I could be mis-remembering, but I don't think this is true. Care to grab some examples? My recollection is that this thread has been calling it, but Tesla basically guided for Q2/3 this year, then dropped that after accelerating model 3. Before that, they guided for FCF+ in 2020.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I could be mis-remembering, but I don't think this is true. Care to grab some examples? My recollection is that this thread has been calling it, but Tesla basically guided for Q2/3 this year, then dropped that after accelerating model 3. Before that, they guided for FCF+ in 2020.
In re: Nevada (articles):
MGM Resorts witness says Nevada Power is 'over-earning,' tone deaf to economy
MGM Resorts to leave Nevada Power, pay $86.9M exit fee
Initiative proposes breaking up NV Energy monopoly
taxes:
NV Energy hasn’t paid IRS since 2000; kept millions intended for taxes
Berkshire strategy to eliminate net metering (2014):
Warren Buffett’s Energy Company Says Net Metering Should Be ‘Eliminated’
Last edited:
Calm down, it's all good
The reason for the slow-down is they are not willing to throw money at it as much as before. The frenzy is over, now they will have to make money instead of spending on growth. Personally I like Randy Carlson's point that people are just fed up with BS crammed down their throats and they want to be more independent. Solar plus battery provides that. I think folks are forgetting that utility does have all the monopolistic inefficiencies associated with it. So the same argument about regulatory headwinds can be applied: they just can't get it right because their incentive isn't aligned with efficiency. Just watch it unfold, you'll see.
I actually got quite alarmed by those reports that Buffalo factory isn't hiring as much as per plan and such. If there was ever a case for SCTY running out of liquidity that'd be the one to harp on.
I tried to do a kind of half-assed short play and got some Sept 220's when it got into 200. My plan was to get that and if UK bails double down on that next week. I'm skittish at this point on doubling down because there seems to be profuse short covering going on and I have nothing to go by on what's gonna happen next week. So the current plan is to sit tight and if it gets ugly get some more, if not just keep the ones I got at 200 level and see what happens. I got time.
Perfectlogic
Member
The reports showing that residential solar is a net benefit to the grid is a joke, it is so obviously stupid that I would compare it to that congress guy disproving global warming by bringing a snowball into the congress. Try to link the "study" and I'll tell you why it's stupid, it will be easier than going off memory.
There is no doubt that residential solar is simply not viable today. The price of solar through SCTY is a mere 10% cheaper than the utilities price, and all you are paying for through SCTY is wholesale electricity generation, the cost of balancing the production and your usage of electricity is paid for entirely by the utility (the guys that doesn't have residential solar) through net metering, that and the distribution infrastructure of course, which you are still using.
If you could just pay the utility the wholesale rate of electricity they are paying (same deal SCTY is able to offer right now because of subsidies) then you would only pay 4c/kwh or something like that. Unfortunately the utility can't freeload off someone else like SCTY is doing.
The talk about the utility having too high of a profit margin or whatever is a whole different discussion. Of course they should be following the rules. But SCTY can't even compete with them now even though they are allegedly overcharging consumers.
Trying to do this in 2 parts if I have time. (1) I first tried modeling expected production vs deliveries using a number of different methods (2) before attempting to apply these numbers to the financial statements in some fashion.
So (1) is done, but honestly, I don't want to post them for several reasons:
- they are probably junk, too many variables
- I am not an expert in this (first time attempting to model something like this) so I don't want to be mistaken for an authority on the topic--or even an educated guesser
- I am a lawyer (not a Finance guy) and should not be trusted with numbers in any way, shape or form.
- I'd hate to think that someone might lose money based on any projections I make. It's one thing to say "I think it will be a beat" and another to give out hard figures suggesting same.
Directionally, I'll just say that every scenario I modeled showed a beat (that alone should throw up a red flag, right!?).
Slightly older article re: NV Energy & Buffett (Sept 2015), but nice synopsis of history and motivation (eliminate the competition: residential solar?).
NV Energy: Warren Buffett’s Plan for a Structural Power Shift
Quote:
Buffettt’s vision appears to be coming into focus. A year ago, First Solar broke ground on a $1 billion, 250-MW solar project near Las Vegas—Silver State South—the first big, utility-scale solar project in the U.S. to be built on public land. Owned by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, the project will sell its power to NV Energy.
NV Energy: Warren Buffett’s Plan for a Structural Power Shift
Quote:
Buffettt’s vision appears to be coming into focus. A year ago, First Solar broke ground on a $1 billion, 250-MW solar project near Las Vegas—Silver State South—the first big, utility-scale solar project in the U.S. to be built on public land. Owned by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, the project will sell its power to NV Energy.
The lower hiring has everything to do with higher automation then a problem with hiring people. As a matter of fact SUNY has developed an entire college program aimed at preparing people to work at the factory.
Also, Solarcity is leasing the factory from New York State so not a large % capital investment required on behalf of Solarcity.
