He is actually a bit of a carnival barker, and flim-flam artist, but oh well...
I appreciate his vision, and his audacity. I also think he has many great ideas.
But sometimes, he's talking, boasting and promising... and his track record isn't quite there to support it.
My policy is to never count "visionaries" out of the game, but I have doubts as to whether he truly is one. Slight skeptic... especially when someone establishes a cult following.
And all of the money issues. He is like the sexy Donald Trump. Made a lot of money soaking up government subsidies. Put his finger on the scale a few too many times. Most of his businesses are more or less failing. Hype. Hype. Hype. When will Tesla ever make money? Why is SolarCity still a thing?
And all of the money issues. He is like the sexy Donald Trump. Made a lot of money soaking up government subsidies. Put his finger on the scale a few too many times. Most of his businesses are more or less failing. Hype. Hype. Hype. When will Tesla ever make money? Why is SolarCity still a thing?
/endstreamofconsciousness
Tesla will probably make money on the 3. Businesses need to establish critical mass to achieve success, and the number of orders Tesla has will achieve that critical mass. Same with SolarCity. We've got their solar system and it is paying for itself. I would say about 20-25% of the homes in our neighborhood have solar, and 85-90% of those are SolarCity customers. They can't keep up with the demand for services, which is usually a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Good god, why would I read his book?
/epistemic closure
Just out of curiosity, what is your beef with anyone who is hyper successful but doesn't hoard their money?
Tesla will probably make money on the 3. Businesses need to establish critical mass to achieve success, and the number of orders Tesla has will achieve that critical mass. Same with SolarCity. We've got their solar system and it is paying for itself. I would say about 20-25% of the homes in our neighborhood have solar, and 85-90% of those are SolarCity customers. They can't keep up with the demand for services, which is usually a good thing.
SolarCity is a massive money loser. The popularity of solar panels in your neighborhood is mostly a function of local subsidies such as net-metering, which isn't sustainable or maybe a bit of virtue signalling.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
I think Clinton's plan, if she wins, involves something like 500,000 solar panels installed in the next decade. And granted, solar energy is really problematic until a smart grid energy storage system is implemented on a meaningful scale. But I certainly wouldn't bet against solar right now.
SolarCity is a massive money loser. The popularity of solar panels in your neighborhood is mostly a function of local subsidies such as net-metering, which isn't sustainable or maybe a bit of virtue signalling.
Really? So you're telling me I'm losing money each month and not saving money, even if my energy costs tell me otherwise? Nice to know. That virtue signaling is meeting 98% of my energy needs and keeps the lights on when the grid is out, thanks to a Tesla Wall. So, why is net metering not sustainable?
Really? So you're telling me I'm losing money each month and not saving money, even if my energy costs tell me otherwise? Nice to know. That virtue signaling is meeting 98% of my energy needs and keeps the lights on when the grid is out, thanks to a Tesla Wall. So, why is net metering not sustainable?
You may be losing money in terms of ROI, where your electricity savings over the next 25 years don't cover the upfront costs. It's definitely the case without net metering or feed-in subsidies.
Net metering is not sustainable over society scale because everyone can't sell their electricity at solar peak for the same price/kWh that they buy electricity at demand peak. Right now, it's basically a subsidy from non solar panel electricity consumers (usually poorer) to solar panel owners (usually richer).
Subsidies for residential solar power systems are one of those things that seem like a good thing but in reality are actually a really terrible idea if you're looking invest in solar power to replace fossil fuels.
As of last year the price for residential systems fell to $3.50 per installed watt, however, the cost for utility sized solar farms fell to just $1.33.
The money wasted on subsidies for solar power for residential systems could literally provide almost 3 times as much solar power if it was invested in commercial sized solar farms instead.
If you want to install solar panels on your house by all means go for it, but imo, it's bad government policy to offer subsidies for such projects.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dan02 For This Useful Post:
