associate The Ring of Fire.

Sponsored

Why You Can't Buy a Tesla in These 6 States

By Daniel Gatti

The state of Connecticut is a progressive state, with a strong track record of support for laws and policies that will reduce global warming emissions and a goal of putting more than 150,000 electric vehicles (EV) on the road by 2025.

Given the policy commitments of the state of Connecticut, one might assume that Connecticut would be a place that would welcome an innovative, important business like Tesla, the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles in the U.S. And given the significant fiscal challenges that Connecticut faces, one might think that Connecticut would be excited to see Tesla operate new stores within the state, bringing jobs and tax revenue.

But in fact, Tesla is legally prohibited from operating its Tesla stores in Connecticut.

Under Connecticut's dealer franchise law and under the law of many states throughout the country, automobiles may only be purchased through independent car dealerships. Tesla's cars are sold directly from the manufacturer, which mean that Tesla stores are not welcome in Connecticut.

The problems that Tesla has faced with automotive dealers and state dealer franchise laws represent a combination of unintended consequences, special interest influence and the challenges of developing new technologies in marketplaces dominated by entrenched interests and outdated laws. The Tesla wars are also a part of a broader story of how changes in technology are impacting laws and regulations governing transportation in the U.S.

Why Do We Have Dealer Franchise Laws?

The car dealership model as we know it today arose in the 1920s and 1930s, as first General Motors and then eventually all of the "Big Three" American automakers chose to license the rights to sell their cars to independent dealers, rather than selling the cars directly to consumers.

The independent dealership model worked because it allowed both parties to focus on core competencies: The manufacturers could focus on making the best cars possible, while independent dealers made the inroads into local communities that allowed them to most efficiently sell the cars directly to consumers.

From the beginning, one challenge in the independent dealership model is the obvious power imbalance between the "Big Three" automakers who dominated automobile manufacturing and the thousands of independent dealerships that were licensed to sell their vehicles. Stories abounded of auto manufacturers exploiting their superior market position to gain unfair advantages on independent dealers. For example, manufacturers could force independent dealers to purchase cars that they didn't want as a condition of maintaining their relationship or terminate the franchise relationship at will without cause or coerce profitable dealerships into selling their business at below-market rates.

Beginning in the 1930s and accelerating greatly in the 1950s, legislatures in all 50 states passed a series of laws, known collectively as dealer franchise laws, which were intended to protect independent dealers from abusive practices at the hands of vehicle manufacturers. Among other things, these laws prohibited the "Big Three" from owning licensed dealerships themselves or selling cars directly to consumers.

The prohibition on direct manufacturer sales was intended to protect independent auto dealers from unfair competition from their own manufacturers. The classic concern addressed by the ban on direct sales from manufacturers is the independent car dealer who spends money, time and effort building a market for, say, Ford vehicles in a certain town, only to have Ford Motor company jump in and open up a rival direct from manufacturer store that undercuts the independent dealer on price and takes his market share.

By the 1950s when most of these laws were passed, the independent dealer model was so entrenched in the American car market that it was simply presumed that all auto manufacturers would have independent dealerships selling their cars and that any direct manufacturer sales would necessarily be in competition with an independent dealership. Dealer franchise laws therefore did not contemplate the challenge posed by a company like Tesla, a company that refuses to sell its cars to independent dealerships at all and instead insists that all sales must be direct from the manufacturer itself.

Why Doesn't Tesla Distribute Through Franchised Dealers?

Tesla has adopted this policy because they believe that the traditional independent dealership model does not work for electric vehicles.

According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk:

"Existing franchise dealers have a fundamental conflict of interest between selling gasoline cars, which constitute the vast majority of their business and selling the new technology of electric cars. It is impossible for them to explain the advantages of going electric without simultaneously undermining their traditional business. This would leave the electric car without a fair opportunity to make its case to an unfamiliar public."

Tesla points to the failure of Fisker and Coda as examples of electric vehicle start-up companies that failed because of their reliance on independent dealerships to sell a new technology. In addition, Tesla argues that because electric vehicles have lower maintenance costs than traditional cars, independent dealerships that make money off of service will always have an incentive to steer consumers away from electric vehicles. Tesla offers service for all of their vehicles for free.

Recent studies confirm that, with a few exceptions, most auto dealers in the Northeast are not making enough of an effort to sell electric vehicles. Between January and June of 2016, dealers in the Bridgeport to New York City metro area had 90 percent fewer EVs listed for sale than Oakland, when adjusted for relative car ownership. A recent report by the Sierra Club found that Tesla stores provide EV customers with far superior service, as Tesla was more likely to have EVs available to test drive, more likely to be knowledgeable about state and local incentives and more likely to be able to correctly answer technical questions about charging EVs, than traditional car dealerships.

A Tesla store looks and feels more like an Apple store than a car dealership. They are placed in high volume, high traffic areas such as shopping malls. They have almost no inventory, as Tesla cars must be ordered individually from the manufacturer rather than sold on site. There is no haggling over price. And Tesla stores sell only Tesla products, including cars and batteries; with the recent merger with SolarCity, Tesla stores will soon sell solar panels as well.

Why Do Some States Allow Tesla Stores and Others Do Not?

