Elon Musk Says Gigafactory Output Could Soar To 150 GWh Annually

12 months ago by Steven Loveday 66

Tesla Gigafactory

Tesla Initial “Gigafactory 1” Rendering

A highlight of Tuesday’s Annual Tesla Shareholder Meeting was another new announcement by CEO Elon Musk that the planned battery output of the Gigafactory could be tripled. This would amount to around 105 GWh of cells and 150 GWh of battery packs annually. This is also over triple the current worldwide lithium-ion battery production.

Elon Musk And J.B. Straubel Speaking At The 2016 Tesla Shareholder's Meeting On Tuesday, May 31

Elon Musk And J.B. Straubel Speaking At The 2016 Annual Tesla Shareholder Meeting On Tuesday, May 31

Realize that this is projected based on just the 13 million square foot Gigafactory’s initial plans. It has been said that there will be future expansion as well, which could up numbers even further. Also, the “Gigafactory 1” as it’s being called, may only be the first of other battery production ventures by Tesla.

As previously reported, Panasonic is Tesla’s Gigafactory partner. Musk also announced that Panasonic is intending to build a brand new 20700 cell format. The current format is 18650 cells. This will make for taller, wider, and more powerful battery cells than those in the Model S and X of today.

Musk also retorted an earlier statement. He had said publicly that the Gigafactory would run 2/3 of production towards Tesla vehicle battery packs and the other 1/3 for Tesla Energy storage products like the Powerwall and Powerpacks. Now he is claiming an approximate 50/50 split. Musk believes that in the big picture, for longer term, Tesla Energy will create revenue equal to the company’s vehicle line.

This may seem a bit skewed due to the announcement of the increase in upping to 150 GWh annually coupled with the present situation of filling almost 400,000 Model 3 orders in the next few years. Musk tends to change his mind frequently in terms of “big” news and projections.

Cell production will begin later this year according to both J.B. Straubel and Musk. Musk assured that Panasonic has shown “impressive machines” and can produce “by far be the best cell production in the world”.

The entire Tesla Shareholder Meeting is available below, with much more information for those that would like to watch.

Sources: Tesla, Electrek

Tags: , ,

66 responses to "Elon Musk Says Gigafactory Output Could Soar To 150 GWh Annually"

  1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    It can sour to terawatt annually and you can build all the factories in South East Asia within a year or so. Musk only needs to find buyers to all these batteries for real cost :/

    1. floydboy says:

      Zzzzzzzzzz……😴

  2. Trollnonymous says:

    “build a brand new 20,700 cell format. The current format is 18,650 cells.”

    I think you meant…

    “build a brand new 20700 cell format. The current format is 18650 cells.”

    1. Josh Bryant says:

      Musk actually said it was 20710 (20 mm diameter x 71 mm height).

  3. Trollnonymous says:

    I called it.
    A new Cell format.
    Something in between an 18650 and 26650 cell.

    1. ffbj says:

      One of the happier moments in an otherwise dreary existence.

      1. Trollnonymous says:

        Gotta take it when you have the chance…..lol

        1. ffbj says:

          True Dat!

    2. Anthony says:

      Elon called it a few years ago on a conference call. I thought it was going to be 21700 (based on the percentages he gave at the time).

      1. Trollnonymous says:

        I recall that article but I don’t remember him stating the size/geometry of the cell.

        1. Josh Bryant says:

          Previously they said 10% more diameter, 10% more height, not exact sizes.

          As I said above, Musk said the exact dimensions of 20 mm diameter X 71 mm diameter.

    3. Kdawg says:

      Haven’t we all known this for some time, from when JB talked about it a long time ago?

    4. Priusmaniac says:

      Leaves a bit an open question as to why the proportions of 20 mm diameter and 70 mm length are the very best ones. Why not 30 mm diameter and 60 mm length? It would be interesting to learn a bit more on those reasons. Not only it’s the optimum but why precisely.

  4. Boukman says:

    20700 cells have been used by Zero Motorcycles in the past (not sure what they use now), so I’m not surprised by the choice of this format.

