Tesla Acquires SolarCity: Little Can Stand in Elon Musk's Way When He Wants Something (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a CNBC report: You have to hand it to Elon Musk. He didn't just sell the deal of his life last week when shareholders of Tesla and SolarCity agreed to a merger. He pulled off the deal amid widespread criticism from business ethics and corporate governance experts who slammed Musk from the moment the $2.6 billion deal was proposed. Any skepticism Musk deserves he created for himself, but that skepticism now needs to move from the deal to something else: Just what exactly have Tesla investors gotten themselves into? Some pundits point to the deal as part of Musk's master plan to create a car powered by solar and to develop batteries that radically change how we generate and store energy. Musk noted earlier this month that a solar roof for cars is "probably" going to be added as an option for Tesla buyers. But a good place to look at the lingering confusion as the combined electric-car and solar-power company moves forward is the reaction from stock analysts. Musk's vision is so bold that some on Wall Street remain unable to fully comprehend it or, in the least, grasp how it's a catalyst for Tesla shares in the short term. "Whatever the synergies are down the road, it's negative for current holders," said Efraim Levy, analyst at CFRA Research.

Comments

Never underestimate the power of

[DatbeDank]

Cold hard cash (or stock options).

May Elon continue his company until the next stock crisis hits!

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Yvan256]

Sure, only Tesla gets taxpayer money... *cough*GM bailout*cough*.

At least Tesla are pushing forward instead of just continuing to make the same crap as everybody else.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[NatasRevol]

But I bet you cry when the government isn't helping build out sustainable businesses & creating jobs.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Rei]

Indeed, Musk recently argued that even if the ZEV program gets gutted, it'll probably have little effect on them, because everything is skewed to the big manufacturers. Tesla gets "pennies on the dollar" for every ZEV credit they sell because by design the market is flooded with them, while the big manufacturers get their full value because they have non-ZEV cars to apply the credits to. So something that is supposed to benefit clean car makers does little to actually help them, but by making a small number of ZEVs an established manufacturer gets to make a lot of dirty vehicles, and additional credits cost little to buy

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies I get, because I still can't turn a profit."

That's really what you're saying.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Jeremi]

To be fair, GM is pushing forward as well. The Volt and the Bolt may not be as meme-tactic as the Tesla cars are, but they do each represent a significant advancement for electricity-powered passenger cars.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[mi]

GM bailout was given to keep the Unions solvent and their members employed.

And, in any case, there being more than one company receiving tax-payer cash does not make Fascism and Crony Capitalism any more acceptable. Your kind were screaming bloody murder, when Haliburton was getting government's orders. But now even bona-fide subsidies are Ok?

That SolarCity in particular was owned by Elon Musk's cousins is not mentioned in TFA either — do you think, such tidbit would not ha've been considered newsworthy, had the companies involved were military contractors, coal miners, or oil pumpers?

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how they're pushing forward if my friend, who bought a Volt, had to shop around because the three nearest GM/Chevrolet dealerships weren't even interested in selling the Volt to him.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, SolarCity was mostly Owned by Elon himself as well. They are the biggest shareholders, so it was just impractical that these companies where trying to compete while having the same owners. It would be newsworthy of Elon, his cousins and a couple of others who where involved in both Tesla and SolarCity where voting on this merger. But they excluded themselves from the vote, both at Tesla and at SolarCity, and left the vote totally in the hands of minority share holders.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Jeremi]

I don't see how they're pushing forward if my friend, who bought a Volt, had to shop around because the three nearest GM/Chevrolet dealerships weren't even interested in selling the Volt to him.

Your complaint is about the dealerships, not about GM itself. (The lack of coherence between the priorities of the manufacturer and those of the dealerships is in fact one of the main reasons Tesla decided to avoid selling through dealerships; GM, on the other hand, had no such option, since their relationships with dealers are very long-standing, widely encoded into law, and nearly impossible for them to get out of)

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Narcocide]

Perhaps you've forgotten that Amazon's business plan also required losing money by the truckload for the first several years they existed. Now, children grow up in a world where its laughable to think they might not have gotten the opportunity because investors were too afraid of the nebulous risk of backing a store that only does business online.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[barc0001]

The idea behind the Volt is how all vehicle powertrains should be built going forward. Electric motor hooked to modest battery bank and a petroleum engine to charge up the batteries once they fall past a certain threshold.

