“You're stealing our water”: Germans protest against Tesla gigafactory | Hacker News Reader

“You're stealing our water”: Germans protest against Tesla gigafactory

reuters.com

45 pointshhs57 comments

Living across the street from the old factory in Berlin that was going to house a Google office until the local anti-gentrification movement started to protest, I'm not surprised. If you build a factory around here, with as much publicity as Tesla gets, you are going to see protests. There are probably two rare species of mosquitos being released in that forest right now.

But just the existence of opposition isn't very meaningful. Of a few million people, some will oppose manna raining from heaven.

Does this have a chance to derail the project? Absolutely not!

Germany is getting quite nervous of its car industry doing an impressive 4-way re-enactment of Nokia's fate, and a significant Tesla presence is just about the best thing imaginable. The local politicians here in Berlin and Brandenburg (the state surrounding Berlin that includes the actual factory) are even more motivated, because it (still) lacks industry. Not one of the top-30 public companies in Germany is located in the east, for example.

It's also important to mention that the concept of "protests" has significant different meaning here than elsewhere, especially the US: A protest is seen as one method/venue/institution among the many that make up "civil society". It carries no connotation of lawlessness[0], and any average citizen, even the blandest centrist, will attend many protests during their life. It's often a social event as well, and can include entertainment, somewhat similar to parades in the US.

0: some specific protests, like May Day, tend(ed) to involve some violence. But these number in the single digits, while there are 15 protests per day on average, just in Berlin.

> rare mosquitos

almost.. its bats :D welcome to germany elon

https://www.businessinsider.de/international/tesla-gigafacto...

Of a few million people, some will oppose manna raining from heaven.

As much as these companies may try to present them that way - these factories they build are not "manna raining from heaven."

A significant Tesla presence is just about the best thing imaginable.

We get that there are potential benefits to bringing a major manufacturer to the area. So do the people protesting, I hope you realize.

The question is whether these companies are willing to pay the true price for the resources they need. And whether they're willing to respect the environment (and yes, regulations) in doing so. Or whether they expect some kind of a free free ride.

Quite often, the it's the latter that seems to be the case.

> these factories they build are not "manna raining from heaven."

He wasn't actually saying that though. Read it again - his argument was basically "some people always complain even if there's nothing to complain about, therefore you can't learn any information from the fact that some people are complaining"

Indeed, thank you for!

Tesla has an long uphill battle trying to get it's factory built in Berlin. I also feel they're probably underestimating the seriousness with which Germans take their worker's rights.

Germany has little choice. Their economy is heavily dependent on their auto industry, which will contract as EV demand scales up. Of all automakers, I would think Tesla would be the least impactful based on their experiences at Gigafactory 1.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/declining-car-sales-help-driv... (Declining Car Sales Help Drive Germany Toward Recession)

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/tesla-impact-report-2019.pdf (Tesla 2018 Impact Report)

Your theory is that any EV builder willing to work in Germany will get to dictate terms?

That seems unlikely given the wealth and industrial base devoted to the automotive industry there.

My theory is that Tesla is the least worst auto manufacturing partner Germany could work with (there are always compromises that must be made), and has the power to go elsewhere if desired (several other EU countries have been very vocal in their demand for a Gigafactory; China bent over backwards to provide financing to Tesla for Gigafactory 3 at very favorable terms, I could see something similar in the EU considering their negative interest rate environment). Whomever has the least to lose wins. Tesla is proven and has been derisked. I also think Tesla would be receptive to minimizing their environmental impact to the site, given their mission and marketing (see my link to Tesla's impact report in above comment).

Does Germany want to be included in the next chapter of automotive mobility? That's up to them. Otherwise, take a trip to Flint, MI to see what the alternative path is (auto centric, of course). It's in Tesla's best interests to be a good corporate citizen, and they (in my opinion) walk the walk. Any environmental impact issues will be resolved and Gigafactory 4 construction will move forward.

Disclaimer: Have toured Fremont and Gigafactory 1 facilities, TSLA investor, all that jazz

>It's in Tesla's best interests to be a good corporate citizen, and they (in my opinion) walk the walk.

