Except as Elon points out in that link the number of reservations is "not something that is a figure of merit in any way", so since he doesn't think it is important, I doubt that it would be something that he is viewing it as a card to play.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Except as Elon points out in that link the number of reservations is "not something that is a figure of merit in any way", so since he doesn't think it is important, I doubt that it would be something that he is viewing it as a card to play.
So why Solar city even needs homeowner? Is the homeowner just providing a place for solar panels? And for this to work, electricity from PV has to be grid competitive. Are you sure the business goes like this?
First read that I thought it said "LOL - New Meth" which would be a better explanation of what is going on with manipulating TSLA than most anything else I have read here.
racer26
Active Member
It does have to be grid competitive, and it isn't. Many regions had or have ridiculous subsidies that are paying outrageous rates to the owner of solar panels for their generation (for example, in Ontario, where I live, initial deals of this sort had the power company paying $0.85 or so per kWh. The going rate for them to sell power is around $0.18/kWh at on-peak rates. Over the last several years, they've stepped it down and down and the current rate is still around $0.28/generated kWh)
This generated a lot of small companies offering to install panels on your house for free, in exchange for giving you the $0.18/kWh your electricity would have normally cost you, and taking the excess of the oversized subsidies - netting them profit over the 20 year deal, and giving the homeowner functionally free electricity. It was a completely bonkers deal in the early days - it makes no sense whatsoever for the grid to purchase power for 85c/kWh and sell it for 18c/kWh - not only that, the rate was locked in for 20 YEARS! It was an even better deal for the homeowner who had their own capital to tie up in the solar panels for 20 years - the ROIC was huge.
Last edited:
Pretty quickly, Ontario greatly increased there off peak rates just because people were shifting their energy use patterns. The real question is how quickly utilities will move grid costs to monthly connection fees instead of including them in the price of power. Also whether off-grid systems will be allowed.
racer26
Active Member
Where does this notion that off-grid systems won't be allowed come from? I can buy solar panels and build my own off-grid solution. I then call up the power company and request that they disconnect me from their service. If they don't, I simply stop paying them, and they'll disconnect me.
You're not the first person who's suggested that it might not be allowed, but I don't understand. We live in a society (at least in the western world) predicated on the notion of freedom. I don't have to be beholden to a power company if I don't want to be.
racer26
Active Member
For those small companies that don't make their own panels, yes. Their market for new customers could evaporate overnight if the subsidies go away.
Initially, SCTY was doing a lot of deals with that sort of customer, taking advantage of big subsidies. Recently, they've changed their tune, and decided that its a bad market to be in (that's how they got the billions of debt, though) in part because of the political risk factor, and have since switched to more owner-financed or owner-bought sales, which don't have the same political risks.
For all solar companies, there is an element of that risk until they can make panels cheaply enough that they are economical on their face, without the help of the subsidies. I suspect that the new Tesla solar roofing tiles meet that benchmark, but obviously, nobody outside of the company has the numbers for me to back up that claim yet.
Why are you completely ignoring or missing the aggregation of powerwalls into VPP's (virtual power plants) to be used as spinning reserves for among other things, frequency regulation?
There are lots of ways of getting at this. As I understand, many condemnation and occupancy laws are triggered based on provision of electricity from the grid.
racer26
Active Member
I can buy a cabin in the woods that has no electricity supply at all. I'm not required to run the miles of wire that might be necessary to hook it up to the grid. I don't see how this is different.
That is an interesting angle I hadn't considered though.
I know at least sewage is legally required here. If you don't pay your bills, they'll eventually garnish your wages or foreclose on your house.
I have heard it being discussed a few times. In the future, if a majority of homes were off-the-grid systems than the utilities would not have the funds to maintain the grid. Maintaining the grid is in everybody's best interest and it is pretty likely that regulations would be put in place preventing people in built up areas from disconnecting. In the same way you are required to be connected to the water or sewer systems, you will be required to be part of the grid.
End of the second act. The hero is at his lowest point. Then he figures out what his enemy will least expect and it goes great in Act 3.
