Tesla Gigafactory 2170 Battery Cell Production Video

6 months ago by Eric Loveday 69

Production Of 2170 Battery Cells At Gigafactory

Production Of 2170 Battery Cells At Gigafactory

Concurrent with yesterday’s announcement that battery cell production is now underway at the Gigafactory, Tesla released this brief video that shows the 2170 battery cells running down the production line.

It’s all-too brief and only shows a tiny portion of the production process, but at least it confirms that “mass” production of cells is indeed underway at the Gigafactory.

The cells seen in this video will be used in “Tesla’s Powerwall 2 and Powerpack 2 energy products.”

Starting in Q2 of 2017, battery cells destined to find a home in Tesla Model 3s will begin rolling down the line.

Then, by 2018, “the Gigafactory will produce 35 GWh/year of lithium-ion battery cells, nearly as much as the rest of the entire world’s battery production combined,” according to Tesla.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

69 responses to "Tesla Gigafactory 2170 Battery Cell Production Video"

  1. Alan says:

    The beginning of the end for the ICE !

    1. Raymond Ramirez says:

      Nope! That started with the GM EV1 in the 1990s, which inspired the Chevy Volt and other EVs. More Li-ion cells just makes the battery easier to produce, just like better tires make cars safer.

      1. God says:

        EV1 had nothing to do with the Chevy volt. The Tesla Roadster is what made Bob Lutz (at the time worked for GM) to make their own electric vehicle, but they didn’t want to go full one EV, so they went the EV + gas generator route. Also it’s not all about “more cells”, its the fact that it the energy density has increased.
        Bottom line, Alan is right, you are wrong.

  2. Kdawg says:

    We need the “How It’s Made” TV show do a segment on this battery production.

    1. georgeS says:

      kdawg,

      or better yet a glimpse into how Tesla has modified the machines to cut costs. JB had a hand in the machines design.

      1. jim stack says:

        I went to the GigaFactory Grand Opening. They told how they reduced the energy by 80% on the line that rolls the battery layers and cooks them. They also save on shipping since the cells are made in Nevada and sent to California. Less packaging, time and money not to mention Energy.

        The Factory is run on Solar and Geo-Thermal. A wind farm is next right behind the factory.

    2. Raymond Ramirez says:

      There is a episode that covers the Model S production. The cell production is like watching how they make the rubber for car tires. Not too entertaining!

    3. Joan says:

      Oh yeah, I always like to watch in sensationalist narrator style and broken down for 3 year olds how battery cells are being made … not.

      Get the BBC or someone else from Europe (public television) onto that, anything else will just be to plain idiotic to watch.

  3. Mister G says:

    GO TESLA GO…now all the naysayers, haters, shorters, petroheads, oil addicts, and science deniers can kiss your lily white ARSE. I can’t wait to order my model 3.

    1. CDAVIS says:

      @Mister G said “…science deniers…”
      ——

      What’s a “science denier”?

      1. Eco says:

        ‘climate change’ science denier

        1. CDAVIS says:

          @Eco said: ” ‘climate change’ science denier”
          —-

          So is a “science denier” somewhat that denies there exists an established scientific field of “climate change science” or someone that denies the prevailing scientefic theory of climate change?

          1. Mister G says:

            “Science denier” a person that denies climate change evidence expressed by climate scientists in peer-reviewed scientific journals but then whole heartedly believe and repeat statements made by non-scientists that throw snowballs in the US Senate. “White Arse” explicitly refers to Elon Musk’s arse…lol and not in a hateful way lol

            1. CDAVIS says:

              Mister G said: ” “Science denier” a person that denies climate change evidence expressed by climate scientists in peer-reviewed scientific journals…”
              —–

              So would Carlo Rovelli (a leading contributor to quantum gravity) be considered a “science denier”? …or is the label “science denier” only applicable to the science topic of “climate change”?