Over the past few years, courts and legislatures across the country have struggled with the question of whether and how to apply dealer franchise laws to Tesla stores. Some state courts, including Massachusetts and New York, have found that dealer franchise laws are only intended to apply to manufacturers that have licensed independent dealers and do not provide a cause of action against Tesla stores. Other states, including New Hampshire and Maryland, have recently changed its law to permit Tesla stores through legislation.

States that currently ban Tesla stores include Texas, West Virginia, Utah and Arizona, in addition to Connecticut. Some states, including Virginia and Indiana, allow a limited number of Tesla stores. New Jersey proposed a regulation that would have banned Tesla stores in 2015, but then relented last year, amending the regulation to allow four stores in New Jersey.

Often the difference between a jurisdiction that permits Tesla stores and a jurisdiction that bans Tesla stores comes down to minute differences in statutory language. For example, until 2014 Michigan's dealer franchise law prohibited auto manufacturers from "[selling] any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its franchised dealer."

The word "its" in the statute arguably suggests that the law only applies to manufacturers that have franchised dealers and thus does not prohibit Tesla stores. But then a legislator allied to the auto industry slipped a provision into an unrelated piece of legislation removing the word "its" from the statute and just like that, Tesla stores were banned in Michigan.

Beyond narrow questions of statutory interpretation, judges and legislators wrestling with these questions need to consider the purpose of dealer franchise laws. Are these laws meant to regulate a relationship that arose within the context of the independent dealer system? Or are these laws intended to mandate that the independent dealer system must be the only way automobiles are sold in the U.S. forever? If it is the latter, then the dealer franchise laws represent not only a ban on Tesla, but a ban on all innovation in distribution methods.

Can such a ban be justified?

Daniel Gatti is a policy analyst for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

A rendering of the completed Sparks, Nevada Tesla Gigafactory which will be topped by rooftop solar panels. Photo: Tesla

3 More Gigafactories Coming Soon to 'Change the Way the World Uses Energy'

At the grand opening of Tesla's enormous Gigafactory in July, CEO Elon Musk said he wants to build Gigafactories on several continents. He told BBC he wanted a factory "in Europe, in India, in China ... ultimately, wherever there is a huge amount of demand for the end product."

Well, it looks like Musk's factory-building plans are well underway.

The company said in its fourth-quarter investor letter on Wednesday that it is considering building up to five Gigafactories.

The letter states:

"Installation of Model 3 manufacturing equipment is underway in Fremont and at Gigafactory 1, where in January, we began production of battery cells for energy storage products, which have the same form-factor as the cells that will be used in Model 3. Later this year, we expect to finalize locations for Gigafactories 3, 4 and possibly 5 (Gigafactory 2 is the Tesla solar plant in New York)."

Tesla officially flicked on Gigafactory 1's switch in January. The factory produces lithium-ion battery cells for Tesla's suite of battery storage products, the Powerwall 2 and Powerpack 2, as well as the company's mass-market electric car, the Model 3.

Gigafactory 1 is currently being built in phases so that the company and its partners can manufacture products while the building continues to expand. Construction is expected for completion by 2018, at which point the plant could claim the title of world's largest building by footprint.

The facility will also be astoundingly clean and energy efficient, as it will be powered 100 percent by renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal and will feature energy-storage technology.

The company also plans for the building to achieve net zero energy. Tesla co-founder and chief technical officer JB Straubel once explained why Tesla wanted Gigafactory operations to be completely carbon neutral:

"The Gigafactory is maybe the best example we can talk about with this. You know, from the get-go, from the first concept of this factory, we wanted to make it a net-zero facility. So, you know, the most visible thing we are doing is covering the entire site with solar power. The whole roof of the Gigafactory was designed from the beginning with solar in mind. We kept all of the mechanical equipment off the roof. We didn't put extra, sorta, penetrations through the roof that we didn't need to and it's a very, very clean surface that we can completely cover in solar. But that's not enough solar, though. So we have also gone to the surrounding hillsides that we can't use for other functions and we're adding solar to those."

According to Straubel, the Gigafactory isn't even hooked up to any natural gas pipelines:

"The other interesting thing is we wanted to manage the emissions from the Gigafactory. Solar power can do some of that, but we took kind of a radical move in the beginning and said we are not going to burn any fossil fuels in the factory. You know, zero emissions. We are going to build a zero-emissions factory—just like the car. So, instead of kind of fighting this battle in hindsight, we just said we are not even going to have a natural gas pipeline coming to the factory, so we didn't even build it. And it kind of forced the issue. When you don't have natural gas, you know, none of the engineers can say, 'Oh, but it will be more efficient, let me use just a little bit.' Sorry, we don't even have it."

In December, Tesla and Panasonic launched operations at its Buffalo, New York plant, now dubbed Gigafactory 2. The factory manufactures high-efficiency photovoltaic cells and modules for solar panels and solar glass tiles for Tesla's highly anticipated solar roof.

Tesla's factories are all part of the company's mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy.

In last year's climate change documentary Before The Flood, Musk takes Leonardo DiCaprio on a tour of Tesla's massive Gigafactory in Nevada. During their chat, the Tesla CEO tells the actor and famed environmentalist that it would only take 100 Gigafactories to transition "the whole world" to sustainable energy.

With at least five Gigafactories in the books, looks like Musk's plans are slowly becoming reality. For what it's worth, even DiCaprio said building one-hundred Gigafactories "sounds manageable."

mail-copy

Get EcoWatch in your inbox