the cars will never become popular until they can prove that there are enough ways to "refill". Buying out a leading solar company is a pretty good step to expand and improve on an existing concept. Using solar panels to power your home and car would seem like a logical set up.
That both companies are heavily subsidized and without those subsidies, would be losing money.
You could argue whether or not the subsidies are worthwhile, but I'm pretty sure the companies would be struggling (at best) without them.
And he thinks the 2 companies could be worth $1T when? The companies currently have a market cap <$35B, so to be worth $1T in 10 years, they'd need a 40% CAGR if my math is correct.
the cars will never become popular until they can prove that there are enough ways to "refill". Buying out a leading solar company is a pretty good step to expand and improve on an existing concept. Using solar panels to power your home and car would seem like a logical set up.
Musk already has an ownership stake in both, but I think SolarCity is having issues raising additional capital. Both (SolarCity and Tesla) could benefit from the "gigafactory" when it opens.
the cars will never become popular until they can prove that there are enough ways to "refill". Buying out a leading solar company is a pretty good step to expand and improve on an existing concept. Using solar panels to power your home and car would seem like a logical set up.
Fill up stations for electric vehicles and solar power, while being a nice combination, don't need to be tied together.
Musk's cars already have great range and he seems hell-bent on improving that even more. Hell, my 100 mile range Leaf has been fine going on 3 years and serves a purpose. They're great second cars.
Added infrastructure is necessary and tying it to solar is a great and obvious idea, though the infrastructure of any kind is the important part.
That both companies are heavily subsidized and without those subsidies, would be losing money.
You could argue whether or not the subsidies are worthwhile, but I'm pretty sure the companies would be struggling (at best) without them.
And he thinks the 2 companies could be worth $1T when? The companies currently have a market cap <$35B, so to be worth $1T in 10 years, they'd need a 40% CAGR if my math is correct.
So we could subsidize ideas that are futuristic or we can stick with subsidizing oil which is a dead-end.
I don't think that observation has to be pejorative...
some industries are perceived to do better depending on which party holds sway. Solar/renewable likely do better with an Administration that announces them to be a priority and worse with a party that, generally speaking, does not.
RE: I don't think that observation has to be pejorative...
some industries are perceived to do better depending on which party holds sway. Solar/renewable likely do better with an Administration that announces them to be a priority and worse with a party that, generally speaking, does not.
Than anything solar for Tesla. Some states, like Nevada, have cut the rate in which consumers can sell back electricity when they are producing surplus. Getting full rate was a big part of solar city's business model, and attractive to consumers. With rates being cut, not so much.
So the obvious solution would be to store surplus energy rather than sell it back at a less than market rate.
for all home owners?
My good friend bought them for their swimming pool 10-15 years ago and loves it. Just think of the advancements in Science in the last decade.
Could this be the start of alternate electric service?
JMHO.
for all home owners?
My good friend bought them for their swimming pool 10-15 years ago and loves it. Just think of the advancements in Science in the last decade.
Could this be the start of alternate electric service?
JMHO.
I don't know the %, but many homes cannot get solar for a variety of reasons--main one being too much shade.
the cars will never become popular until they can prove that there are enough ways to "refill". Buying out a leading solar company is a pretty good step to expand and improve on an existing concept. Using solar panels to power your home and car would seem like a logical set up.
Fill up stations for electric vehicles and solar power, while being a nice combination, don't need to be tied together.
Musk's cars already have great range and he seems hell-bent on improving that even more. Hell, my 100 mile range Leaf has been fine going on 3 years and serves a purpose. They're great second cars.
Added infrastructure is necessary and tying it to solar is a great and obvious idea, though the infrastructure of any kind is the important part.
I realize all of the benefits. But expansion is absolutely needed for more homes to have electric cars. Lower costs are needed as well. I don't have the answer, but it seems logical that his home battery coupled with existing solar panels could be part of a long term vision.
Most people that can only afford a $25k car which is the majority of the country, won't be able to go full electric until more infrastructure is in place. While most people only drive maybe 50 miles a day, the fear of having to drive more and getting stuck, whether right or wrong, will linger until things expand.
Even the Leaf "starts" at $29k and in terms of features, its probably comparable to ICE cars that cost <$25k. The cheapest Tesla's are more than double that currently and the Model 3 is still rumored to come in around $35k (base).