I think this is a key question. I think the answer is (someone correct me if I am wrong) SCTY collects the solar subsidy of the installation. Otherwise it would be cheaper and easier to just plant the panels in a field and sell electricity.
racer26
Active Member
Again, cabins in the woods are not connected to municipal sewer systems. Its common in rural areas to have a septic field (a perfectly valid way to deal with sewage), or in other remote places where septic fields are not practical we have composting toilets or outhouses.
I could see some arguments that *in some places* you won't be allowed to go off-grid, in the same way that I'm not allowed to not be hooked up to the municipal sewer where it exists. The requirements of this sort are usually related to the place being habitable though, and less about being a protectionist racket for the utility. Some places that have sewers now but didn't when they were built still allow the homeowners to continue using the septic fields that they already own - though they may experience trouble getting the permits required to *replace* their septic field should it become damaged.
There is zero chance that you won't be able to live an off-the-grid lifestyle if that is what you desire, and you're willing to move away from civilization to do it. These sort of laws are municipal-level governance, and the problem is solved by simply moving to somewhere that allows it.
Back to short term prices: I don't see the solar roof having much impact on short term stock price. It appears to be a very desirable product (I know I want it for my next home). Totally exceeded my expectations with how good it looks. But we know just about nothing about it: price, cost, margins, expected sales, capex reqs, etc. Nothing that can be reasonably added to a model to figure how it will move stock price.
Powerwall2 and Powerpack2 are amazing. Tesla has shown they are both the price and tech leader, not just on batteries, but inverters too. That is a good place to be: Best tech at lowest price. Their retail price appears to be below most of their competitors' production cost (this probably adds to a level of unbelievableness -- same denial happened with Roadster and Model S battery prices, how could they be sooo low, Tesla must be lying or selling at a loss style nonsense). Short term probably difficult to process how it will move price. Guidance would help with this because then it could be modeled. Early Model S was similar -- product wasn't in production yet, so all we had was guidance. Back then, you could put the 20k annual Model S goal, target margins, price, etc. into a model and you could arrive at a stock price estimate. Which lead to many of us buying the stock at 25-35 back then. But we don't have any of that for these new products. So hard to predict/model at this early phase. Not surprised the stock isn't moving up -- there isn't quite enough info to figure it out.
What I know for certain now: Tesla is at the strongest it has ever been as a company. They are successfully executing on multiple fronts of their business, which seems to me as an acceleration of their business with no sign of slowing down.
Powerwall2 and Powerpack2 are amazing. Tesla has shown they are both the price and tech leader, not just on batteries, but inverters too. That is a good place to be: Best tech at lowest price. Their retail price appears to be below most of their competitors' production cost (this probably adds to a level of unbelievableness -- same denial happened with Roadster and Model S battery prices, how could they be sooo low, Tesla must be lying or selling at a loss style nonsense). Short term probably difficult to process how it will move price. Guidance would help with this because then it could be modeled. Early Model S was similar -- product wasn't in production yet, so all we had was guidance. Back then, you could put the 20k annual Model S goal, target margins, price, etc. into a model and you could arrive at a stock price estimate. Which lead to many of us buying the stock at 25-35 back then. But we don't have any of that for these new products. So hard to predict/model at this early phase. Not surprised the stock isn't moving up -- there isn't quite enough info to figure it out.
What I know for certain now: Tesla is at the strongest it has ever been as a company. They are successfully executing on multiple fronts of their business, which seems to me as an acceleration of their business with no sign of slowing down.
Elon stated that moving the economy to electric would triple the amount of electricity needed. I think the utilities will be OK.
racer26
Active Member
In Ontario a couple months ago there was much brouhaha about our Premier's new energy plan including a restriction that fossil-fuel based heating (the vast majority of homes are heated with natural gas forced air heating here) might be banned in the next 20-30 years. People freaked out. I think it may end up happening. Electric heating is much more efficient at turning energy into heat, the problem with using electricity for heat today is simply that the energy you're starting from is too expensive - natural gas is cheaper, even with the big efficiency hit. Widespread adoption of inexpensive solar power would fix that part of the equation though.
You mean like Panasonic?
just the US uses somewhere around 4,050 - 4,500 terawatt hours electricity per year
(anybody got links to newer better data?)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
