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

181–190 of 207 posts

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#181

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

hwillis wrote: post #135
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My home's roof has another 20 years on it. So I'll be tossing half of it's lifetime if I replaced it now. That's partly why I mentioned new home construction would likely be an easier market. Moreover, it's a 3000 sq ft ranch, with larger than the average roof area. The Tesla roof is likely going to start at $50,000, (I said "$50,000+") so I'm thinking $65,000 for my house. Batteries are probably in the range of $10,…

They have a calculator. Check it out instead of guessing wildly

I did the calculation back in May when this article [0] came out and recalled the rough numbers correctly for my home (they changed the calculator on their web site, now only talks about the value of electricity the roof would produce).

The quote from the article is: "The average home in the United States is 2,467 square feet. According to Tesla’s handy solar calculator, the new system will set an average homeowner back $51,200 for a 70% solar roof. The company also recommends purchasing the additional, but optional, Powerwall battery to store all that new energy at $7,000, bringing the grand total of installation to $58,200."

My roof is much larger than the average (2,750 livable + roof over garage) because mine is a ranch and the average includes 2-story homes which will have much smaller roof area for the same home square footage. So it's quite reasonable to get from an average cost of $58,200 to $75,000 for my specific home.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sleasca/2017/05/16/tesla-solar-...

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#182

Post by lprubin »

Mz wrote: post #35
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? To put it in a pool and swim in it, like Scrooge McDuck?

Precisely. It looks a little something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzba7V8uB04

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#183

Post by ijidak »

lprubin wrote: post #182
Mz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth did Snap need a 1.8 billion for? To put it in a pool and swim in it, like Scrooge McDuck?

Precisely. It looks a little something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzba7V8uB04

Hahahaha. Someone needs to take the first 27 seconds of that video and make it into a meme for situations like this.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#184

Post by monkmartinez »

coob wrote: post #158
monkmartinez wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal roof mounted solar doesn't pay for itself unless you plan on staying in the same home for a longggg time.

It pays for itself when you sell the house.

That used to be "common" knowledge with pools in my area as well... now they are a liability/nice-to-have based on one's perspective and don't add a dime to value.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#185

Post by FeepingCreature »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #167
hwillis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a calculator. Check it out instead of guessing wildly

FWIW, I have some colleagues who are researching how to reduce energy usage in buildings. It's a lot harder than you would assume just based on pure math, since you have to take Jevon's paradox [1] and other "psychological" effects into account. I.e. when energy gets cheaper, you use more of it. In my area (same latitude as Anchorage, ~ 65% of the incoming solar energy as in San Francisco), they calculated that solar…

Why would you take those into account? Using more energy doesn't mean it "takes longer to recoup", because now you're getting value in the form of additional energy to use.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#186

Post by samstave »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175
kuschku wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True - but can you ELI5 for everyone - even though we can infer based on being in tech and can see this - but spell it out for others...

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#187

Post by howinator »

calafrax wrote: post #153
lancewiggs wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that it is unsecured "junk" debt, and the interest rate is incredibly low at 5.3%.

5.3% is not incredibly low for a corporation borrowing 1.8 billion. it is pretty high which is why investors are jumping on it. This adds $95 million in interest expense per year which is pretty substantial.

It is incredibly low for bonds in the "junk" trough. For companies with Tesla's credit rating, you're typically looking at 6.5-7.8%. If you're GE, you're of course going to pay a lot less, but GE has a much more robust credit history.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#188

Post by angstrom »

agumonkey wrote: post #138
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?

Last week snap was being shot down by some finance guy. They got bubble like fame, and failed to show how to convert user base into money. They're basically worthless

Well, the CEO fluff on the ER call was amusing. Probably doesn't help to brand yourself the same thing as a food stamp program, but I digress.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/08/11/analyst-caught-in-hot-...

I would dump that shit if I owned it.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#189

Post by dogruck »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #167
hwillis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a calculator. Check it out instead of guessing wildly

FWIW, I have some colleagues who are researching how to reduce energy usage in buildings. It's a lot harder than you would assume just based on pure math, since you have to take Jevon's paradox [1] and other "psychological" effects into account. I.e. when energy gets cheaper, you use more of it. In my area (same latitude as Anchorage, ~ 65% of the incoming solar energy as in San Francisco), they calculated that solar…

Reminds me of this 2010 New Yorker story about Saul Griffith:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/17/the-inventors-d...

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#190

Post by justicezyx »

Robotbeat wrote: post #54
justicezyx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is a genius business man... You should not underestimate his skill of creating illusions. I for myself only learnt this ~2010... Before I always thought he was the founder...

It's not much of an illusion. Tesla was still working on hybrids when Musk joined on. For better or for worse, Tesla as it is now is Musk's baby. Not untruthful to say he was a cofounder, though with a heavy caveat.

I bought a baby, sure, still my baby. But please not say I gave birth to the baby. Fact is fact, period.
Post reply on HN