In which way are Tesla considered "good corporate citizens"? They are anti-union, not paying taxes in Nevada, being sued for racist environment in their factories, not fulfilling their obligations in Buffalo. I don't even feel like looking up other ones.

They'd be lucky to be called "average" corporate citizens. Can you give examples of how they are "good"?

Being sued for something doesn't make it legitimate.

This sort of thing sounds plausible, until you work in the legal industry and see how big corporations are involved in hundreds of lawsuits at any given time. Are they all just bad luck, or irrational people, or a conspiracy of plaintiffs' lawyers? Or are they just the product of any large company screwing up peoples' lives every day? Most lawsuits don't even attract the clickbait journalism you read.

Sure. They invest in electric mobility when it’s the hardest path forward. They aren’t perfect, no corporation is, there is always room to do better (Legacy automakers have had the same racism issues in their facilities; I can point to the Ford stamping plant in Northern Indiana and public documentation of it occurring there). Compared to VW and Dieselgate, they’re saintly. VW should’ve been dissolved for what they did. But Tesla using tax subsidies in Nevada and not meeting Buffalo inventive targets? Absolutely minor issues.

>Compared to VW and Dieselgate, they’re saintly.

Your baseline for being a "good" corporate citizen is "better than VW"? That's a low bar.

The fact that you can point to 2 or 3 different analogues for corporate misdemeanor proves my point. Tesla is one company.

>But Tesla using tax subsidies in Nevada and not meeting Buffalo inventive targets?

It's not about "using subsidies". It's about making promises tied to those subsidies and not fulfilling them. Tesla is in tax arrears in Nevada. How is that possible for such a successful company? That money pays for services the company and employees uses. Is that something a "good corporate citizen" would allow to happen?

What about violating labour laws? Securities fraud? SWATing a whistle blower?

I will ask you this plainly: why are Tesla getting loans from a government running internment camps, and telling us "China is the future"? Musk wouldn't sit on a commitee with Trump, but will take his business to China? Is this really something a "good corporate citizen" would do? This is an obvious line in the sand to me and many other people.

Again, I make no claims that Tesla are necessarily better or worse than the next company. but you referred to them as "good corporate citizens". Attitudes like "you can do anything you want as long as it's in the name of being green" are going to seriously harm the climate change conversation in the long run.

While the water issue is, indeed, quite serious, I'm not exactly sure why the 'increased traffic on highway' is so much of a concern that it's raised in the same article. Yes, traffic will increase because more people will be coming to newly created job opportunities. I suppose some of the worries might be due to the equipment being moved by big trucks which could inflict infrastructural damage but this is solvable.

I'm curious how German engineering and the Tesla's american engineering will work together. Especially in light of the Opel & Focus experiences.

Opel and Ford Germany are pretty successful...

Doesn't Tesla already heavily rely on "German engineering"? They have/had plenty of executives from German automotive companies, they own an automation company in Germany and their supply chain probably has many German companies in it. (Three of the Top5 automotive suppliers are German)

These are just your run off the mill NIMBYs. Many of those are way past their employment age, just take a look at the pictures. There was also a counterprotest.

There also were protests in favor of Gigafactory 4:

https://twitter.com/Gf4Tesla/status/1218566354116149254

https://twitter.com/Gf4Tesla/status/1218526931655761920

Tesla should just build another factory in China. Why bother w manufacturing in the EU?

Tariffs. Cars built in the EU are much cheaper to EU buyers than those made in China.

I don't think it's just about tariffs, BMW and MB have been exporting cars from Germany to US for a LONG time, if the tariffs are reciprocated I am sure it's not that a big deal to just pay them.

I think it's more about Tesla wanting to capture German manufacturing know how and skilled auto labor to improve Tesla's products.

Surprisingly, the tariffs aren’t equal: 10% on EU imports, 2.5% on US imports.

It’s not a ton, but it’s not nothing.

Why not just hire Germans, then? Frankly, Musk empirically isn’t the type to list on experts in manufacturing — he ignored them entirely when trying to fully automate the Model 3 production line. So your hypothesis strikes me as unlikely.