That and the bottoming of fuel prices making the "pay back" period longer.
Than anything solar for Tesla. Some states, like Nevada, have cut the rate in which consumers can sell back electricity when they are producing surplus. Getting full rate was a big part of solar city's business model, and attractive to consumers. With rates being cut, not so much.
So the obvious solution would be to store surplus energy rather than sell it back at a less than market rate.
Based on just being snarky, this is probably based more on getting SC onto Tesla's balance sheet than anything else.
RE: RE: This is more about battery storage for solar city
Than anything solar for Tesla. Some states, like Nevada, have cut the rate in which consumers can sell back electricity when they are producing surplus. Getting full rate was a big part of solar city's business model, and attractive to consumers. With rates being cut, not so much.
So the obvious solution would be to store surplus energy rather than sell it back at a less than market rate.
Based on just being snarky, this is probably based more on getting SC onto Tesla's balance sheet than anything else.
Very true. Solar city needs tesla way more than the opposite.
one product that Tesla is doing that could be game changing is the power wall and power packs
The power pack is geared toward utilities and business Load balancing electricity from grid could be a game changer
power wall is for the home and could start "electric grid cord cutting"
in other words homes that do not need any power from the grid
just store your excessive solar power during the day and use it at night instead of selling it back to power company
Even the Leaf "starts" at $29k and in terms of features, its probably comparable to ICE cars that cost <$25k. The cheapest Tesla's are more than double that currently and the Model 3 is still rumored to come in around $35k (base).
That and the bottoming of fuel prices making the "pay back" period longer.
yeah, if I had to take a wild guess, 5%, maybe 10% of the adult population would be able to make a move on the Model 3 right now or anytime in the next couple of years. Its just too expensive still. Its putting itself into the tier to compete with lower end BMW's and Mercedes because its nice looking and in the same price range. People buying Toyota Corollas aren't buying a Tesla yet. Even a fully loaded Camry can be had under $30k.
one product that Tesla is doing that could be game changing is the power wall and power packs
The power pack is geared toward utilities and business Load balancing electricity from grid could be a game changer
power wall is for the home and could start "electric grid cord cutting"
in other words homes that do not need any power from the grid
just store your excessive solar power during the day and use it at night instead of selling it back to power company
Power Wall strikes me as stupid, in concept. Will lead to excess generation. Makes more sense to sell it back to the power company and not have the power company generate energy from another source during daylight hours, and then have the power company generate the little power people need overnight.
Batteries would have to be really cheap for that to start making sense.
Power Wall strikes me as stupid, in concept. Will lead to excess generation. Makes more sense to sell it back to the power company and not have the power company generate energy from another source during daylight hours, and then have the power company generate the little power people need overnight.
well currently you sell the power back to ultiity for less then they charge you
so why sell it back to power company and then be charged more the the electricity you do use at night
when you can just keep the energy in a battery and use it at night
1. Who's to say energy prices won't explode? Or crater? I'm sure plenty of people that bought $30,000 Leafs 3 years ago with gas nearing $4/gallon thought they'd make their money back vs [insert comparable ICE car] in only a few years. How's that working out?
2. What's the reliability of the powerwall? Is 10 years even a realistic life expectancy?
3. Even assuming they'll last indefinitely, I highly doubt they'll still be operating at full capacity in 17 years (or even after a decade). Batteries degrade over time. Significantly.
subsidizing the oil companies is a complete joke........
"For exploration".......that should have stopped years ago.
NASA was a hugh money drain.....but at least they owned the ideas.
The electric car, batteries and etc....might be the future...if it makes sense.....let private enterprise pay for it......right now.....we pay......and others make money.
My wife and I are close to going with Solar City for home.
Lots of everyday tech has been developed by NASA and some estimates claim that for every $1 "wasted" by NASA, there is a $10 benefit to the US economy (see link). Link - ( New Window )
it makes even more sense to have solar energy. That way you don't pay for the electricity to run your car.
Well, you still pay for it. It's just in upfront installation and maintenance costs rather than an increased electricity bill.