So, capital not the key factor to the adjustment in factory hiring numbers as you suggest.
Perfectlogic
Member
Not really. SCTY doesn't know for certain what the demand picture looks like a year ahead in time, they could have gotten the idea that demand would soften up and then play it off as they are now focusing on profitability. Pretty sure that isn't some serious offense.
I don't have any handy sorry.
Calm down, it's all good
What made you think I'm not calm? The independent argument doesn't make sense as you are still relying on the utility even with solar on your roof. If you didn't you would be paying much, much more.
Sorry I didn't mean to be snippy, just reflecting on how elaborate your response was, thank you for that. Solar plus battery gives you pricing power that pulls all kinds of "correct" levers that end up making the overall system more rational and ethical. If Arizona utility decides to play hardball, well, you can see what the casinos have done. That can be also happening at a household level. And it will not go away, the change is permanent. People love that.
Perfectlogic
Member
Solar plus batteries might pull all kinds of levers but it still isn't even close to price competetive with a larger scale of the same technologies, i.e. the grid with utility scale solar and utility scale batteries. It is all about scale, and therefore you can't just compare 1 residential house to the city of Las Vegas that happen to be right next to practically free land that can generate extremely cheap energy. Las Vegas even cut out from the Nevada grid is still operating with utility scale.
Why have personal vehicles when we can build public transportation system that's awesome. Welcome to the American Way (I'm not a US citizen so don't paint me with that brush too much please). Rooftop "land" is free and right by the fridge and AC, so there.
What you're saying is correct if not for the social aspect. Utilities have zero trust and people are willing to stick it up to them if they can. Better yet, they'll vote in the government that would enact sensible regulations and then we truly will have a rational system. But that's a long ways away.
Perfectlogic
Member
Having your own car does offer a lot compared to public transport. There is practially no difference between having panels on your roof or not, especially when you are still relying on the grid. Electricity is electricity. Rooftop land might be free but that small saving is unfortunately nowhere near able to make up for the much larger savings you get with utility scale.
If people wanted to go off grid in order to stick it to the grid that would be absolutely fine. I just don't like that they are now making everyone else pay because they like the idea of residential solar. I'm not saying residential solar shouldn't be subsidized at all but it already is subsidized through the 30% ITC just like utility scale solar is, that should be enough.
Last edited:
I was being sarcastic, Europe is mostly public transport so obviously both systems are viable -- it's a matter of preference and Americans obviously bought into the big 3 story back in the 40's and love their cars and highways. Anyway we're a bit off into the weeds, that's just a somewhat minor tangent.
The main point really is that timing is critical. If technology is too immature for prime time and someone tries to throw a pile of cash at it to beat everyone and be first to market, they'll get burned and fail. So the big picture really is, did SolarCity go all in too early? Seems to me it might be they're a little too early by themselves but combined with Gigafactory and PowerWall/Powerpack, plus a bit of operational capital to play with, it'll be just right. They'll go through some rough times, but in the end they'll make a ton. But the deal has to go through.
The main point really is that timing is critical. If technology is too immature for prime time and someone tries to throw a pile of cash at it to beat everyone and be first to market, they'll get burned and fail. So the big picture really is, did SolarCity go all in too early? Seems to me it might be they're a little too early by themselves but combined with Gigafactory and PowerWall/Powerpack, plus a bit of operational capital to play with, it'll be just right. They'll go through some rough times, but in the end they'll make a ton. But the deal has to go through.
Perfectlogic
Member
I don't think the difference in car ownership is as large as you think, pretty sure almost every family has at least 1 car here too.
You are implying that it is just a matter of time before residential solar will be the cheapest/best model, you can't know this for certain. And going by current prices and trends it wont happen for a very long time, if ever.
Warning: wild speculation ahead
A lot has been said about the SCTY takeover, many people have been trying to prove their point by pointing out publicly available information. The trouble is, we don't know what we don't know.
I'm speculating here that Elon knows more than we do, and has been giving hints all along. The clearest hint is that 'shorting TSLA is probably unwise'.
Elon thinks that TSLA is going up, and apart from a number of technical and business reasons, Elon would personally benefit hugely if SCTY also went up. So how do you achieve a higher SCTY stock price? It is fair to say that SCTY on it's own will not move up a lot giving the doubts if SCTY is even going to survive. Hence the giant short positions on SCTY.
By placing a 100% stock based offer for SCTY, the price of SCTY is not determined anymore by anything SCTY does, but by the price of TSLA. If TSLA goes up significantly, SCTY will go up significantly. This would result in a rally fueled by margin calls on the SCTY shorts. My assumption is that SCTY shorts and TSLA shorts are typically the same people. So a short squeeze on TSLA would fuel a short squeeze in SCTY and vice versa.
Now Elon's statement that the takeover of SCTY should have been done earlier. There were several occasions in the (near) past where there ratio of TSLA/SCTY was a lot lower than now, which would have resulted in a higher ratio of TSLA versus SCTY in the stock offer, which would have fueled a TSLA induced SCTY short squeeze even more when it happens.
So my speculation is that it is Elon's intention to use the SCTY takeover (which for Tesla as a company makes sense) to destroy SCTY and TSLA shorts, and benefit from it personally financially.
So what does Elon know (for sure!) that we don't know:
- number of model 3 reservations
- progress of the model 3 development
- progress and feasability of the production plans of model 3
- progress of the gigafactory. I found it strange that the grand opening was delayed (compared to the date first mentioned in the first referral program) while Tesla always stated that the develepment of the gigafactory was ahead of schedule. Either Tesla decided along the way to show a much more functional gigafactory at the grand opening, or maybe they would use the grand opening to boost the stock price, or both.
- Q2 delivery numbers
- upgrade rate of model 3 to S/X
- price sensitivity of model 3 buyers (hence the new 60 kWh model S)
- evolution to a cash flow positive situation
Most of these items will become public knowledge in the coming 5 to 6 weeks, so if Tesla wants to take advantage of this, now is the time.
On the other hand, maybe I'm just delusional in hoping the stock goes up.
A lot has been said about the SCTY takeover, many people have been trying to prove their point by pointing out publicly available information. The trouble is, we don't know what we don't know.
I'm speculating here that Elon knows more than we do, and has been giving hints all along. The clearest hint is that 'shorting TSLA is probably unwise'.
Elon thinks that TSLA is going up, and apart from a number of technical and business reasons, Elon would personally benefit hugely if SCTY also went up. So how do you achieve a higher SCTY stock price? It is fair to say that SCTY on it's own will not move up a lot giving the doubts if SCTY is even going to survive. Hence the giant short positions on SCTY.
By placing a 100% stock based offer for SCTY, the price of SCTY is not determined anymore by anything SCTY does, but by the price of TSLA. If TSLA goes up significantly, SCTY will go up significantly. This would result in a rally fueled by margin calls on the SCTY shorts. My assumption is that SCTY shorts and TSLA shorts are typically the same people. So a short squeeze on TSLA would fuel a short squeeze in SCTY and vice versa.
Now Elon's statement that the takeover of SCTY should have been done earlier. There were several occasions in the (near) past where there ratio of TSLA/SCTY was a lot lower than now, which would have resulted in a higher ratio of TSLA versus SCTY in the stock offer, which would have fueled a TSLA induced SCTY short squeeze even more when it happens.
So my speculation is that it is Elon's intention to use the SCTY takeover (which for Tesla as a company makes sense) to destroy SCTY and TSLA shorts, and benefit from it personally financially.
So what does Elon know (for sure!) that we don't know:
- number of model 3 reservations
- progress of the model 3 development
- progress and feasability of the production plans of model 3
- progress of the gigafactory. I found it strange that the grand opening was delayed (compared to the date first mentioned in the first referral program) while Tesla always stated that the develepment of the gigafactory was ahead of schedule. Either Tesla decided along the way to show a much more functional gigafactory at the grand opening, or maybe they would use the grand opening to boost the stock price, or both.
- Q2 delivery numbers
- upgrade rate of model 3 to S/X
- price sensitivity of model 3 buyers (hence the new 60 kWh model S)
- evolution to a cash flow positive situation
Most of these items will become public knowledge in the coming 5 to 6 weeks, so if Tesla wants to take advantage of this, now is the time.
On the other hand, maybe I'm just delusional in hoping the stock goes up.
This doesn't seem logical to me. As a retail customer of distributed solar I would 'own', if I also own sufficient distributed storage, I expect to be using retail electricity, and buying from grid (only) when needed at retail prices.
Yes, a centralized utility is not a frictionless surface.
Distributed PV with storage does reduce cost of transmission and distribution.
Of course a distributed grid is still desirable though its purpose changes considerably from 'wheeling' power from 'remote' locations like Limerick nuclear, to balancing the distributed power, which of course will include utility scale solar AND wind.
Speaking of wind, here in suburban Philadelphia metro area (overhead lines and lots of old trees) PECO has horrible track record of reliability. I have been eying opportunities so when I get a chance I am all in 5k or more off grid storage to avoid hassle and/or expense of generators.
BTW, I did sign up for a Solar City loan last year but my steep pitch hip roof with dormer in east and west sides and chimney shading the south side didn't provide sufficient panel space to proceed. The higher efficiency panels will make a difference. I already (since 2009) pay 'extra' for 100% renewable (currently 99% wind) electricity from theenergy.coop (to put my money where my mouth is), and I reserved M3 in store on 3/31.
So there is at least one customer for this 'synergy' play.
I hope every CEO would say that shorting his publicly traded company is "probably unwise".
Of course, but this statement comes from a CEO who also said once that his stock price was 'probably too high' or something like that (I don't remember the exact words)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