I have problems giving GM much credit for their handling of the Volt though because it's like they launched it, did a few modest commercials for it and then ignored it. They also didn't produce enough of them to meet initial demands and were slow catching up to that demand so a lot of people lost interest. In my city I actually see more Teslas than Volts on the street.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[worldthinker]

Telsa made more money last quarter than all the US oil companies combined. If you invest in Tesla, do it because you believe in the long term vision and viability of his company. Not because you want your myopic short term financial results.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Rei]

Amazon's continuous losses were such a running joke that even Futurama made fun of it.

Investors, however, aren't as much of morons as the general public and understand the concept of waiting on a profit while a company reinvests its revenue into expansion, in order that the future profit is much greater.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Hognoxious]

GM don't try to pass themselves off as discornic uniflake snowupters.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[rtb61]

The problem is GM, and the rest have not pushed into home power systems and are way, way behind. This is of course behind the corporate propaganda push to downplay Tesla to allow them to catch up. Basically you will be buying a home power system, exactly the same way you buy a car apart from the install, which you would call dealer delivery. Except the power system is installed and attached to your home, which you could buy or lease or just allow the installation and buy the electricity provided. An electric car in every home and a solar power system fitted to the roof (not just solar, they will likely add a plug in domestic VAWT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., if they buy and on sell the electricity you produce as a collective bargaining group every extra erg of energy counts) and in the garage along side the car, not necessarily the same brand.

Re:Never underestimate the power of

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean do they really want to though? Traditional gas vehicles are still their money maker, why rock the boat this early. To me it seems GM/Chevrolet is only keeping up with the trend while Tesla is going balls deep in it.

Here's a thought

[Nidi62]

Musk's vision is so bold that some on Wall Street remain unable to fully comprehend it or, in the least, grasp how it's a catalyst for Tesla shares in the short term. "Whatever the synergies are down the road, it's negative for current holders," said Efraim Levy, analyst at CFRA Research.

Maybe Musk just doesn't give a shit about short term "investors" that jump around from stock to stock, but rather is more concerned with the long-term sustainability of his company? By owning solar panel production and having the ability to integrate the panels with the cars, it not only frees up reliance on external factors (the need for places to install charging stations for electric cars to remain viable, as well as reliance on many forms of energy) but also reduces the need for them to build out their own charging/battery swap infrastructure, which saves money. It should be obvious to anyone looking at SpaceX and Tesla that Musk is playing the long game.

Re:Here's a thought

[haruchai]

Musk's vision is so bold that some on Wall Street remain unable to fully comprehend it or, in the least, grasp how it's a catalyst for Tesla shares in the short term. "Whatever the synergies are down the road, it's negative for current holders," said Efraim Levy, analyst at CFRA Research.

Maybe Musk just doesn't give a shit about short term "investors" that jump around from stock to stock, but rather is more concerned with the long-term sustainability of his company? By owning solar panel production and having the ability to integrate the panels with the cars, it not only frees up reliance on external factors (the need for places to install charging stations for electric cars to remain viable, as well as reliance on many forms of energy) but also reduces the need for them to build out their own charging/battery swap infrastructure, which saves money. It should be obvious to anyone looking at SpaceX and Tesla that Musk is playing the long game.

The long game still needs to pay off somewhat in the short term. The company has run up quite a bit of red ink and nothing they do is cheap.
Another big downturn would bite them very, very hard and many of the people who reserved a Model 3 wouldn't be able to buy the cars.

Re:Here's a thought

[jxander]

Maybe Musk just doesn't give a shit about short term "investors" that jump around from stock to stock, but rather is more concerned with the long-term sustainability of the planet?

FTFY.

Re:Here's a thought

[MagnumChaos]

EXACTLY. It's not about the short-term. ANYONE in their right mind should realize that his vision is larger than just in the next few months. Solar roofs, solar cars, etc. He's in it for the long-haul.