              Carlo Rovelli quote: “…The very expression ‘scientifically proven’ is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it’s good, it’s the best we have found so far. It’s the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct. But at the same time it’s not taken for certain…”
              -source: https://www.edge.org/conversation/carlo_rovelli-science-is-not-about-certainty-a-philosophy-of-physics

              1. Anon says:

                As they say, nothing but Death and Taxes is 100% certain. And anyone can make anything arguable, no matter how well defined our understanding of something my or may not be. So, Science gets around this problem by using “Degrees of Certainty”, sometimes known as the “Sigma Scale”:

                http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

                The flip side is, if you assume everything concerning human knowledge is always fundamentally flawed and therefore completely worthless– you don’t tend accomplish much that’s technologically positive or productive.

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                CDAVIS said:

                “Carlo Rovelli quote: …The very expression ‘scientifically proven’ is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices.

                The principle of maintaining a healthy scientific skepticism is a good thing, and is one of the foundational principles of science. But anything can be taken too far. Science isn’t composed entirely of skepticism; it also has “laws” and “theories”… some of the latter which would be better described as “laws”, but we don’t name them such these days. We talk about the “theory of evolution”, as if there is some question about the basic mechanism, when there isn’t; the only questions are about the details of exactly how it works.

                If you drop a hammer in a gravity field, it’s going to drop until it hits a firm surface. Every time. This is a known fact; an established scientific principle. We don’t understand everything about gravity, but there is no question that gravity is a real force, and it always works the same way. That hammer will drop every time. Not just 999 times out of 1000, but 1000 out of 1000.

                Similarly, we have established the principle of how the universe works on the molecular, atomic, and quantum level sufficiently well to make that computer or smartphone you’re using right now. The electronics and circuits inside work 100% reliably (the software less so) because the principles of scientific discovery actually do work. Unlike other philosophies, you can hold in your hand the very real results of scientific success.

                So let us not pretend that science is just one philosophy out of many, no better than others.

                By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox. — Galileo Galilei

                1. CDAVIS says:

                  @Pushmi-Pullyu said: “…If you drop a hammer in a gravity field, it’s going to drop until it hits a firm surface. Every time. This is a known fact…”
                  —–

                  So you are saying that “science deniers” are denying scientific law (rather than science theory)?

                  By way…Newton’s Law of Gravitational Force was for a long while considered an absolute law untill later it was discovered that it only applies in weak gravitational fields.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    CDAVIS said:

                    “So you are saying that “science deniers” are denying scientific law (rather than science theory)?”

                    I’m saying that science deniers deny evidence which is sufficiently compelling to form a certain, scientifically valid conclusion. For example, when we see widespread movement of many, many species’ habitats northward because of global warming, then we know that global warming is quite real, altho the details of exactly what factors are causing global warming, and how much each contributes, is a very complex and highly debatable subject. We don’t have to depend on just the questionable temperature measurements — and the “adjustments” to those measurements made when collating the data — made by climate scientists, some or many of whom have been shown to allow politics to corrupt their science.

                    “By way…Newton’s Law of Gravitational Force was for a long while considered an absolute law until later it was discovered that it only applies in weak gravitational fields.”

                    That’s an exaggeration. Newton’s laws still apply in strong gravitational fields; it’s just that relativistic effects become more prominent in such cases. It’s not that the effect of Newtonian physics disappears, it’s that they become a smaller percentage of the total forces on a mass.

                    The theories of Relativity have superseded those of Newtonian physics, but that didn’t render Newton’s Laws of Motion obsolete. Newton’s laws are still used every day by science students, engineers, and physicists, and were perfectly adequate to get our Apollo missions to Luna and back. It’s just that we know there are certain cases (for example, the orbit of Mercury) where equations based on Relativity theories provide a more accurate result.