    1. Durkle says:

      Zero’s 2012 (and earlier, I believe) stuff used Molicell 26700 cells, so yes larger than 18650, but it’s just a larger conventional size. Tesla has designed a custom size for their application at this point, which makes sense as they’ll have such a humongous production volume. Zero’s 2013 and newer packs use Farasis pouch type cells (20Ah in 2013, I think they’re up to 27+Ah now), so a completely different cell type construction. See the Oct 2014 note on their page: http://www.farasis.com/news.html

  5. sven says:

    The Tesla hype machine never stops.

    Announcing that you could triple the Gigafactory’s output capacity (without increasing the size of the Gigafactory) before even a single battery cell is manufactured sounds like unbound hubris to me. Elon’s prediction needs to be taken with a grain of salt when you consider his past predictions:

    – Powerpacks will cost only $250/kWh with inverter, but ended up costing a whopping $810 per kWh with inverter, more than 3.25X more expensive than predicted;

    – Demand is “crazy off the hook” with or 35,000 Powerwalls and 25,000 Powerpacks reservation, and “sold out” until mid 2016 when Tesla will supposedly deliver its 35,000 Powerwall and 25,000th Powerpack, catching up with demand. One quarter before mid 2016, Tesla sold/delivered just 2,500 Powerwalls and 100 Powerpacks, and abandoned/cancelled the 10 kWh Powerwall for lack of demand;

    – Model X production was supposed to start in ____ year, but was delayed many years.

    1. x says:

      Are you positive about the powerwall / powerpack numbers? They’ve just mentioned the Hawaii project, taht starts in few weeks with 50MWh powerpack system, i.e. 500 powerpacks. This alone exceeds the 100 powerpacks that you suggest.
      I believe they would not lie about such a project in front of the entire shareholder’s audience.

      delayed model x, delayed this or that Tesla is by far the most innovative company in automotive, by far, for any honest non_shilled observer.
      I am Sure that GM, BMW Fiat would be Delighted to have such a launch as tesla has had with model 3 with basically zero ads costs and 400k deposits. Instead they are focused on supporting NADA to try to delay tesla to sell the most sad tactic.

      1. quartzav says:

        He is not, he is again using his fuzzy selective math to pretend everyone needs to buy new Solar edge optimizer as well as factoring in the most expensive supporting equipment charge you can find to support his numbers. This tends to happen when you don’t try to actually inquire about the real costs since you have no real intention for the truth.
        The powerpack itself is currently $470 per kWh which is still 1.88 times more expensive than what Musk promises via twitter around time of revealing though. Musk also plays the game like most CEOs do with mention of pack-level pricing when he mentioned of his $250 per kwh figure. I expected the final consumer cost would be higher than that number but not to the level of ~$600/kwh installed in my case.

        1. x says:

          You are right, 600$/kWh is quite steep, sorry to hear that. I don’t know if tesla pockets more than ~300kwh though.
          I am a big supporter of what tesla seems to want to achieve and have solar panels on my house but this “tactics” are not fair (however prevalent they may be nowadays).

          Wishing you well,

          1. sven says:

            Yes, I am positive about the Powerwall and Powerpack numbers. Below are the links to the numbers that I provided. Quartzav is wrong about the $250/kWh estimate not including the inverter. Elon said the cost of the Powerwall was $250/kWh including the inverter, but not installation.

            First quarter 2016 worldwide sales of 2,500 Powerwalls and 100 Powerpacks:
            http://insideevs.com/tesla-energy-reports-q1-results-2500-powerwalls-and-100-powerpacks-delivered/

            Tesla reveals pricing of Powerpacks, starting at $810 per kWh including inverter.
            http://insideevs.com/tesla-energy-reveals-powerpack-pricing/

            1. sven says:

              Below is a quote from an Ars Technica article:

              “The interest in the commercial-scale system, which will come in units of 100kWh each, is not surprising. Tesla says the all-in costs, including inverter but not installation, are $250/kWh. That’s less than one-third comparable offerings, and will add around 2c/kWh.”

              http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/08/teslas-musk-says-powerwall-sold-out-for-12-nonths-demand-just-nutty/

              It is quartzav who is using the fuzzy selective math and fuzzy selective memory to pretend that Elon didn’t say that the cost of the Powerwall was going to be $250/kWh including the inverter, but he did say it. Tesla later revealed that the price of its Powerwall including inverter is $810/kWh.