Re:Here's a thought

[Quince alPillan]

The problem with integrating it into cars is that it isn't efficient enough. If you consider that most solar panel installations require that they be placed at the best angle to the sun and that cars are not going to be at the correct angle, likely to be under shade/snow/garage, and the surface area of the car is low compared to typical roof installations, the maximum power from integrated solar cells is extremely low.

Even if you used solar paint and solar windows for maximum surface area, you won't be able to power a car completely off of the energy hitting the car. That said, you could probably trickle-charge to increase the car's range between full charges, which would be of great benefit to the car's current mediocre range.

Re:Here's a thought

[Yvan256]

There's a lot of difference between 1~2km of range and two hours of driving.

My point is, what's the absolute best case scenario from having a solar panel on a car with the current solar panel technology? Is it even worth it?

Re:Here's a thought

[skids]

Mostly the panels go on the roof of the house. Which kinda requires storage if your car isn't at your house during daylight hours.

I did the math on this once... if while parked, car roof panels folded out over the windshield (doubling as a blind) and the front hood, and
the car was parked faced into the sun then there'd be enough collected to make a significant contribution to a commute, but if you wanted to
do it entirely this way, you'd best have a very short commute. That's about the best case scenario. Users are claiming in the area of
0.3kWh per mile. 8 hour workday * watts/m^2 * total *incidental* area of panels... but really if you have charging stations at work it's a matter
of how much they charge per KWh and whether the panels can shave enough off your bill over time to make up for the cost added to the car.

Re:Here's a thought

[Radical Moderate]

It might pencil out. Electricity isn't free(yes, free public charging stations are the exception, but I doubt most owners use them for most of their charging), so if you park your car outside you're getting free electricity from the solar panels. Over the life of the car, the panels might pay for themselves, depending on how expensive it is to integrate them into the roof.

The Model S is a luxury car, and luxury buyers tend pay a lot for features that aren't exactly practical. If buyers think integrated solar is cool and don't mind paying for it, why not offer it?

Re:Here's a thought

[NatasRevol]

The Model 3's are $35k cars.

The average new car today is $33k.

If people can't buy them, a LOT of companies are going to be in trouble.

Re:Here's a thought

[Rei]

Yes, the classic gambit: tie up all of your assets in a couple companies, then bail on said companies. A great way to make a mint!

Re:Here's a thought

[NatasRevol]

Building large factories isn't 'enriching himself'.

Moron.

Re:Here's a thought

[Rei]

Generally not, at least not with today's solar technology. Back when Aptera was looking at this it was much discussed. You add weight, cost, and potential problems (e.x.: Aptera bailed on the concept after preventing moisture ingress turned out to be easier in theory than in the real world) that's just not proportional to the power generated. It just makes a lot more sense to put the panels in fixed locations than to carry them around.

If the state of the art was a highly durable thin-film that could be "wrapped" onto a car and then clear coated, yielding triple junction efficiencies for low cost, then solar car roofs would make a lot of sense. But that's not today's tech.

Re:Here's a thought

[HBI]

My wife and I have a combined income of $170k and have never individually bought a car that cost more than $15k. Primarily because it is a purchase of an object that depreciates faster than any other necessary purchase, so basic logic dictates you minimize the cost. Also, we've done the math on the cost of electric vs. gasoline and figured out that you'll never make back the price premium for a hybrid or an electric car during your ownership. Subsidies or no subsidies, the math is similarly bleak.

The only reason car manufacturers are in business today is an overabundance of credit and stupid people who aren't putting two and two together about this. I say stupid because they are lowering their standard of living by buying huge SUVs or alternatively expensive hybrid or all-electric vehicles.

Re:Here's a thought

[Rei]

An integrated power pack/inverter/Tesla charger would be a brilliant marketing opportunity. Every time the person goes out into their garage they see that unused charger sitting there.

Re:Here's a thought

[Solandri]

Agreed about Musk's vision, but you pro-solar people have got to start learning the limitations of the technology. Covering a car in solar panels is mostly pointless. The Telsa S is about 2m wide by 4m long. If you figure half of that surface area (viewed from the top) is windows, that leaves 4 m^2 for solar panels.