                    CDAVIS, if you were trying to make the point that the scientific community sometimes gets it wrong, you would have been better off citing an older widely accepted theory which has been completely disproven, such as Phlogiston theory; or more recently, the scientific community wrongly dismissing the theory of Continental Drift, ignoring all the evidence merely because the mechanism of moving continental plates had not yet been found.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory.

                    1. CDAVIS says:

                      Pushmi-Pullyu said: “…The theories of Relativity have superseded those of Newtonian physics, but that didn’t render Newton’s Laws of Motion obsolete…”
                      ——

                      So which specific scientific law do you base your “If you drop a hammer in a gravity field, it’s going to drop until it hits a firm surface. Every time. This is a known fact” ?

                      What would that scientific law you are relying on predict would happen if you dropped your hammer in a black hole?

                      Not trying to make a point, just asking questions.

                    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      Dropping a hammer here on Earth would be a very real case. You can find several online calculators for acceleration vs. time and distance. Funny thing: They all use Newton’s Laws of Motion! And so would I.

                      Dropping a hammer into a black hole? Well now that would be merely theoretical; a thought experiment. And since I am not a physicist, nor is math my strong suit, I’d leave to others the working out of the Relativity equations for that. Sadly, there would be no way to give a real-world test of the accuracy of such calculations.

                    3. CDAVIS says:

                      @Pushmi-Pully said: “Dropping a hammer here on Earth would be a very real case. You can find several online calculators for acceleration vs. time and distance. Funny thing: They all use Newton’s Laws of Motion!…”
                      ——-

                      Please provide a link to an example Newton Laws of Motion online calculator that affirms “If you drop a hammer in a gravity field, it’s going to drop until it hits a firm surface.”

      2. CDAVIS says:

        …and are “science deniers” exclusive to “white ARSE” (white people)?

        1. Yogurt says:

          I dont know they might be…
          Are people who dont understand science limited to the ARSE that “run fast and jump high” (african people)?

          1. floydboy says:

            ???!!

      3. TM says:

        I’d say a science denier is broader than the climate change deniers, but that is just me.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “What’s a ‘science denier’?”

        Lots of examples, not just global warming deniers. Anti-vaxxers are one group. Also, anyone who goes to the “Creation Museum” and actually believes what they see there:

        https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-is-what-creationists-believe-about-dinosaurs?utm_term=.iyonnoj5G#.vr6MMy83P

        1. Martin Winlow says:

          Anyone who follows a religion? I’m just saying…

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            In my opinion, those who see some sort of antagonism, or contest, between science and religion, have an unfortunately narrow and limited view of both.

            I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? — Albert Einstein

      5. bogdan says:

        A science denier is a guy who runs for the presidency and gets ellected.

    2. Yogurt says:

      Hey G.. gangster?? Feel free to disown the lilly white ARSEs leave the US and make your own way in the world and reap what you un lilly white ARSE has sown…

    3. Raymond Ramirez says:

      Maybe this is a go, but too basic. Just like if you watch how they plant corn to make bio-Diesel. There is a lot missing before a Model 3 come sout of the production line in 2018 or later.

      1. floydboy says:

        Musk says 2017.

  4. Mister G says:

    Hey NRA members, Tesla is making ammo so call your congressional representative and tell them to support Tesla…lol

    1. Brad says:

      Free AR-17 assault rifle with every Model 3 purchase. 🙂

      1. wineboy says:

        I like that idea. 🙂

      2. Raymond Ramirez says:

        Well as long as you become the first to get shot with it!

    2. Jake Brake says:

      Its more like grenade launchet ammo. Connect the cap to the case and watch it go!

  5. Rafael says:

    ¿Se sabe algo de los datos tecnicos de esas celdas?. Elon dijo que serian las celdas con mayor energia especifica del mundo pero no a dicho ni pio de cifras. Recuerdo que las 18650 de Lg con 265wh/kg son las mejores actualmente. Yo a día de hoy quitando ese 30% de reducción de coste para las celdas 21700 no les veo ventaja alguna en lo demas.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Todavía no sabemos la densidad

      1. Ambulator says:

        I wonder what is supposed to be so secret? Tesla has never, at least to my knowledge, disclosed the specific energy of Panasonic’s 18650 cells they use, even though you can approximate it from the number of cells and the claimed energy of the battery. Faraday Future and Lucid are also not supplying numbers for their supposedly best ever cells.