              1. Quartzav says:

                https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerpack-pricing.68841/

                Unfortunate for you. Someone actually has the original Musk tweets image.
                Sigh, as usual. I got the actual figure for someone that can actually install instead of the armchair engineer response of Internet searchs. It doesn’t matter to you though. Posts after post, pick what is convenient for your agenda.

                1. floydboy says:

                  Thank you Quartzav! I was about to head over to the TMC threads, until I saw you had already picked it up.
                  Good find.😀

                2. x says:

                  Thank you Quartzav for bringing some facts against a person who’s ALWAYS bitter about it.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              sven sputtered:

              “Quartzav is wrong about the $250/kWh estimate not including the inverter. Elon said the cost of the Powerwall was $250/kWh including the inverter, but not installation.”

              sven, you’ve long since become the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Even if what you claim was true (which it’s not), by now nobody would believe it, as you’ve posted anti-Tesla FUD so often.

              * * * * *

              @Quartzav

              Thank you muchly for your persistence in providing citations proving that, as usual, what sven claims about Tesla Motors (and its cars) is mostly untrue.

              1. sven says:

                You don’t even own or drive an EV, and you don’t even have solar panels. You’re just here to troll.

                I got my information from one of the most preeminent websites in the Green Tech Media: CleanTechnica.com. An article on Green Tech Media said the following:

                “The interest in the commercial-scale system, which will come in units of 100kWh each, is not surprising. Tesla says the all-in costs, including inverter but not installation, are $250/kWh. That’s less than one-third comparable offerings, and will add around 2c/kWh.”

                The article was not corrected or amended, and none of the comments to the article questioned the “$250/kWh including inverter” figure. If you have a problem with the accuracy of the article and the claims it makes, then take it up with Clean Technica. I’m not going to fact check every article that I quote.

                http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/08/teslas-musk-says-powerwall-sold-out-for-12-nonths-demand-just-nutty/

                1. EVGuy says:

                  If you bother to take the time to cherry pick and quote then you would be best served by going the extra step and fact checking. I’m betting you did just that and decided to go with the verbiage that best fit your argument

                  1. sven says:

                    I didn’t cherry pick. I just used the info in an article I read last year on a reputable Green Tech Media website, Clean Technica. The only point of contention is whether the $250/kWh figure that Elon promised in 2015 included the inverter or not. Do you really think I scoured the internet on Google to find incorrect information on Tesla’s Powerplant from a reputable Green Tech Media website to post in an InsideEVs comment? Really? That’s a lot of time and effort to put in searching for misinformation on a reputable Green Tech Media website that in all likelihood doesn’t exist or would be corrected in the ensuing year since publication, instead of just taking the easy way out and being happy that Tesla’s Powerwall cost $470/kWh without inverter instead of the $250/kWh Elon promised. Either way, Elon was nowhere near his promise of $250/kWh.

                    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                      There is powerpack (industrial product) and powerwall for residential users. By that tweet, powerwall may be more expensive, but lets check for $250/kWh powerpacks:
                      https://www.teslamotors.com/powerpack/design#/
                      Select largest 50 power pack system with inverters, 5,000 kWh total:
                      50 Powerpacks$2,350,000
                      4 Bi-Directional 250 kW Inverters$260,000
                      Cabling & Site Support Hardware$27,000
                      Total Estimate Excluding Installation$2,637,000
                      2637000/5000= $527.4/kWh
                      You may as well check for pink unicorns from Tesla now.

                      Who cares really what Musk tweeted some years ago. He has zero credibility with all his whooping promises that he doesn’t care to remember later. It is his dreaming cult member problem that they take his current words for gospel.

    2. ffbj says:

      So True. I prefer companies like Toyota when they told us the FCV’s were ‘flying off the shelves.’ Musk is just a magician, a charlatan, who has only been amass a huge fortune and repeatedly done things that others said could not be done.

      He’s just a Huckster, a Flim-Flam Man, a Snake Oil Salesman. He should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.
      I see a group of peasants with pitchforks and at their head, Sven, Leader of the Rabble.

      1. MDEV says:

        Agreed also WV with the super cleaner diesel. Tesla and Elon are too hype.

        1. James says:

          That sleazy, dishonest Elon Musk! I prefer Mitsubishi Motors who lied for many years about their MPGs, and now has lost control of their company to Nissan. And how dare Musk share optimism when upstanding ICE car companies like Hyundai, KIA, Ford and Volkswagen bask in their admitted lies and game-playing of European authorities and the EPA? Mercedes is currently under dieselgate investigation and I saw an Audi salesman on the corner of a freeway offramp with a cardboard sign trying to gain sympathy and a sale or two of a TDI…

          HOW DARE HE?!

