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

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#191

Post by seltzered_ »

dogruck wrote: post #189
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Saul did a more recent long now talk on some of the rough numbers for homes: http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/sep/21/infrastructure-and-...

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#192

Post by [deleted] »

dogruck wrote: post #189
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[deleted]

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#193

Post by jmonegro »

monkmartinez wrote: post #184
coob wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pools create costs, solar removes costs

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#194

Post by epistasis »

monkmartinez wrote: post #184
coob wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've always heard that pools decrease the home value.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#195

Post by dogruck »

seltzered_ wrote: post #191
dogruck wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of this 2010 New Yorker story about Saul Griffith: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/17/the-inventors-d...

Saul did a more recent long now talk on some of the rough numbers for homes: http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/sep/21/infrastructure-and-...

Ah, thanks -- hadn't seen that before.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#196

Post by semi-extrinsic »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #185
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you really getting value? Or are you just not bothering anymore to conserve a resource when it's less expensive to waste it?

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#197

Post by FeepingCreature »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #196
FeepingCreature wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you really getting value? Or are you just not bothering anymore to conserve a resource when it's less expensive to waste it?

Well, you could argue the same if I double your income, but you spend the increase. Like it or not, demand through consumption is the root source of value in capitalism.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#198

Post by toomuchtodo »

ghaff wrote: post #170
prostoalex wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am currently spending about $125/month on electricity. That's $1,500 per year. That right there is not the market they're targeting. You'll also see very few solar panel pitches in Washington and Oregon, as the hydropower costs are so low, the solar system will take a while to recoup. Think sunny but AC-dependent homes of Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Florida or Georgia. I live…

>That right there is not the market they're targeting. They think they can anyway. You have solar salesmen all over you in Massachusetts and I'm in exactly the same situation. I have basically no AC--I may pop in a small window unit in a heat wave--and pay Hard to see the payoff with solar.

> You have solar salesmen all over you in Massachusetts and I'm in exactly the same situation.

Solar is heavily subsidized in MA, one of the best markets to have it installed if you're a homeowner.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#199

Post by fweespeech »

marvin wrote: post #149
fweespeech wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, Tesla's solar roofs will probably be usable for 30 years before needing to be replaced. https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-long-solar-pane... Obviously probably solar but it would last long enough to break even.

And, of course, you've got a free roof included with the purchase.

If it works perfectly and you never have to replace anything, yes.

But you aren't making the sort of "profit" you would if you just put that money into the market.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#200

Post by vsl »

rohit2412 wrote: post #161
rock_hard wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what I disagree with. Tesla customers are just looking for the next status symbol. I have talked to enough tesla owners and fans to tell you that they haven't even heard of Renault Zoe or BYD ev300. And they would never consider Chevy bolt. Its all about the brand name, and not about futuristic electric cars. Tesla could start making ICE cars and they will still buy them

Go look at the UI/UX of a Tesla and compare it to the old car manfacturer crappy UI in Zoe. Compare range. Fast charging options. Fun of driving (Zoe has 16s 0-100km; that's much worse than my old small city ICE). And that's before comparing to Model 3's soon to be only a bit higher price for much better experience.

You don't know what you're talking about. Drive a Tesla before lecturing about how I'm looking for a status symbol.

Post reply on HN