        I’m puzzled and a little frustrated.

        1. Eco says:

          Panasonic published the specs for the NCR18650B cell: 3.7V x 3.4Ah = 12.58Wh / 46g = 273.48 Wh/kg

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Ambulator asked:

          “I wonder what is supposed to be so secret? Tesla has never, at least to my knowledge, disclosed the specific energy of Panasonic’s 18650 cells they use… Faraday Future and Lucid are also not supplying numbers for their supposedly best ever cells.”

          Auto makers keep the details of their EVs’ batteries as trade secrets, in an attempt to keep competitors guessing about exactly how they’re designing their battery packs. Tesla even refused, for several years, to confirm that Panasonic was making cells for its cars. In fact, as I recall it wasn’t until Tesla started courting Panasonic to partner on the Gigafactory that Tesla finally stated publicly that Panasonic was its sole vendor for batteries.

      2. Raymond Ramirez says:

        Que sorpresa que conoces español! Asi las noticias de los vehículos eléctricospueden llegar a todas las naciones de las Amúricas que lo hablan.

        Soy Boricua y bilingue.

        1. Jay Cole says:

          I’d butcher it worse than in Inglés, so…Lo sentimos, no hay planes para un IEV español

        2. Google Says:
          “What a surprise you know Spanish! Thus the news of electric vehicles can reach all the nations of the Americas that speak it.

          I’m Boricua and bilingual.”

          For those of us that don’t, or Aren’t (Bilingual)

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Thank you! It has been a very long time since my high school Spanish classes, and unfortunately I’ve never had the chance to practice that in real life.

            (Yes, yes, I know… a two-headed llama who can’t read Español! I hang both my heads in shame.)

    2. Rafael, I see Google Translates better than I do, and they said your comment was this:

      “Do you know anything about the technical data of these cells? Elon said that the cells with the highest specific energy in the world would be the cells but not at all. I remember that the Lg 18650 with 265 Wh/kg is the best these days. I removed today that 30% reduction of cost for cells 21700 I do not see any advantage in the other.”

  6. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

    It kind of reminds me of the opening to Laverne & Shirley that showed beer bottles working their way through the machinery at the Shotz Brewery.

    And the words to the L&S theme song are eerily very apropos for Tesla. LOL!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRmKzxhMzwo

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      I’m guessing Elon would be Laverne and JB Straubel would be Shirley. 😀

      1. Kdawg says:

        It made me think of the Energizer Bunny for some reason. “Keeps going.. and going…”

  7. Empire State says:

    I can envision this video clip, looped, becoming a representative backdrop for hundreds of forthcoming stories, on CNBC and other media, about EV batteries over the next 2 years.
    On the topic of representation, who started dropping the extra “0” from the battery format designation that’s got us moving from 21700 to 2170?

    1. John says:

      If I remember correctly, Elon and JB said it was to be called “2170” at the long extemporaneous talk they gave at the shareholders’ meeting last year.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        That was originally transcribed as “21-70”. I’ve been looking for an official press release from Tesla, or a Tweet from Elon, that spelled it out: either “21-70” or “2170”. But I haven’t seen anything so far.

        Anyway, so long as everybody knows what we’re talking about, I guess it doesn’t matter… altho my inner Grammar Nazi insists it does! 😉

  8. 2john says:

    Is it just me, or does the video seem frighteningly short, with no medium or wide shots? What’s the opposite of ‘giga’? Tesla PR strikes again.

    1. Raymond Ramirez says:

      The opposite of “giga” (10 to the 9th power) is “nano” (10 to the -9th power). You missed your math classes!