Assuming high-end 200 W/m^2 panels, that gives a peak generating capacity of 800 Watts. The capacity factor for solar in the continental U.S. is about 0.145. That's the ratio of actual power produced to peak capacity, taking into account night, angle of the sun, weather, dirt buildup, etc. So that 800 Watts nominal becomes 116 Watts average. If you leave a PV panel-encrusted Tesla parked in the sun all day, the total energy it gains from solar is only (0.116 kWh)*(24 hours) = 2.784 kWh.

The EPA rates the Tesla S at about 38 kWh/100 miles, so ignoring charging losses this 2.784 kWh is enough to move the car only (2.784 kWh) * (100 miles) / (38 kWh) = 7.3 miles. A Tesla S covered in solar panels left parked in the sun all day collects enough solar energy to drive it for about 10 minutes.

Musk isn't doing this so he can put solar panels on the car. He's doing it so EV purchases can be coupled with solar panel purchases. If you understand opportunity cost, you realize that installing solar panels on your house doesn't necessarily mean your EV is now solar-powered. If you would've installed the solar panels anyway (or they're already installed as is the case for most environmentally conscientious people), then adding an EV just increases your electricity consumption and that electricity ends up being generated by coal or gas. In order for solar panels on your house to mathematically power your EV, you have to have installed the solar panels only because you bought an EV. That is, if you hadn't bought the EV, you wouldn't have installed the solar panels. That is what Musk is trying to do - offer a EV + solar panels for your home package deal, so people who wouldn't have installed solar on their homes before will do so now. (That and to partake in the juicy credits the government is handing out for solar panel installation.)

Re:Here's a thought

[ncc74656]

Where do you live and for what are you shopping that the average new car costs $33k? The midsize crossover I'm driving now was $27k four years ago, and I think the only options it doesn't have are AWD and leather (and it doesn't have those because we didn't want them). That's the most I've ever spent on a car, and my wife and I were making about $120k-ish between us at the time.

Re:Here's a thought

[HBI]

You might consider living as debt-free as possible and investing whatever money you can spare in real estate to be 'not living', but I assure you, it's quite satisfying.

Having been married once to someone who believed in endless debt, it is far more secure this way. But hey, if you like the fake money treadmill more, have at it.

Re:Here's a thought

[NatasRevol]

The united states.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Re:Here's a thought

[haruchai]

The Model 3's are $35k cars.

The average new car today is $33k.

If people can't buy them, a LOT of companies are going to be in trouble.

Most of those other companies have lower-cost cars or CPOs below $35k; Tesla doesn't.
Perhaps a lot of the early-stage reservation holders may opt to lease to ride out a downturn but many more will defer - or cancel and want their money back, which has already been spent.

Re:Here's a thought

[NatasRevol]

Congrats.

But the fact remains that the average new car in the US today is over $33k.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Re:Here's a thought

[budgenator]

I always thought the point was to have roof-top solar cells on the home or car-port to offset the electricity used to charge the Electric vehicle. Additionally used batteries that were a bit too soggy to used in a vehicle would still have plenty of capacity and charge-rate to serve as a store for excess power for a household to use in the evening and potentially for load-leveling the Grid.

Re:Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you must have made an error in your math. Assuming you are in the US, then I think you are probably not including the federal subsidy of $7500 for an electric car, plus many states have additional subsidies (yes, the state subsidy must be reported on your federal income tax the following year, so is not the full face value).

For my personal situation, I have two Nissan Leaf's in my family and know each one cost slightly less than $14,000 out the door, thanks to these subsidies totaling $13,500 off which made for almost exactly a 50% discount on the vehicle. I have 33,000 miles on my daily commuter Leaf that is 1.5 years old, which I estimate has cost about $330 in electricity at the rate of about $1 per 100 miles (I pay much less than this since I charge for free at my work 5 days a week and charge at home only a few times per month). Regularly scheduled maintenance costs are very low for an electric vehicle. For this period maintenance has been less than $200 *total* for the 1.5 years I've owned the car. I recently spent around $400 for new tires (I got a pretty good deal on the tires though) if we want to count that too.

So for 1.5 years & 33,000 miles I'm out less than $330 in energy and less than $200 in maintenance ($600 if you must count the tires as maintenance), which is far less than any gas vehicle would be during that time period for that mileage, and with a purchase price rivaling the cheapest gas vehicle.

Now, if you want to make the argument that the electric cars are not worth it without the subsidy you might have a case, but since you want to present your argument in the form of smart money (i.e. the opposite of the "stupid people who aren't putting two and two together") then I need to point out that electric can be a smart choice too. Your post smacks of self-congratulation and pride to the point of being blinded to what is actually a fairly good commuter choice.

For the record, long term wear-and tear on the electric is somewhat of an unknown at this time. Early Leafs have held up well, but at some point in the future there is an expensive battery replacement (under warrant for 5 years), but I'm counting on the price of the battery coming down in 5 years and there possibly being aftermarket choices. The is the only part that is a gamble. My other number prove themselves.

Re:Here's a thought

[denzacar]

A 300 Watt solar panel (whose dimensions would allow you to strap one directly to a Model S roof and still keep the sun roof) would take about 300 hours to charge a 90kW battery from 0 to 100%.
90kW comes out to ~403 miles, at 50 miles per hour, with no air conditioning, according to Tesla.
Or about 4.47 miles per kW.
So... charging with a single 300 W panel strapped to the roof, for 12 hours of sunlight, it comes out to about 3.6 kW or about 53.64 miles.
Meaning that if your daily commute is around one hour - you'll never need to connect the charger. Just leave the car parked outside.
If you don't mind the heat of a car sitting in the sun the whole day.

Though, if they were going to put solar panels on the car, useful surface could easily be tripled, compared to just attaching a panel to the roof.
Thus making it closer to 160 miles per 12 hours of sunlight - which is about the daily average, taken across the entire year, almost everywhere on the planet.

But I doubt that Tesla will implement something like that any time soon.
The fact they changed the supercharger "free with purchase" scheme to "free 4 1st 1000 miles" indicates that they don't want to give up the profits from the electricity distribution network - not just yet.
Musk wants to sell people on fully solar powered homes. He wants to get everyone to quit all forms of fossil fuels for all their energy needs - from heating/cooling homes to cooking/storing food.
Not just for driving around in expensive toys.

Re:Here's a thought

[NatasRevol]

And lower priced cars have lower margins.

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that the average price of a new car is still over $33k.

http://mediaroom.kbb.com/new-c...

Re:Here's a thought

[NatasRevol]

And they have lower margins. So, other companies in trouble too.

Regardless, the avg price of a new car is still over $33k.

http://mediaroom.kbb.com/new-c...

Re:Here's a thought

[HBI]

Oh, I probably should have mentioned that i'm 6'7" and 260. I'm not going to fit into a Leaf very well, but that doesn't apply to my wife. Your notes about battery life are something that I figured into the equation with an assumed life of 7 years, by which time I expect to be out of the vehicle, so it's a wash from my point of view. ICE repairs on the block and things related to it are noted, but expected to be beyond the expected life of the vehicle in my hands, so also a wash. Covered by warranties in any event during the timeframe I would own the vehicle. Oil changes are something I have to do that an EV owner wouldn't have to, so they factor in.

The biggest problem with a Leaf for me is that it's a plug-in. While commutes are just fine in this for me, I go for long trips on occasion and a plug-in EV would be an extreme hindrance.

My current vehicle is a 2010 Kia Soul. It was bought for $11,000 as a 3 year old used car on a lot with 9000 miles on it. This is how I purchase vehicles - let the new car premium burn off and purchase an extremely low mileage example of same, a couple model years old. I'll have it for about 3 more years and then let it go and find a replacement. Using this method, i'd never qualify for the rebate anyway. If I were going to buy an EV i'd have to completely retool my method, since I wouldn't want battery life being burned away by someone else.