And if you're using your ecar to commute to work, then most of the electricity you're using to recharge it overnight is likely coming from the grid rather than your panels anyway (unless you also splurged for storage).
my favorite is the upfront cost thing. using the same logic, we should all be riding the bus instead of incurring the upfront cost of buying a car.
subsidization is another one. oil/coal/hydro/nuclear are all heavily subsidized.
there are legitimate technological problems with solar/electric, but there are also legitimate tech problems with the grid. We just don't see them as individuals.
the grid companies should pay a similar price for KWH as they charge. they make their money off charging for the grid (the line charge, which is half my bill).
my favorite is the upfront cost thing. using the same logic, we should all be riding the bus instead of incurring the upfront cost of buying a car.
subsidization is another one. oil/coal/hydro/nuclear are all heavily subsidized.
there are legitimate technological problems with solar/electric, but there are also legitimate tech problems with the grid. We just don't see them as individuals.
the grid companies should pay a similar price for KWH as they charge. they make their money off charging for the grid (the line charge, which is half my bill).
Relax a little. The "upfront costs" were mentioned in response to a claim that with solar you "don't pay for your electricity".
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
RE: I own a seasonal home that gets a ton of sunlight
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
Been speaking with Solar City. There's no upfront cost. You lease the panels. They estimate we can 30% power via solar.
They lock you into a rate for 20 years...electricity costs have been going up 4-5% year.
energy rates have been going down as FP&L has switched from oil to NG as well as our garbage incinerator that was decried by environmentalist and is now heralded as the way to dispose of trash. Link - ( New Window )
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
I agree....my plan is to run a geothermal heating system off of solar....
RE: RE: I own a seasonal home that gets a ton of sunlight
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
I agree....my plan is to run a geothermal heating system off of solar....
So your plan is to pump geothermal out of the ground with thermal?
I thought geothermal will pump itself? Not up on it. Just asking as a question.
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
Been speaking with Solar City. There's no upfront cost. You lease the panels. They estimate we can 30% power via solar.
They lock you into a rate for 20 years...electricity costs have been going up 4-5% year.
If you lease the panels, Solar city gets the tax credit. If you buy, you get the tax credit.
Also, what happens if you move? You'll have to convince the buyer to take over the lease payments or else you'll be stuck paying for solar panels on a house you don't own.
Finally, the utility companies will eventually lobby against having to pay you full market rate for the excess power you provide to the grid. If they succeed, the money you get from that could be greatly diminished.
Just a few things to think about.
Yeah, 'no up front costs' or 'no money out of pocket' with solar
means exactly what it does with the purchase or lease of a car. You *can* get yourself a fair deal, but you could also easily get screwed pretty badly.
The fact that the contract had enough fine print to rival my online banking site's privacy statement was enough for me to shoot it down.
I would do it in a second if it was a break even without shady commitments. The sales guy was clueless and working from a script. I'm betting we see improved technology over the next few years and then I'll reconsider
I would do it in a second if it was a break even without shady commitments. The sales guy was clueless and working from a script. I'm betting we see improved technology over the next few years and then I'll reconsider
Where I am AP.
As I stated in an earlier post, FP&L is sinking a lot of money into the infrastructure of the first solar city in the USA a stone's throw from me.
I use electric, propane, and now diesel with my new tractor and generator, which will power all my buildings, in case of a power outage.
while it is unknown the cost of gas or oil in the future
it is easy to know the cost of batteries and solar panels .. their cost are rapidly decreasing
at some time in the not to distant future - the price point will hit a magic number to totally disrupt the energy market
is maxed out in terms of efficiency. there is no more evolution to be had. however, we are on the verge of of higher efficiency alternate substrate generation being cost effective. several companies were ready to invest big time, but the chinese flooded the market with cheap silicon panels and stalled the market incentives for investment
That both companies are heavily subsidized and without those subsidies, would be losing money.
You could argue whether or not the subsidies are worthwhile, but I'm pretty sure the companies would be struggling (at best) without them.
And he thinks the 2 companies could be worth $1T when? The companies currently have a market cap <$35B, so to be worth $1T in 10 years, they'd need a 40% CAGR if my math is correct.
Musk already has an ownership stake in both, but I think SolarCity is having issues raising additional capital. Both (SolarCity and Tesla) could benefit from the "gigafactory" when it opens.
Musk's cars already have great range and he seems hell-bent on improving that even more. Hell, my 100 mile range Leaf has been fine going on 3 years and serves a purpose. They're great second cars.
Added infrastructure is necessary and tying it to solar is a great and obvious idea, though the infrastructure of any kind is the important part.
