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

131–140 of 282 posts

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#131

Post by [deleted] »

woodandsteel wrote: post #95
dragontamer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So was Enron, the company who was creating the future of energy. A future in which we produce and consume energy more sustainably. Enron wasn't tackling space challenges, so I guess there's a slight difference there. Look: fraud is fraud. If someone is lying to the public, it is wrong on that basis alone. Elon Musk could have done everything the same and simply NOT lied about it, and things would have gone far smooth…

>So was Enron, the company who was creating the future of energy. A future in which we produce and consume energy more sustainably. What in heavens name are you talking about? Are you really claiming that Enron was in the business of replacing petroleum and natural gas with solar and wind energy?

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#132

Post by vkou »

btilly wrote: post #117
vkou wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Musk has learned the hard way not to trust third party suppliers that he doesn't control. 1. Does he mine, refine and smelt his own iron and titanium ore, too? Where exactly does that buck stop? 2. Does SpaceX have a sudden pressing need for all the parts, and the debt obligations of SolarCity that have nothing to do with manufacturing solar panels (That is, 100% of the company?) SolarCity doesn't make any of t…

As laid out in the article, at the time of the merger, Solar City was indeed trying to get into manufacturing solar panels. That it hasn't worked out doesn't mean that the attempt doesn't fit within SpaceX's goals. I'm sure that the Boring Company also has investments from SpaceX. As to mine, refine, etc, he has generally tried to go down to things that he can get off of mass markets. The thing he avoids is having a…

And he chose to do this by lending money at way-below-market rates to a financial dumpster fire of a company that didn't, and still doesn't have any capacity or secret technical expertise to manufacture one component of his Mars plans, which are still decades in the future?

All the while, knowing that the financials of SolarCity are worse then he publiclly claimed?

Pardon me, but given the personal financial gain he had in the deal going through, this stinks so bad, you can smell it in Minsk.

Speaking of which - given his penchant for over-promising, and spectacularly under-delivering, I feel like only a lunatic would choose to settle in a Mars colony ran by SpaceX.

Also:

> The thing he avoids is having a custom part only intended for him which he is dependent upon another company for.

So, hold on. Was SolarCity supposed to be making custom parts for a Mars colony? Why would their expertise in doing financial engineering to sell people solar roofs be of any help in this endeavor?

If they weren't going to be making custom parts, and they'd just be making off-the-shelf panels, why pick a supplier decades before he actually needs one? Solar panels aren't sheet metal, but they are as close as you can get to a commodity, these days - and will be even more so, decades from now.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#133

Post by liability »

woodandsteel wrote: post #95
dragontamer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So was Enron, the company who was creating the future of energy. A future in which we produce and consume energy more sustainably. Enron wasn't tackling space challenges, so I guess there's a slight difference there. Look: fraud is fraud. If someone is lying to the public, it is wrong on that basis alone. Elon Musk could have done everything the same and simply NOT lied about it, and things would have gone far smooth…

>So was Enron, the company who was creating the future of energy. A future in which we produce and consume energy more sustainably. What in heavens name are you talking about? Are you really claiming that Enron was in the business of replacing petroleum and natural gas with solar and wind energy?

> "Enron Wind Systems, part of the Enron group, were manufacturers of wind turbines. The group was formed after the acquisition in January 1997 of Zond Corporation of California, the largest US developer of wind-powered electricity at the time. On May 10, 2002, following the Enron scandal, General Electric acquired the assets of Enron Wind Systems continuing and thriving as GE Wind Energy, after which the empty shell of Enron Wind ceased to exist."

https://tethys.pnnl.gov/institution/enron-wind

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#134

Post by infecto »

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…

Don't even get me started on his brother (kimbal) and his multi-millionaire dollar salary to be a board member. He has zero experience in manufacturing or automobiles. Blows my mind they have allowed this go unchecked for so long.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some good things that happen via Tesla but the amount of shady deals done out in the open is mind blowing.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#135

Post by threeseed »

aerovistae wrote: post #52
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…

Indeed. I think this article is on the money in the sense that SolarCity and the Buffalo plant failed, but without any greater context it's misleading. While this failed, SpaceX succeeded, the Model S succeeded, the Model 3 succeeded (even if it's been a rocky road). I don't think Musk was trying to harm anyone-- I think he doesn't realize he's human and he can't actually juggle 44 million balls at once. And I think…

The "nice guy" or "busy guy" argument doesn't hold up in court.

