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

81–90 of 282 posts

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#81

Post by jdsully »

jshowa3 wrote: post #67
Reedx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really one of those cases though. Electric cars were all but dead. They were considered a joke ("golf carts") until Telsa challenged the status quo and changed the industry. Many seem to have already forgotten this.

Electric cars were not all but dead. They've actually been quite prevalent, it was just done largely pre-WWW so you didn't see a lot of the hype. It also wasn't that feasible because of the lack of technology. And since companies were actually trying to make money, and cars were becoming more fuel efficient, there wasn't the demand. In fact, there still isn't that high of a demand for electric cars these days. I'm no…

Tesla was the first to show that electric cars could look good and be performant. Before this the prototypes were excessively aerodynamic and underpowered (probably because of range anxiety). Unfortunately for the environment good aerodynamics make for ugly cars.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#82

Post by Traster »

navigatesol wrote: post #74
dragontamer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, imagine if Elon Musk announced a technology that could materially move his share price at strategically important points knowing that it was just vapor ware. That would be really bad, but fortunately we know he doesn't do that because we're all driving fully autonomous Teslas right now.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#83

Post by dragontamer »

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…

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 smoother.

The workers at the Gigafactory2 plant have been disenfranchised due to this SolarCity issue.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#84

Post by shiftpgdn »

dragontamer wrote: post #83
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…

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…

This is such a shit comparison. Enron was just a trading company. They didn't invent anything.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#85

Post by moosey »

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…

Currently, Tesla and SolarCity and others like it are dealing with current political turmoil. It's obvious to anyone with secular attitudes that we need to build up battery and renewable energy technologies. When we appeared to be moving in the direction of supporting the technologies with subsidation, it appeared that this was the path that we'd be taking long term, that the US political system was coming to term with its issues, and that early adopters would be able to survive. This isn't always the case, often times early adopters don't quite get it right, and later adopters come along and correct the few issues that exist, and then they prosper.

For better or worse, secular understandings and political understandings don't always jive. Now that political attitudes have changed, it seems obvious that early adopters will struggle, as their affordability is often based on those same subsidies. This is the only frame of reference in my mind that is terribly important when it comes to the success or failure of many of the properties that Musk runs. The fact that he's kept them going in the current political and social environments is really a credit, I think.

He's not building fossil fuel based vehicles. He's not building coal plants. He's keeping the space race alive. The general dislike of this guy seems personal. There are far larger financial crimes to go after, but Musk made himself a target. Damn, I wouldn't doubt that he does some of it on purpose.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#86

Post by Traster »

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…

There are gambles like "I want to heavily invest in this technology" and there are gambles like "I want to commit fraud to bail out my other company". The thing people are criticising isn't the gamble, and it's disingenuous to present that as the main issue.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#87

Post by jacquesm »

jdsully wrote: post #81
jshowa3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars were not all but dead. They've actually been quite prevalent, it was just done largely pre-WWW so you didn't see a lot of the hype. It also wasn't that feasible because of the lack of technology. And since companies were actually trying to make money, and cars were becoming more fuel efficient, there wasn't the demand. In fact, there still isn't that high of a demand for electric cars these days. I'm no…

Tesla was the first to show that electric cars could look good and be performant. Before this the prototypes were excessively aerodynamic and underpowered (probably because of range anxiety). Unfortunately for the environment good aerodynamics make for ugly cars.

> Unfortunately for the environment good aerodynamics make for ugly cars.

1955; drag coefficient 0.36:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_DS

Since then we've come quite a bit further, the TM3 has 0.23, which is a substantial improvement but neither car looks ugly.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#88

Post by jdsully »

jacquesm wrote: post #87
jdsully wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla was the first to show that electric cars could look good and be performant. Before this the prototypes were excessively aerodynamic and underpowered (probably because of range anxiety). Unfortunately for the environment good aerodynamics make for ugly cars.

> Unfortunately for the environment good aerodynamics make for ugly cars. 1955; drag coefficient 0.36: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_DS Since then we've come quite a bit further, the TM3 has 0.23, which is a substantial improvement but neither car looks ugly.

I think most North American consumers would consider it ugly (I do), but I haven't done a survey.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#89

Post by lallysingh »

Traster wrote: post #82
navigatesol wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, imagine if Elon Musk announced a technology that could materially move his share price at strategically important points knowing that it was just vapor ware. That would be really bad, but fortunately we know he doesn't do that because we're all driving fully autonomous Teslas right now.

And running Windows Cairo/Longhorn.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#90

Post by ryanhuff »

mikeash wrote: post #73
amluto wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Solar at latest Supercharger in Las Vegas:

https://electrek.co/2019/07/18/tesla-v3-supercharger-station...

Post reply on HN