Doing it to spite the German automakers, though, that I’d believe!

Moving the location to Poland, some 70km east, would be enough.

Or Czechia or Polen, even Spain.

I'm sure there are many reasons; one might be the tariff on imports of electric vehicles from China, which I believe is 10%.

The tariff is a bit tricky to find, but I think it's 87038010 - electric cars principally for transport of persons, that aren't trains or trams.

Ten percent isn't nothing but it's not like the 100% or more tariff seen in some countries on car imports; I expect it's just one more factor.

They need one in the EU for tariffs and shipping costs. But I agree that they should also build another factory in China. Keep showing the world how it can be done if all parties are committed.

Sure, seems like BASF was welcome in Shanxi after Toms River. Always easy to export the problem to sacrifice-areas. /s

> Why bother w manufacturing in the EU?

1. Have you ever heard of the trade war? 2. Intercontinental transport will become more expensive. 3. Geo-redundancy means safety for mega corporations. 4. China may decide those are now state owned factories.

>Tesla should just build another factory in China.

Yeah, maybe they can build one in Xianjiang for cheaper labour. Why bother with laws?

Interesting to see the PR greenwashing marketing claims of Tesla clashing with their real life polluting activities.

Good luck explaining to the average Tesla driver that his cars did pollute a lot.

I tried to explain once that the "zero emission" label on the Nissan Leaf is misleading because building a car makes emissions.

I do think electric car are a good solution where developing public transports would have a higher (environmental) cost, but building cars pollutes.

"I tried to explain once that the "zero emission" label on the Nissan Leaf is misleading because building a car makes emissions."

I don't know why anyone would ever think the "zero emissions" label applies to the manufacture of the car. *obviously" it only means the car doesn't emit anything when moving, that's what it's about.

That's your opinion but anyway a Leaf will still emit when it's moving. Indirectly with the production of the energy, which can be very low in countries such as France or Norway, and directly with brakes dust even though the electric regen reduces that a lot, and particles from the tires.

Tire particles are emissions? When I walk are my shoe particles emissions? My skin shedding?

Electricity. In some places, electricity is still largely produced in thermal power plants, which do pollute a lot. In France and Norway, I guess most of their electricity is from nuclear and water?

Yes, those are particulate emissions. Your skin biodegrades quite readily so it's not much of an issue. Leather-soled shoes could be a tradeoff that I'm unprepared to compute... but yes even your shoes pollute, if to a lesser degree than a motor vehicle.

When it snows, do you notice that slush turns black? Much of that is shredded tires; that ends up polluting our waterways or (hopefully) burdening water purification plants.

What does this have to do with comparing a Leaf to non-BEVs? Is there some reason why the tires would be significantly more or less polluting?

It has everything to do with the "zero emissions" claim, and nothing to do with a comparison.

If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever, so applying a context where nothing has zero emissions is internally inconsistent. It can't be a null phrase and not a null phrase at the same time.

If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.

The "zero emission" label is on the back on the car, maybe they should use something else for their marketing.

If you don't like "zero emissions vehicles", what do you think of:

- partial zero emissions vehicles

- transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids)

- advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles

All of these have tailpipes!

To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.

> If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever

Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason.

For a detailed comparison:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...

Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.

Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to it.

But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.

The EPA[1] defines particulates produced by tires and brakes as emissions, and lists exhaust as one kind of emission. Exhaust[2] is a term used to describe the gas byproduct of a combustion engine. The "context" is a category error mistaking a part for the whole.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

I'm not an expert in environmental regulations, but designations like ULEV and ZEV seem to come from California and not the Feds.

So in my opinion, this is where the context is being misapplied - you want the CARB terminology to match the EPA. Neither one was handed down on stone tablets though.

Tesla is hoping for their cars to last a million miles. The electric motors should already be able to do that. If they can continue with not changing the complete car every 5 years, like most other car manufacturers do (to make older versions look dated and drive sales of new cars), you might be able to figure out everything that breaks before a million miles and fix them. This would be a real improvement on the amount of pollution/mile that comes from manufacture of a car.

Gas powered cars in recent decades generally don't die because the engine died. It's structural rust, the interior falls apart, the electronics are obsolete and probably broken, gadgets fail, the safety features are outdated and may no longer work, people refuse to spend more than the car is worth on repairs...statistically, cars get scrapped around 15 years old at something over 200Kmi.

Teslas even if they are designed with the best intentions will have these problems. And there's always the possibility they won't last near as long, because they're basically expensive iPhones and sold to people are simply not the sort who drive Corollas.

The Model S and Model X are aluminum so the rust isn't a big problem. Parts availability perhaps more. We will see how the cheaper Tesla in steel like the Model 3 will do over time but if they hold well, they may be a good cheap car in 10 years or more. In Norway, where the number of Tesla per habita is very high, the average car age is about 10 years.

Also, it's likely that the batteries will get a second life as home energy storage when no one would want to keep the car running anymore.

One (speculative) way to look at it, is that with ICE cars, there is this conceptual division, for the manufacturers or the customers, between the propulsion, and all the electronic gadgets. It is understood that the engine is what's essential but many of the electronic gadgets and features will probably die over the years and the car will remain driveable.

I bet that with a Tesla, because it's electric and there's no dividing line in everyone's minds between systems, that it will fail according to the usual pattern with electronics, and the motor and batteries won't be isolated from that.

Building any car involves emissions. Deciding whether your prejudices about electric cars are accurate requires taking a specific point of comparison and actually running the numbers.

And assuming that BEVs are not the most environmental vehicles on the market doesn't mean that a gas guzzler truck is better.

My gut reaction (or prejudice, but I like mine better than yours) is that currently hybrids, plug-in or not, have the lowest total CO2 emissions. But we should all remember how often people claimed that cars like the Prius were worse for the environment and surely in this era of them being taxicabs, you have to retreat on that.

The simplest rule of thumb is, in my opinion, whether something is cheaper, unsubsidized. There may be externalities, but if you are unbiased, you cannot use special pleading to say thing A has externalities as if thing B doesn't (unless or until you have specific justification).

I'm also really sick of hearing that the Leaf or whatever is coal powered. I live in one of the largest states in the US, and virtually none of the electricity comes from coal. And everywhere, coal power is in a major decline due to market forces.

Just be honest.

You are right and I totally agree with you. I do have an electric car and I would never buy anything not electric anymore as long as I can afford it. I just want to point out that buying a new car is not saving the planet, and you are not neutral when you drive an electric car. It's much better than anything else so far though. Better than hydrogen too.

About the hybrids, I personally think the same than Carlos Tavares, president of PSA, who said to the French government that hybrids are only a temporary solution because two motors systems is one too many for cost reasons, when batteries will become cheaper.

I keep saying that this idea of PHEVs being transitional is wrong and it should be easy to understand why.

A BEV that meets essentially all of your needs in terms of range has to have a battery ten times the size (give or take) of a PHEV that runs on electricity for 80-90% of your travel.

No matter how good batteries get, ten times will always be ten times - the expense, the environmental impact, the weight, the charging time.

Think about ICE cars - at least in the US, people want tons of power that they rarely use - you can get a car with 300 hp, but most of the time you're not using 30 hp.

It is never going to be optimal to have a battery enough for all your travel any more than an ICE for the maximum performance you might want.

The rational transportation device of the future has a small battery, a small ICE, and a big electric motor.

But the point I am going to keep making until I hear a good counterargument is that this is independent of foreseeable technology advances in batteries. It doesn't matter how you get your kWh or what it costs, it's not good for anyone or anything to utilize ten times the amount.

Would it be possible to build a floating (or submerged) factory in the ocean? Far enough from shore but linked to a coastal city via a "boring company" tunnel. And thus be outside of any political jurisdiction.

considering the chances of water level rise, knowledge in large floating structures seems like a worthy endeavour

> And thus be outside of any political jurisdiction.

Are you going to have your own navy and marines to defend yourself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com