Re:Here's a thought

[avandesande]

You should be thanking these people because without them there wouldn't be a glut of nice sub-15k cars to choose from :-)

Re:Here's a thought

[MrKrillls]

A different way to think about it is that many investors would be poorly advised to invest in Musk's projects, because he plays the long game, and those investors are looking at the short term for quick, certain payback. If they are checking the DOW every five minutes, and sweat the slightest dip, they may want to look elsewhere.

Investors who can wait - really wait - and easily tolerate uncertainty should look at folks like Musk. Amazon, too, was misunderstood by Wall Street. Wall Street doesn't tend to get "long term".

It is a matter of fitting one's investment to one's perspective.

Re:Here's a thought

[Art Challenor]

Slamming Musk has become more popular as some of his high-stakes gambles look as though they might pay off. He made a bunch of money from the PayPal sale, but a significant chunk of that went into TESLA. Had the TESLA stock-sale tanked Musk would have been, if not broke in the minimum wage sense, broke in the "he would need to take a job" sense.

TESLA wasn't about money, it was about Elon Musk and determination to do the right thing. That is made money is a vindication of the theory that you should follow your passion and hope that the money follows. Business is a dirty game and some mud has to stick, but you're not going to succeed and not have critics.

Re:Here's a thought

[powerlord]

Honestly, I figured he was just lining up all the technology he needed for a future Mars base/colony.

• SpaceX for the transport
• Tesla for the vehicle development
• Solar City for Habitat power

Still needs more in terms of habitat design and environmental controls although that could be piggybacked into manned SpaceX programs.

Re:Here's a thought

[Andtalath]

He already has all the money he needs.
So seems unlikely

Re:Here's a thought

[khallow]

But you didn't do the math on maintenance costs for ICE vs electric, did you?

That's hammering nails into the coffin. You would have to include the cost of replacing the battery pack on an electric car.

Re:Here's a thought

[G00F]

Stupid is a bit extreme, but does fit well with a large portion of them.

But along the lines of what others are pointing out.
1. They are what makes it possible for you to even buy used cards only a few years old.
2. Standard of living includes the car.
3. I will give the cost of the loan could be lowering their standard of living, especially those always in new cars....

However, I am with you in buying the few years old, but hold on onto them longer than you. When I've been asked about getting an electric car, I tell people not until there's a good used market. Same with the LED/LCD TV's and other luxury items.

Re:Here's a thought

[vux984]

Now, if you want to make the argument that the electric cars are not worth it without the subsidy you might have a case,

I think it goes without saying that the "smart money" doesn't buy new cars at all. My last car was $7500. I've paid about $1100 in maintenance (the bulk of that was in the first 2 weeks just catching some work that needed to be done). And at 10 cents a mile for gas its double to triple the cost of an EV... but I'm starting several thousand dollars ahead of your purchase price, and the car isn't really depreciating. I'll lose 1500k in depreciation over the next 3-4 years. You lost that driving it off the lot; and will likely be down 30% after 3-4 years. ($4200). That buys me quite a bit of gas.

So for 1.5 years & 33,000 miles I'm out less than $330 in energy...[...] My other number prove themselves.

33,000 miles on $330, works out to 1 cent per mile. That's pretty suspect unless you are not paying for 3/4s of your electricty. You've already admitted you charge it at work. This is fine -- but you aren't paying for the electrity you are using and you've got to know that gravy train is going to end at some point. It might be valid right now but once the electric 'revolution' hits, you'll have to pay, and it'll probably be retail (e.g. marked up to cover the billing infrastructure and profit for impark or whatever outfit takes over running and maintaining the infrastructure).

Meanwhile, operating EVs in most of the country is closer to 3.5 to 6 cents a mile. An additional wrinkle, where I live at least is that my residential electricity pricing is tiered -- I get the first 1350kWH at 0.083 cents but then it jumps to 0.123. (And even the higher rate is cheap compared to major regions of the USA.) I generally sit within the threshold but there's not a lot of room, and adding an EV would be pretty much entirely at the higher rate. And again with the 'electric revolution' that is coming, I fully expect the price of electrity to go up, while the price of gasoline might actually even fall due to reduced demand... i don't really predict a fall, but i do think the negative pressure on demand may stop it from rising much.

