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

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#171

Post by ben_w »

rwmj wrote: post #146
technofiend wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Assuming your garage roof is flat, unfortunately it won't generate too much electricity. The panels need to be at right angles to the sun for some of the time (even better if they rotate), and except in some parts of the world near the equator the sun is never directly overhead.

They don't needs to, they're just more cost-effective if they do. For now, anway — sufficiently cheap future photovoltaics could well be cheaper than the cost of adding a tilt (already cheaper than adding a sun tracker, which is why grid-scale solar plants don't track the sun)

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#172

Post by ghaff »

c3534l wrote: post #99
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 can actually "hire" a company to put solar panels on your roofs. They not only install it for you and maintain it, but they take responsibility for the upfront costs. "Hire" is in quotes because in many place you don't pay them anything so much as pay a portion of the savings you got by using solar. To me, that isn't really a technology thing. It's a financing thing. Banks and insurance deal with smoothing out co…

Financing makes lots of things work (for better or worse) for many people that otherwise wouldn't. Like buying new cars.

On the other hand, under most circumstances, if something doesn't make sense for someone with cash in the bank who is willing to put that cash down on the barrelhead, it still doesn't make sense because someone obfuscates costs through financing.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#173

Post by kuschku »

angstrom wrote: post #159
mej10 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you see how much Snap was/is paying on infrastructure? It is _insane_. $2 billion over 5 years. The amount of waste that is obviously happening there is maddening.

That's more than maddening. One company is working on the forefront of an entire ecosystem transformation in a 100 year old entrenched customer base the other...well, let's just say in another 100 years you'll be lucky to find anyone that knows what snap was.

Depends. If Snap fails, and Facebook gets a monopoly for centuries due to network lock-in, we'll know Snap as the last competitor to Facebook.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#174

Post by vidarh »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #162
coob wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pays for itself when you sell the house.

How so? Unless you assume the buyer is too stupid to do the same math? Then you might as well go full-blown McMansion.

You can be guaranteed that most buyers don't do the same math. You see this all the time where e.g. things like extensions or other work adds substantially more value than they cost to carry out.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#175

Post by toomuchtodo »

kuschku wrote: post #173
angstrom wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more than maddening. One company is working on the forefront of an entire ecosystem transformation in a 100 year old entrenched customer base the other...well, let's just say in another 100 years you'll be lucky to find anyone that knows what snap was.

Depends. If Snap fails, and Facebook gets a monopoly for centuries due to network lock-in, we'll know Snap as the last competitor to Facebook.

"Competitor". Externally funded R&D for Facebook.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#176

Post by mrfusion »

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…

Don't forget I think the roof has a lifetime warranty too. So you'd want to factor in the cost of not replacing your roof one or two times.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#177

Post by jgalt212 »

mej10 wrote: post #48
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?

Did you see how much Snap was/is paying on infrastructure? It is _insane_. $2 billion over 5 years. The amount of waste that is obviously happening there is maddening.

Just imagine how much profit Amazon would make if it were only AWS and no retail operation.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#178

Post by jccooper »

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 Tesla roof is not positioned against asphalt shingles and the cheapest panels you get. It's positioned against high-end roofs, some of which are outrageously expensive. People buying high-end roofing (hint: they're rich) are much more likely to care about aesthetics. They're also unlikely to actually care about the cost of electricity but would like to Do Something For The Environment.

If you don't understand the Tesla roof, you're probably just not part of its target demographic. Is there enough of this demographic to make it worthwhile? I dunno, but Elon and his neighbors have a lot of money.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#179

Post by sowbug »

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…

(Pacific time zone waking up....)

Either you forgot the cost of externalities from the nonrenewable power generation that is likely supplying your electricity today, or you believe it's zero.

Tesla's mission isn't to make cheaper roofs; it's to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. If you place any value on that mission, then you should be able to quantify it here.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#180

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

jccooper wrote: post #178
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 Tesla roof is not positioned against asphalt shingles and the cheapest panels you get. It's positioned against high-end roofs, some of which are outrageously expensive. People buying high-end roofing (hint: they're rich) are much more likely to care about aesthetics. They're also unlikely to actually care about the cost of electricity but would like to Do Something For The Environment. If you don't understand the…

I see it a little differently. What they seem to be after is the dollars that homeowners currently spend on both gasoline and electricity. They can wrap that up nicely if they can offer the batteries and shingles at a monthly cost that is at or below the gasoline spend. That's about $5,000 in gasoline (2 cars, 18,000 miles @, 22.5 mpg, $3 gal), plus $1,500 in electricity for the home (very round numbers) = $6,500 annually that is in play.

In 10 years, it's feasible that middle class homeowners will have 1-2 electric cars. So if Tesla can offer self sufficiency in energy, which is really what their play is, for a cost that is similar or less than $6,500/year, they have a market.

What it all turns on, which wasn't immediately obvious to me, is that the electric cars are appealing both in performance and style. If not, mass adoption languishes, and Tesla's $1.8 Billion ROI may languish as both the gigafactory and solar shingle manufacturing sit idle.

It's somewhat heartening that Model 3 has such a great initial reception in the press. But what a gamble...

Post reply on HN