          1. Trollnonymous says:

            ROTFLMAO!!!!

      2. Rick Danger says:

        Well said ffbj and x.
        Sven has turned into a jilted lover over this whole powerwall/powerpack thing. He never misses a chance to throw it out in another comment section, and he still can’t believe that we all haven’t gone over to “his side” and called for Musk’s annihilation.
        Poor little hurt butt…

        1. sven says:

          Nice homophobic reference bigot. Tell us why you chose to use a gay slur. Is it because you hate homosexuals? Are you going to vote for Trump to make America great again? Maybe you could build a wall around your house to keep all the homosexuals out. Can you please share with us your views about minorities.

          1. Nick says:

            Woah. Take it easy sven.

            I didn’t read it that way at all.

            1. sven says:

              How exactly do you interpret: “turned into a jilted lover over this . . . Poor little hurt butt…”?

              Rick Danger’s comment is a homophobic slur and anti-gay comment made under the anonymity of a screen name. Lets call a spade a spade.

              1. x says:

                For one I disagree with your positions but I would not offend you in any way.

                I believe that offending each other on any basis is simply wrong.

                On the other hand why shouldn’t I be allowed to be homophobic, to be anti-gay if I do not offend you in any way?
                Just let me be as I let you be.
                This politically correct OBLIGATION to be 100% compliant with the omnipresent pro-gay propaganda (for a behavior that was NEVER accepted in NAY society no matter how prevalent it may have been) does a disservice to the common good ,tolerance of each other.
                Force anyone to swallow something and they will be even more reluctant to try that “food” on their free will.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Seriously, sven, now you’re accusing someone of hate speech simply because you don’t like being criticized?

            And to think, I once respected you, and repeatedly complimented you for your contributions to comments here. But that was before you became a serial Tesla FUDster.

            Here’s an idea: Stop posting lies about Tesla Motors and its cars, and then you won’t have to pretend to be outraged or wounded by the pejoratives you get in response.

            1. sven says:

              Eff you troll. Even Tesla owners on InsideEVs think you’re a jerk off and an embarrassment to Tesla. Here’s a post from a Tesla owner directed at you, Pushmi-Pullyu, in case you missed it the first time:

              “You gotta be the biggest JO on these pages.. if you were in Nj.. I’d kick your butt.. you post derogatory comments here about folks and degrade them immediately because they have opinions outside of yours.. we live in the the USA butt head.. and we can express our opinions regardless of your pushy know it all attitudes. . You are an overboard fanboy and an embarrassment to this Tesla owner.. knock it off.”

              http://insideevs.com/lemon-law-violation-claimed-for-faulty-tesla-model-x/#comment-859512

          3. ffbj says:

            I took it like a child getting a paddling for being bad. Of course these days that is considered child abuse, but think of it as a metaphor.
            We should also consider that not everyone is as elegant as you, when it comes to word usage. In some circles those two words would be code for hurt feelings.

            1. sven says:

              I might have been born, but it wasn’t yesterday. It seems the Rick Danger is quite elegant with word usage and has quite the flair for written prose: “Sven has turned into a jilted lover over this . . . Poor little hurt butt…”

              I wonder if one of Rick’s other hobbies when he’s not writing bigoted slurs on internet forums is to go around burning crosses on the lawns of neighbors who have a lifestyle that he disapproves of.

              1. ffbj says:

                These days people are all too eager to take and give offense, it’s a sign of the times.

                I’m not trying to be an apologist for Rick, I just think you took what he said the wrong way, though it is entirely possible that I am incorrect.

                1. Rick Danger says:

                  Of course he took it the wrong way, because it deflected him from just admitting he has been way over the top with this whole powerwall thing and he should just Give It A Rest.
                  Sven, your persistence in regurgitating the Tesla Powerwall Saga over and over again is simply getting boring, and it seems you’re obsessed with it. That’s what the jilted lover reference was about. Deal with it. Or not. I really don’t care.