You have an obligation as CEO (and Chairman at the time) to be ethical and legal in your actions.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#136

Post by dahfizz »

joering2 wrote: post #109
btilly wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX's stated goal is "occupy Mars". Being able to land and deploy solar panels at scale is essential to this goal. And Musk has learned the hard way not to trust third party suppliers that he doesn't control. SpaceX's aspirational goal is to launch something Mars-wards in the 2022 window to identify where the base will be and have some resources. Then send several vehicles and a few people in 2025 to set up a miss…

Very interesting, but can you elaborate how we could benefit from colonizing Mars? Even more so - how could SpaceX be much more worth by being able to go to Mars, and how others wouldn't be able to achieve similar step sometime after them (depriving SpaceX from exclusivity of operation) Mars is much smaller than Earth with much more hostile environment. I heard some ideas of growing trees or putting air on Mars, but…

NASA has already committed to a permanent moon colony. I think it's pretty inevitable that Mars colonies will become common. Humans love to explore and expand.

So why wouldn't you want to get ahead of the curve? Maybe governments and eccentric billionaires start paying SpaceX for their services and expertise in Mars colonization. Maybe SpaceX makes tons of money selling vacations to Mars. Maybe musk names himself Lord emporer of the planet.

Whatever is going to happen, musk wins for being so far ahead of everyone else.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#137

Post by threeseed »

wfbarks wrote: post #80

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…

> willing to look the other way with respect to his fiduciary responsibility

And what if Musk murdered someone ?

Wondering how slippery this slope goes for you when someone has alleged to have committed a crime.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#138

Post by wfbarks »

If Elon Musk gets taken down, then humanity should probably just throw in the towel.

We (humanity) are in a boat that is taking on water rapidly. The guy working the hardest to patch the leaks is Elon Musk and all those that work at his companies (they definitely aren't working there for the money or the lifestyle)

Solar City is a part of this vision.

Articles like this and the comments section here at hacker news are making me very depressed about our prospects.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#139

Post by jdsully »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #126
jdsully wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your right, they built Power Plants [1] and fibre optic networks instead [2]. Enron was at its core an infrastructure company. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabhol_Power_Station [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2002/01/01/b... They are only remembered for their financial "innovations" which was ultimately their downfall. But to suggest they didn't make anything tangible is false. They even had…

They financed them. They moved money around, they didn't build anything. I've never seen an "Enron" logo on any actual products. Enron accomplished nothing that wouldn't have happened without them, in one form or another. Agree with him or not, Musk tackles things that either wouldn't happen at all without him, or that would happen too slowly to matter. The reality is, we need both kinds of companies, but we also nee…

Enron employed boots on the ground construction workers and line men. They started as an LNG pipeline company. All of those blue collar workers lost their pensions when they went bankrupt. You can see some of them in the Enron documentary “Smartest Guys In The Room”.

They were not some hedge fund merely shuffling paper around. GE is a very apt comparison.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#140

Post by gamblor956 »

btilly wrote: post #98
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…

SpaceX's stated goal is "occupy Mars". Being able to land and deploy solar panels at scale is essential to this goal. And Musk has learned the hard way not to trust third party suppliers that he doesn't control. SpaceX's aspirational goal is to launch something Mars-wards in the 2022 window to identify where the base will be and have some resources. Then send several vehicles and a few people in 2025 to set up a miss…

And if he succeeds, the Mars colony could come to be worth more to SpaceX than its satellite launch business. By a lot.

While the concept of settling Mars is understandable from an academic perspective, what is the economic justification for claiming that Mars is valuable? Any Martian colony would require hundreds of billions of Earth investment just to become habitable for a few dozen people and there aren't any resources on Mars that could be excavated more cheaply there than on Earth.

Post reply on HN