Quote:
George? Thanks in advance for the lesson.
That both companies are heavily subsidized and without those subsidies, would be losing money.
You could argue whether or not the subsidies are worthwhile, but I'm pretty sure the companies would be struggling (at best) without them.
And he thinks the 2 companies could be worth $1T when? The companies currently have a market cap <$35B, so to be worth $1T in 10 years, they'd need a 40% CAGR if my math is correct.
So the obvious solution would be to store surplus energy rather than sell it back at a less than market rate.
My good friend bought them for their swimming pool 10-15 years ago and loves it. Just think of the advancements in Science in the last decade.
Could this be the start of alternate electric service?
JMHO.
My good friend bought them for their swimming pool 10-15 years ago and loves it. Just think of the advancements in Science in the last decade.
Could this be the start of alternate electric service?
JMHO.
Quote:
the cars will never become popular until they can prove that there are enough ways to "refill". Buying out a leading solar company is a pretty good step to expand and improve on an existing concept. Using solar panels to power your home and car would seem like a logical set up.
Fill up stations for electric vehicles and solar power, while being a nice combination, don't need to be tied together.
Musk's cars already have great range and he seems hell-bent on improving that even more. Hell, my 100 mile range Leaf has been fine going on 3 years and serves a purpose. They're great second cars.
Added infrastructure is necessary and tying it to solar is a great and obvious idea, though the infrastructure of any kind is the important part.
I realize all of the benefits. But expansion is absolutely needed for more homes to have electric cars. Lower costs are needed as well. I don't have the answer, but it seems logical that his home battery coupled with existing solar panels could be part of a long term vision.
Most people that can only afford a $25k car which is the majority of the country, won't be able to go full electric until more infrastructure is in place. While most people only drive maybe 50 miles a day, the fear of having to drive more and getting stuck, whether right or wrong, will linger until things expand.
That and the bottoming of fuel prices making the "pay back" period longer.
It does. It will be interesting to see if the deal is preconditioned on a vote of non-Musk shareholders.
So the obvious solution would be to store surplus energy rather than sell it back at a less than market rate.
Based on just being snarky, this is probably based more on getting SC onto Tesla's balance sheet than anything else.
Quote:
Than anything solar for Tesla. Some states, like Nevada, have cut the rate in which consumers can sell back electricity when they are producing surplus. Getting full rate was a big part of solar city's business model, and attractive to consumers. With rates being cut, not so much.
So the obvious solution would be to store surplus energy rather than sell it back at a less than market rate.
Based on just being snarky, this is probably based more on getting SC onto Tesla's balance sheet than anything else.
Very true. Solar city needs tesla way more than the opposite.
The power pack is geared toward utilities and business Load balancing electricity from grid could be a game changer
power wall is for the home and could start "electric grid cord cutting"
in other words homes that do not need any power from the grid
just store your excessive solar power during the day and use it at night instead of selling it back to power company
That and the bottoming of fuel prices making the "pay back" period longer.
yeah, if I had to take a wild guess, 5%, maybe 10% of the adult population would be able to make a move on the Model 3 right now or anytime in the next couple of years. Its just too expensive still. Its putting itself into the tier to compete with lower end BMW's and Mercedes because its nice looking and in the same price range. People buying Toyota Corollas aren't buying a Tesla yet. Even a fully loaded Camry can be had under $30k.
The power pack is geared toward utilities and business Load balancing electricity from grid could be a game changer
power wall is for the home and could start "electric grid cord cutting"
in other words homes that do not need any power from the grid
just store your excessive solar power during the day and use it at night instead of selling it back to power company
Power Wall strikes me as stupid, in concept. Will lead to excess generation. Makes more sense to sell it back to the power company and not have the power company generate energy from another source during daylight hours, and then have the power company generate the little power people need overnight.
Batteries would have to be really cheap for that to start making sense.
well currently you sell the power back to ultiity for less then they charge you
so why sell it back to power company and then be charged more the the electricity you do use at night
when you can just keep the energy in a battery and use it at night
the payback is anywhere from 6 to 17 years
1. Who's to say energy prices won't explode? Or crater? I'm sure plenty of people that bought $30,000 Leafs 3 years ago with gas nearing $4/gallon thought they'd make their money back vs [insert comparable ICE car] in only a few years. How's that working out?
