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

Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 282 posts

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#71

Post by tigershark »

jshowa3 wrote: post #68
tigershark wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the talented people that you mentioned were laughing when he proposed reusable rockets, and we all know how it ended.

Reusable rockets have existed for decades. The space shuttle program used reusable rockets. The DCX was a rocket that controlled similar to the falcon 9 in the 90's. The problem is, both programs were shelved in favor of cheaper, unmanned, probe vehicles.

No, the shuttle rockets where expendable. The only reusable part was the shuttle itself and every launch was very expensive compared to SpaceX. Do you have any source for the reusable rockets used in the space shuttle?

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#72

Post by danso »

olau wrote: post #64
danso wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious: how did you identify this story as being low value? The Shanghai anecdote to me seems self-evidently low value (since the incidence of car fires is still rare, and individual incidents have low impact). But this story's headline (on the article page) alleges serious misconduct, as well as financial problems/shortfalls that unavoidably impact Tesla.

Red flags for me were language and sources. The writer didn't try to test her assumptions, as far as I can tell. I think it's true that Musk went in and tried to save SolarCity by assuming control and changing the course. That was news at the time where it happened. He did the same to Tesla, actually. It's also true that he's always talking about visions.

What do you have in mind in terms of the writer needing to test her assumptions? I don't know what that means, both in terms of the assumptions that she's obligated to test, or what that "test" would look like in the article.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#73

Post by mikeash »

amluto wrote: post #46
mikeash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar panels aren’t required at all.

Not only are they not required, they aren’t present at any station I’ve seen. Some supercharger stations do have an interesting thing: a big battery bank with a four-quadrant utility meter. I assume Tesla has come up with some clever billing arrangement that combines peak shaving, demand response, TOU arbitrage, and selling reactive power to minimize the cost of operating the station. Otherwise it makes little sense…

Yeah, I’ve visited a couple dozen Supercharger locations and never seen solar either.

I think the main purpose of the batteries is just to cut down on demand charges. Even a smallish older Supercharger can pull 500kW if a bunch of cars arrive at once, and that gets pricey. I wouldn’t be surprised if they got fancier as you describe, though. If the capability is there, might as well use it.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#74

Post by navigatesol »

dragontamer wrote: post #45
docker_up wrote: post #18

The purchase of SolarCity by Tesla was the single dumbest thing Elon Musk did and it has dire consequences for Tesla the car company. Shareholders definitely have a great chance to sue Musk because he did not do this in the best interest of his shareholders, it's in the best interest of his cousin. Co-mingling all parts of his companies (SpaceX buying SolarCity Bonds) is a huge red flag that reeks of corporate malfea…

> The purchase of SolarCity by Tesla was the single dumbest thing Elon Musk did Why was it a bad move for Elon Musk? Elon Musk owned many SolarCity shares (in fact, Elon Musk was the chairman of SolarCity). If SolarCity would go bankrupt, Elon Musk would have lost a lot of money and power. Elon Musk saved SolarCity to save his own skin and money. Its not really that hard to imagine. Now Tesla shareholders, who overwh…

The lawsuit alleges a lot more. For instance,that Musk was aware of and didn't make known the fact the the SEC was looking at Solar City's liquidity position, and that the whole Solar Shingle reveal was a fake to sway the shareholder vote,since the product doesn't exist,two years on.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#75

Post by navigatesol »

martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

Yeah, Bethany McLean is running Tesla hating content.

Or, hear me out, there's something to what these "haters" have been saying for years. Which is more likely?

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#76

Post by navigatesol »

tigershark wrote: post #66
jshowa3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobodies perfect. Not even Musk. So I suggest accepting both the faults and successes of the man as a complete package. Tesla is one of the many cases of Silicon Valley syndrome where you run a company at negative profit forever while claiming to make all these substantial advances (some laudable, others stupid) in an attempt to disrupt something that's been working for decades for specific reasons. There's a reason…

All the talented people that you mentioned were laughing when he proposed reusable rockets, and we all know how it ended.

You think Musk was the first to propose reusable rockets?

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#77

Post by new_realist »

tigershark wrote: post #71
jshowa3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reusable rockets have existed for decades. The space shuttle program used reusable rockets. The DCX was a rocket that controlled similar to the falcon 9 in the 90's. The problem is, both programs were shelved in favor of cheaper, unmanned, probe vehicles.

No, the shuttle rockets where expendable. The only reusable part was the shuttle itself and every launch was very expensive compared to SpaceX. Do you have any source for the reusable rockets used in the space shuttle?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#78

Post by jdsully »

martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

Funny there were people just like you saying the exact same thing about Enron when Bethany ran her famous article back then (yes this is the same author that took down Enron). As with Tesla Enron was big on "innovation". Innovations fail, and the stress of dealing with them tends to lead CEOs into unethical behavior.

There's nothing wrong with taking risks and failing. There is something wrong with taking investor money and using it to bail out an unrelated company.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#79

Post by toomuchtodo »

jacquesm wrote: post #23
smacktoward wrote: post #9

This bit seems pretty damning: > As SolarCity struggled to raise money from institutional investors, it began offering individuals a chance to buy what it called Solar Bonds. (“Now you can get paid while driving the solar revolution,” the marketing material said.) But there were few takers—so other parts of the Musk empire took up the slack. According to the shareholder lawsuit, SpaceX acquired $255 million of the bo…

Absolutely none. I'm surprised the controllers at SpaceX would even allow it.

Governance at private companies with single majority shareholders (Musk owns >51% of SpaceX, and has even more voting control) is tricky. Controllers work for the C level/CFO, not shareholders (and the CFO is the one who is going to get sued, not the controllers).

Solar bonds are not as safe as US treasuries (almost nothing is for those who aren't up to speed), but the argument could be made (hopefully with data!) that they were low enough risk that people weren't going to suddenly stop paying their electric bills for the solar on their roofs (and the benefit to SpaceX was premium earned vs that of other safer cash equivalents), so you might as well lend your satellite launch customer deposits to Solar City to get more solar panels installed on roofs. And if you, as the controller, did not see it the same way, they might consider finding a controller who would.

Disclaimer: TSLA investor, owned SCTY solar bonds, have a friend who is a controller for a private family owned company who likes to talk work quite a bit. I admire the financial engineering used to succeed up to this point, and wince at the fiduciary issues occasionally.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#80

Post by wfbarks »

He (and all the brilliant people at his companies who work so hard) are delivering to humanity, a future where we produce and consume energy sustainably, and are out in space exploring our solar system. Everyone at the companies is there because on some level they believe in this vision. So I (and many Tesla shareholders like me) am willing to look the other way with respect to his fiduciary responsibility.

There are better targets out there.

Post reply on HN