Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk's finances

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#61

Post by bkanber »

wott wrote: post #46
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also run on nuclear power and wind power and solar power - it all depends on what a local power grid uses. But regardless, burning fuel at a power plant is much more efficient than doing it in an ICE, so even if Teslas were powered by gasoline, as long as it's burned at the central plant, it's more energy-efficient and better for the environment.

Uh? Straight fuel -> mechanical energy conversion is less efficient than a series of fuel -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy -> transportation -> storage -> mechanical energy conversions?

Yes, it is, by a decent margin at that. ICEs have a peak efficiency of only about 30%, and average 15-20%. And that's just in the engine. Powertrain losses for ICE vehicles are a handful of percentage points higher than for EVs as well.

Well-to-wheel efficiency for EVs is better than ICEs in every country except India currently.

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#62

Post by bkanber »

RoboTeddy wrote: post #55

> The proposed SolarCity acquisition illustrates this: by getting Tesla to buy the struggling SolarCity, Mr Musk can keep it alive and maintain control. Why doesn't the author believe Musk's claim that Tesla Solar City are merging in order to produce a superior product/service? One company comes and installs both solar cells and batteries. The batteries help you get more value out of your solar cells. You don't have…

Shame on HN for downvoting you. This was a reasonable and thoughtful comment.

What you're missing is the skepticism that is so rampant in the media and especially on HN these days. It is certainly possible that they're merging to produce a superior experience. It's certainly possible that they're merging for financial reasons. It's certainly possible that the reality is some combination of both.

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#64

Post by leoedin »

wott wrote: post #46
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also run on nuclear power and wind power and solar power - it all depends on what a local power grid uses. But regardless, burning fuel at a power plant is much more efficient than doing it in an ICE, so even if Teslas were powered by gasoline, as long as it's burned at the central plant, it's more energy-efficient and better for the environment.

Uh? Straight fuel -> mechanical energy conversion is less efficient than a series of fuel -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy -> transportation -> storage -> mechanical energy conversions?

An internal combustion engine efficiency averages maybe 20% or so[1]. A combined cycle gas turbine power plant (running on natural gas) can reach 60% efficiency (it seems most operate a bit lower, but still in the high 50s)[2].

An electric car might be 60% efficient from the point grid power is delivered to the point it reaches the wheels.[1] That gives a natural gas -> power at wheels efficiency of 36%, or 1.8x the internal combustion engine.

[1]: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml [2]: http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-18/...

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#65

Post by snsr »

kuschku wrote: post #56
jondubois wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally critical of companies which have high valuations yet continuously lose money, but in the case of Musk's ventures, I think what he's doing is so genuinely innovative that I would be more inclined to put the blame on the system than on Musk himself. Elon uses long-term thinking but unfortunately our economic system tends to favour short-term returns. In my mind there is a huge difference between Tesla los…

The issue is that Tesla isn’t doing something really new, and won’t be able to keep any advantage in the market in the long term. Their reputation has also taken a heavy hit after investigations into their autopilot discovered major issues with it, and it was deemed unsuitable for even testing (For example, it will always stay behind the car ahead of you if it can’t find lane markings – even if the car ahead of you s…

> The issue is that Tesla isn’t doing something really new

Objectively they absolutely are.

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#66

Post by jondubois »

greglindahl wrote: post #57
jondubois wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally critical of companies which have high valuations yet continuously lose money, but in the case of Musk's ventures, I think what he's doing is so genuinely innovative that I would be more inclined to put the blame on the system than on Musk himself. Elon uses long-term thinking but unfortunately our economic system tends to favour short-term returns. In my mind there is a huge difference between Tesla los…

Let's see: Tesla: Growing rapidly, huge customer interest & pre-orders, positive margin on product, easy to see that it may grow big enough to overcome fixed costs. Twitter: Not growing rapidly, hard to see that they'll become profitable without cutting out a lot of expenses. Not at all the same kind of beast.

Less than 0% is not what I would call "huge margins": https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATSLA&fstype=ii&ei=...

Twitter revenue is growing very rapidly, just like Tesla's: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&fstype=ii&hl=en...

Economically speaking, they're very similar.

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#67

Post by greglindahl »

jondubois wrote: post #66
greglindahl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see: Tesla: Growing rapidly, huge customer interest & pre-orders, positive margin on product, easy to see that it may grow big enough to overcome fixed costs. Twitter: Not growing rapidly, hard to see that they'll become profitable without cutting out a lot of expenses. Not at all the same kind of beast.

Less than 0% is not what I would call "huge margins": https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATSLA&fstype=ii&ei=... Twitter revenue is growing very rapidly, just like Tesla's: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&fstype=ii&hl=en... Economically speaking, they're very similar.

By margins, I'm referring to the car COGS vs selling price, not including the cost of design. (Yes, I know that this isn't the usual yardstick for mature car companies, but we have no idea how many model S/X cars are going to sell before it needs a new platform, and this IS the usual yardstick for Silicon Valley startups.)

Twitter revenue is growing much slower than Tesla's, especially if you take into account the pre-orders for Model 3.

I agree that some economists/financial people see it the way you describe. That's not the only point of view out there.

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#68

Post by greglindahl »

RealityVoid wrote: post #16
JimmyAustin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but it's easier to fix those causes. It's a lot harder to take the millions of ICE cars off the road then it is to cleanup the environmental impact of a lithium mine.

It's not about lithium mines per se... it's about needing a new car and not a used one since you're buying a (new) Tesla. That means extra carbon in the atmosphere.

Sure, as an individual I can always buy a used car. But that doesn't change much globally: cars are generally driven until they're uneconomic. If not by me, then by someone else.

Put another way: if too many people buy new cars, then the price of used cars falls. There are enough people who compare the value of used cars vs new ones that a lower used car price causes them to prefer used over new. This is a fundamental feature of the car market, and that's why car dealers make it easy for you to trade in your used car.

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#69

Post by kuschku »

snsr wrote: post #65
kuschku wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that Tesla isn’t doing something really new, and won’t be able to keep any advantage in the market in the long term. Their reputation has also taken a heavy hit after investigations into their autopilot discovered major issues with it, and it was deemed unsuitable for even testing (For example, it will always stay behind the car ahead of you if it can’t find lane markings – even if the car ahead of you s…

> The issue is that Tesla isn’t doing something really new Objectively they absolutely are.

Oh, they are?

Did they invent any new batteries? No. That IP belongs to Panasonic.

Did they invent any new technology for electric motors, or any gear technology, or even chargers? No, there are even older, and better, and more widely deployed supercharger standards, and they are doing nothing unusual regarding the rest.

Does Tesla do anything new regarding self-driving cars? No, the teams from Sony and VW, Here, Google, etc are all further ahead, and every competitor has more reliable lane assist technology already in production.

So what is it where Tesla is doing something new? What did they invent, or create?

Re: Elon Musk's finances

#70

Post by jernfrost »

115100 wrote: post #4
xiphias wrote: post #2

The whole article is failing to point out the biggest risks that the clean-tech companies are fighting against: global warming and lung cancer. Even though all older car companies have the ability right now to take a huge financial and PR risk, they're still not talking about the damage car emissions cause. Tesla is the first company that convinced me to buy a new car instead of an 8 year old one, as I didn't see eno…

Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing, so global warming is made worse by Tesla selling more cars instead of people buying older ones.

It is starting to be a while ago since that was true. Today usage by far contributes most to pollution, not the manufacturing.
Post reply on HN