2. What's the reliability of the powerwall? Is 10 years even a realistic life expectancy?
3. Even assuming they'll last indefinitely, I highly doubt they'll still be operating at full capacity in 17 years (or even after a decade). Batteries degrade over time. Significantly.
NASA was a hugh money drain.....but at least they owned the ideas.
The electric car, batteries and etc....might be the future...if it makes sense.....let private enterprise pay for it......right now.....we pay......and others make money.
Any thoughts on how this deal would affect my decision?
Link - ( New Window )
Well, you still pay for it. It's just in upfront installation and maintenance costs rather than an increased electricity bill.
And if you're using your ecar to commute to work, then most of the electricity you're using to recharge it overnight is likely coming from the grid rather than your panels anyway (unless you also splurged for storage).
my favorite is the upfront cost thing. using the same logic, we should all be riding the bus instead of incurring the upfront cost of buying a car.
subsidization is another one. oil/coal/hydro/nuclear are all heavily subsidized.
there are legitimate technological problems with solar/electric, but there are also legitimate tech problems with the grid. We just don't see them as individuals.
the grid companies should pay a similar price for KWH as they charge. they make their money off charging for the grid (the line charge, which is half my bill).
my favorite is the upfront cost thing. using the same logic, we should all be riding the bus instead of incurring the upfront cost of buying a car.
subsidization is another one. oil/coal/hydro/nuclear are all heavily subsidized.
there are legitimate technological problems with solar/electric, but there are also legitimate tech problems with the grid. We just don't see them as individuals.
the grid companies should pay a similar price for KWH as they charge. they make their money off charging for the grid (the line charge, which is half my bill).
Relax a little. The "upfront costs" were mentioned in response to a claim that with solar you "don't pay for your electricity".
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
Been speaking with Solar City. There's no upfront cost. You lease the panels. They estimate we can 30% power via solar.
They lock you into a rate for 20 years...electricity costs have been going up 4-5% year.
Link - ( New Window )
Well, arguably right now he's putting Tesla shareholders' money where his mouth is.
Involved with the wildlife management.
Link - ( New Window )
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
I agree....my plan is to run a geothermal heating system off of solar....
Quote:
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
I agree....my plan is to run a geothermal heating system off of solar....
So your plan is to pump geothermal out of the ground with thermal?
I thought geothermal will pump itself? Not up on it. Just asking as a question.
Quote:
Exposure is just right, decent sized home, no cover nearby to block it. I'm the kind of guy who would pay a bit of a premium just to know that some coal generated electricity was being offset.
I've had several conversations with solar equipment salespeople. My conclusion? Too expensive, too many shady characters in this space, and the time to recoup your investment is so far out that the tech will likely have evolved several times over by the time it's paid off.
Just can't justify doing it right now, especially with oil still cheap (my plan would include replacing oil heat with heat pump mini splits).
Been speaking with Solar City. There's no upfront cost. You lease the panels. They estimate we can 30% power via solar.
They lock you into a rate for 20 years...electricity costs have been going up 4-5% year.
If you lease the panels, Solar city gets the tax credit. If you buy, you get the tax credit.
Also, what happens if you move? You'll have to convince the buyer to take over the lease payments or else you'll be stuck paying for solar panels on a house you don't own.
Finally, the utility companies will eventually lobby against having to pay you full market rate for the excess power you provide to the grid. If they succeed, the money you get from that could be greatly diminished.
Just a few things to think about.
The fact that the contract had enough fine print to rival my online banking site's privacy statement was enough for me to shoot it down.
Where I am AP.
As I stated in an earlier post, FP&L is sinking a lot of money into the infrastructure of the first solar city in the USA a stone's throw from me.
I use electric, propane, and now diesel with my new tractor and generator, which will power all my buildings, in case of a power outage.
it is easy to know the cost of batteries and solar panels .. their cost are rapidly decreasing
at some time in the not to distant future - the price point will hit a magic number to totally disrupt the energy market
2. Self-dealing?
Hope Elon made a big donation to the Clinton Foundation because I see major short term cash low issues without generous government subsidies.
2. Self-dealing?
Hope Elon made a big donation to the Clinton Foundation because I see major short term cash low issues without generous government subsidies.
I thought someone brilliant already mentioned these?
:)