          4. EVGuy says:

            Wow Sven, how did you get there? No one mentioned anything about sexual preference or politics, it wasn’t even inferred.
            You really took it completely out of context. Not what this forum is about. Lets stay on point

            1. sven says:

              Rick Danger definitely implied it. It might have went over your head and you didn’t infer it from reading his comment, but it sure didn’t go over my head.

              Stay on point? This website has become about Tesla fans personally attacking anyone who questions or mildly criticizes Tesla. All I said in my original comment was that Elon’s prediction of tripling the Gigafactory’s output capacity without increasing it’s footprint needs to be taken with a grain of salt based on his past predictions.

              1. Rick Danger says:

                I implied no such thing. It seems you are the only one who took it that way. I wonder why????

                1. sven says:

                  There you go again bigot, or are you going to feign innocence again? Shouldn’t you be outside tonight with your inbred family in your white hoods burning crosses on your neighbor’s lawn? Say hello to your cousin for me, otherwise known as your wife.

                  1. Rick Danger says:

                    LOL you really are an a**hole. When you get a minute? Go eff yourself.

      3. floydboy says:

        The oil companies also found out he kicks puppies and bites babies on their pinkys!😯

        1. Rick Danger says:

          Careful, sven will be accusing you of animal cruelty and child abuse :))

    3. Tech01x says:

      Why would there be any hubris? They modified their production floor layout… most likely a little more than a year ago. After that, they changed their building plans and removed some of the beams for the 2nd phase. We also know from a Storey County official that they changed the internal layout and also added a floor to at least some sections. There have also been hints in their public commentary.

      Therefore, a slew of us on TMC have guessed that the original production targets have changed. And therefore, the shareholder’s meeting was a perfect opportunity to ask, and we managed to get some of our questions to be reviewed by Tesla’s Investor Relations and they incorporated their answers into the presentation.

      Panasonic is now installing equipment. Obviously they know their revised production targets. How long were they supposed to sit on the fact that they have new production targets? I’m glad they finally shared that information with us.

  6. tftf says:

    From article:

    “Realize that this is projected based on just the 13 million square foot Gigafactory’s initial plans.”

    Hmm, no. The inital plans (2014) called for 10 milllion sq ft, that was later expanded to 13.6 million sq ft operational space.

    So far (phase 1), Tesla only has 1.9 million sq ft, ie. 14%, available.

    Note that I’m talking about floor space, not footprint.

  7. georges says:

    so the cells are 5 mm taller.

    No wonder they had to go to a panoramic roof to make up for the taller cells.

    Sound like bad planning.

    The funny thing is that the most expensive car (Tesla) also has the cheapest format cells….although Argonne says the cost influence is negligible going from cylindrical to prismatic:

    http://insideevs.com/argonne-computer-model-and-the-implications-for-the-3rd-generation-tesla/

    Anyway I’m all for it. The idea is to come up with a lower cost product free from subsidies. Elon can do it. The big three don’t want it to happen.

    Ever wonder why the big 3 sales are only 2000/month max for years??

    1. x says:

      Aren’t you guys tired, really of this imbecile argument of “tesla lives because of subsides”…

      it’s been shown to be False by many , on many forums but still… uninformed/gullible/shills bring it up over and over and over again….

      – tesla doesn’t receive the 7500 ta cut, customer does. All other similar Evs receive the same
      – tesla payed back the DOE loan with interest 8 years ahead of time F and Nissan still use that low interest loan (the “big” F doesn’t even try to build a decent EV they sell 100/month Focus EV for 4 years in a row, talk about pretending)
      – tesla gets credits from CA just like any other clean cars manufacturer

      I know all this info is available to anyone who really wants to see the facs but….

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Hmmm? Was there a comment (or series of comments) about subsidies that was/were deleted by the moderator?

        Because nothing in the post you appear to be replying to mentions subsidies in any way.

        However, “georges” did say “No wonder they had to go to a panoramic roof to make up for the taller cells.”

        Maybe that was a joke? If not, it’s pretty clueless.

        1. x says:

          I am sorry, it is my mistake.

  8. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    That was very long, but I actually did learn some things I didn’t know about the history of Tesla Motors.

    This is the first time I have heard any actual size given for the Gigafactory cells. 20mm x 70mm would indicate a 20700 cell form factor, as the article says, altho Musk never uses that terminology.

