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

Tesla raises $1.8B

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 207 posts

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#101

Post by wishinghand »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

You're forgetting that they're expected to outlive the usual roof's lifetime, which can be several thousand dollars.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#102

Post by silvertonia »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

While I'm not typical, I think there are a good number in a similar position:

I've got a house with a roof approaching it's end of life. I use 4MWh/month. My electricity bill goes between $1.2k and 2.4k. A Solar City roof is about equivalent in long term (20-30 yrs) cost with a much better warranty.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#103

Post by blizkreeg »

dopamean wrote: post #33

It's interesting to me that in May of last year Snap, Inc raised about the same amount of money. I've never understood how some companies need so much money. To me it makes sense for Tesla. They are building actual cars and that is expensive. What on earth did Snap need a 1.8 billion for?

> What on earth did Snap need a 1.8 billion for?

because it's available.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#104

Post by dayaz36 »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

Actually the solar roofs are made to be about the same cost or cheaper than conventional rooftops WITHOUT factoring in the money saved from the electrcity. So anyone that needs a roof replacement (5 million households/yr is the market size iir) might as well get solar roofs. In that sense their ROI is immediate and they have nothing to lose. It only doesn't make sense financially if they weren't planning on roof replacement and they are doing it solely for solar roofs, but Tesla is not marketing it to those folks and even admit that that won't make sense finacially. Those people can get Tesla's regular solar panels and their soon to be released high efficiency(~22%) solar panels.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#105

Post by ChuckMcM »

5.3% counts as junk these days? Wow, I miss the 13 - 22% days :-). Certainly shows a lot of confidence in Teslas ability to produce Model 3's. It also is going to squeeze the short sellers a bit harder as the capital is going to push out their 'dead by' dates. I feel no pity for them.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#106

Post by onion2k »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

It's only 30 years if the cost of electricity stays low. Considering electric cars are coming in much faster than utilities are building new electricity generation infrastructure that's likely to be an incorrect assumption. Prices are going to go up a lot.

That doesn't change the solar-city-versus-an-alternative question, but it makes the both more attractive.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#107

Post by rock_hard »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

You are missing the point.

Tesla customers care about money as much as Apple customers do...they don't.

What they care about is being part of the future...today! Tesla customers look at ICE cars and grid dependence like Apple owners look at feature phones...pity full.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#108

Post by marze »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

The key is how the solar is financed. If the customer's monthly electric expenses are the same as before (or close), many would go for it.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#109

Post by technofiend »

dayaz36 wrote: post #104
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

Actually the solar roofs are made to be about the same cost or cheaper than conventional rooftops WITHOUT factoring in the money saved from the electrcity. So anyone that needs a roof replacement (5 million households/yr is the market size iir) might as well get solar roofs. In that sense their ROI is immediate and they have nothing to lose. It only doesn't make sense financially if they weren't planning on roof repl…

My roof is slate and nearly 100 years old. It'll last another 100 with minor maintenance so removing it would be negative ROI because of increased maintenance costs vs what I have today.

Still, I'll gladly swap the asphalt roof on my garage when the early adopters drive the price down enough... As an early adopter of everything from CDs to minidiscs I think I'm sitting this one out for a while longer. I don't need the solar roof equivalent of $5 blank CD-R media or Jaz drives; one is a few cents each now and the other was a failure.

I could be wrong but it seems like the better payoff is in waiting a little longer, like 2-5 years.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#110

Post by S_A_P »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

Let's take my use case into account. Home built in 1974. Currently needs about 40-50k in "greenifying" it. I just put a metal roof and radiant barrier on it. Total spend on this was 70k. My inefficient home in the Houston area costs between 200(winter) and 600(august) to heat/air condition. It's not a mansion but large enough for my family (7) to live in. If the option for a solar city roof existed when I did this I would have jumped at the chance to use their panels. Even if it only subsidized my electric bill I would feel like that is a win. Its easy to get caught up with numbers/profits when it comes to electric tech But I think that people aren't as unforgiving with traditional building materials as they are with new/green tech. I'm not a Tesla apologist but having an option for electric roofing is a win in my humble opinion.
Post reply on HN