    2. Get Real says:

      You mean that another new username (2john), paid anti-Tesla troll strikes again by posting FUD.

  9. AlphaEdge says:

    > Then, by 2018, “the Gigafactory will produce 35 GWh/year of lithium-ion battery cells, nearly as much as the rest of the entire world’s battery production combined,” according to Tesla.

    That’s constantly being said, as if the total world battery production is stuck in the present, and only Tesla is doing a build out.

    It’s misleading, and Tesla does not know how many batteries will be produced world wide in 2018.

    Yeah for the gigafactory, but let’s try to keep things in perspective.

    1. Tech01x says:

      The correct perspective is that the Gigafactory + Panasonic’s Osaka plants will mean that Tesla has more production capacity than LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and SK Innovation combined for advanced LIBs in 2017, 2018, and 2019. It’s a bit early to call for 2020.

      Note that LiFePO4 production capacity is not interesting… it can’t go into first world BEVs as the specific energy level is too low and the costs are not low enough for them to win over the stationary storage market in the face of more advanced chemistries.

      1. q says:

        I tend to see LiFePO4 capacity more as a matter of planning for the future.

        Based on current supply and reserves, cobalt is much more likely than lithium to go scarce. Plus the whole issue of conflict minerals & Congolese child labor & so forth.

        If it becomes infeasible in the future to get cathode cobalt… we may need LiFePO4 and other “cheap cathode” chemistries to fill the gap. Nissan is already using LiMn2O4 chemistry for Leafs, and that’s not much better kWh/kg than LiFePO4 (which could be made up for by LiFePO4’s longer lifespan and higher discharge rates).

        1. I am kind of thinking – LiS (Lithium Sulfur) Cells might be part of the next step in Battery Chemistry. Maybe not – but it seems to be progressing reasonably well:
          “Sulfur – from hell to powering your car” – https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-groups/electrochemical-science-and-engineering/LiS_presentation_ESN_seminar.pdf

          http://oxisenergy.com/ & http://www.sionpower.com/ for current potential supply!

          Still work to go on tweaking them – but coming: “Based on Sion Power’s 20 Ah cell design, Sion Power’s Licerion®-Ion system has achieved 400 Wh/kg, 700 Wh/L and 350 cycles under 1C discharge conditions.” and – “OXIS Energy Advances its Lithium Sulfur (Li-S) cell technology to 400 Wh/kg” >> “Cycle Life (Cycles) 80% DoD Up to 1,400” – from – http://oxisenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OXIS-Li-S-Long-Life-Cell-v4.01.pdf

          Sulfur moves around the country and the world by the Train Load and by the Ship Load, already, so not likely too much shortage of that!

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Would lithium-sulfur batteries use significantly less cobalt?

            My Google-fu fails to answer the question.

            1. Nick says:

              Yes, they use none. 🙂

              Check out the chemistry section of lithium sulfur batteries in Wikipedia.

              Thanks!

  10. Raymond Ramirez says:

    That video looks like beer canning.

  11. Warren Hurd says:

    So how many batteries per second is this. In the name of science.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Gazillions!

  12. Martin Winlow says:

    Curiously, the video doesn’t work in the UK. IEVs videos usually work here…?

    1. Nix says:

      The link is dead here in the US now too. It looks like the original author pulled the video.

      1. Jay Cole says:

        Yupe indeed. Now replaced and working again!

  13. German says:

    Gracias Rafael, que lindo ver español en este sitio.
    Jay, cada día los bilingües tenemos nuestro Spanish InsideEV versión traducida in our minds, just reading this web site.
    ¡Viva Tesla! Go InsideEV! Mil gracias Jay! The right thing is universal. No language barrier will stop EVs. Gracias a todos, aún a quienes no entienden español, por propagar nuestra misión cambiando gassers por BEVs.

Leave a Reply