    * * * * *

    “Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan.” –traditional proverb

    I see Musk is doing his usual thing with claiming all the credit for Tesla Motors. In all that long speech, he mentioned the actual founders of Tesla Motors exactly once, and didn’t give their full names. He said something like (paraphrasing) “So we teamed up with Martin and Marc and Ian.”

    Reality check: Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the founding of Tesla Motors, and so far as I know it’s accurate:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Tesla Motors was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning who financed the company until the Series A round of funding. Both men played active roles in the company’s early development prior to and after Elon Musk’s involvement, with Eberhard the original CEO of Tesla…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    [unquote]

    The third founder of Tesla was Ian Wright, CEO of Wrightspeed.

    * * * * *

    I was disappointed that the two videos embedded in this article don’t have the Q&A following the presentation. So I went to the Tesla Motors site and listened to the whole thing.

    What an incredible waste of time that was! Nothing but the very last question — literally the last — was of any interest whatsoever. Waaaay too many people wanting to make a speech (or a complaint) rather than actually ask a question.

    So thanks to our InsideEVs writer, Steven Loveday, for cutting that off.

    1. Josh Bryant says:

      The annual shareholder meeting Q&A has gotten worse every year. It seems most of the people attending now (asking questions) don’t have anything better to do.

      I could see the Q&A go away at this event if it digresses any further. Maybe they could screen the questions at least.

      It was almost a complete waste of time for me to listen to, so I can only imagine how Musk must have felt.

  9. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Musk’s approach of treating factory production as a physics equation, with volume of the factory included in the equation, and saying that he thinks there is room for an order of magnitude or more of improvement… doesn’t stand up to critical analysis.

    Consider, Musk specifically says he’s not talking about floor space, but volume. Now, the ceilings in most factories — certainly including Tesla’s Fremont auto assembly plant — are pretty high. In some places inside the factory, high ceilings are needed. For example, I seem to recall that they actually had to raise the roof above the three-stories-tall aluminum stamping machines.

    But in most areas, they could probably get away with a considerably lower ceiling. So let’s say, as a thought experiment, that we reduce the ceiling height by an average of 50%. Now, according to Musk’s equation, that means suddenly the plant’s efficiency is doubled; a 100% improvement.

    Hopefully it’s obvious this is nonsense. We save a little on costs by needing less lighting, and we save a significant sum on the monthly overhead by having less volume to heat in the winter and air condition in the summer. But it’s absurd to say that the overall efficiency of the plant would be doubled merely because we reduced the vertical space by half! Reducing the monthly overhead for heating and cooling won’t affect the cost of auto parts, materials, or labor in the slightest.

    Now, that’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement… perhaps a startling amount of improvement, in how mass production lines are operated. But including volume of a factory in the equation seems rather silly.

    1. Tech01x says:

      He’s giving us a hint that they have already thought about space efficiency – there are a slew of articles that are saying that the NUMMI factory can’t produce more than 400,000 vehicles a year. He’s saying that they’ve thought about it and know how they are going to build much, much more. The internal targets for vehicle production at their Fremont factory is far higher than most people realize.

    2. ffbj says:

      Mostly I thought it was about speeding up production lines, which is where most of the increased efficiency would come from. More vehicles in less time.

      1. sven says:

        It would also come from utilizing space more efficiently by running cars down the assembly line sideways to shorten the assembly line, packing the same number of robots into 1/3 the space, and replacing a good deal of robots with humans in the assembly stage. Super-efficent Diahatsu, which was recently 100% acquired by Toyota, did all the above and built a new factory next to an old one that is 1/2 the size, cost 1/2 the capex to build, with the same production capacity as the old factory, and significantly reduces the production costs to build a car.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uka-CrBScwA

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/toyota-pins-big-hopes-on-daihatsus-small-cars-1462265346

        1. ffbj says:

          Those robots are crammed in together pretty close. Though small that plants production equals the larger plants production, which was your point.

    3. Josh Bryant says:

      It may not only be able building more floor space. If robots are doing the assembly, why do the cars have “rolling” across the floor?

      Machines have much higher reach than humans. You could have the vehicles on their side, or even upright during automated assembly.

      Auto manufacturing is definitely not my area of technical expertise, but a fresh look at how processes are done often lead to new efficiencies (and technical hurdles).

      I don’t believe 10x increase is possible, but even a 1.75x improvement in efficiency would be very valuable.