ADDITIONALLY, electrics are currently exempt from fuel taxes, by virtue of not using fuel -- this is fine -- as it acts as an incentive to buy electrics which aligns with most urban planning -- BUT again, once the electric vehicle revolution hits, the need for the incentive will stop, and the tax authorities will be seeking to recover those taxes -- likely either via a tax on electrity itself, or a tax per mile driven from your odometer. In other words, that 'advantage' is going to disappear at some point.

but I'm counting on the price of the battery coming down in 5 years and there possibly being aftermarket choices. The is the only part that is a gamble. My other number prove themselves.

Maybe. It's hard to say. Maybe the current electrics are still early adopter vehicles and will not get the sort of mass market economies of scale in terms of replacement support (for example 'oh... you've got a '22; that was before the battery retrofit kits got standardized between manufacturers...yeah, we can service it, but we have to do a custom repack... so it'll cost more; your probably better off just scrapping it and getting a '29 that's had a recent retrofit; then you get the autonomous driving sensor kit upgrades too after the bugs were worked out in '27...). I do think as the electric revolution hits its stride the battery maintenance problem will largely take care of itself. But your "other numbers that prove themselves" are only valid today, and looking out with a 5-10 and longer you don't really account for the way the market is going to shift, as the majority of vehicles shift from gas to electricity, and the tax base shifts from gas to electricity.

There are quite a few gambles being made going electric, and while there is no question the cost to operate one is

Re:Here's a thought

[randallman]

"never individually bought a car that cost more than $15k" You must be buying used or just buying the absolute cheapest new cars on the market. Don't compare used cars to new cars. You're absolutely right about the depreciation. The smartest thing to do financially is buy a 3 year old car with low miles. It's nearly 50% cheaper, but still practically new.

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk apples and apples. Looking forward to the Model 3, assuming a $35k MSRP, the 5 year TCO should be lower than a $35k BMW or something else in that price range. Why? $1,000 or more saved on gasoline per year. That's at least $5k over 5 years. If gas were to go back up to $3 - $4 per gallon, that would be up to $10k in savings. Reduced maintenance. No oil changes and air filter changes. While these aren't terribly expensive ($200-$300 per year), they're a nuisance. I value not having to carve out slots of time for oil changes.

Early adopter. Being an early adopter is never the financially prudent move. But when you buy your $10 DVD player from Wal-Mart, you should be thankful for the early adopters who shelled out $1,500 for the first DVD players because they made your cheap DVD player possible. Same with EVs. in 2010, battery costs were $1000 / kwh. Today, 6 years later they're under $200 / kwh and more advanced to boot. They're projected to fall under $100 / kwh in short time. This is thanks in large to the high volume producers/consumers of the "expensive" EVs.

There's nothing wrong with being financially prudent, but don't think just because your financial math doesn't work for you today, the math is "bleak" for EVs. And when you're buying your $15k used Model 3 in the future, remember to be thankful to the Model S/X and early Model 3 owners who made it a reality.

Re:Here's a thought

[luis_a_espinal]

My wife and I have a combined income of $170k and have never individually bought a car that cost more than $15k. Primarily because it is a purchase of an object that depreciates faster than any other necessary purchase, so basic logic dictates you minimize the cost. Also, we've done the math on the cost of electric vs. gasoline and figured out that you'll never make back the price premium for a hybrid or an electric car during your ownership. Subsidies or no subsidies, the math is similarly bleak.

The only reason car manufacturers are in business today is an overabundance of credit and stupid people who aren't putting two and two together about this. I say stupid because they are lowering their standard of living by buying huge SUVs or alternatively expensive hybrid or all-electric vehicles.

It all depends on the math since not everything is a zero-sum game. I drive a beat up honda civic 1998. The muffler just fell of and I have in the trunk. I'm pretty much driving that shit until it dies, and probably I will just lease a cheap car since my work commute is relatively small.

OTH, my wife and I pooled money together to get a Prius V, paid in cash. We went around multiple dealers, putting them on the phone against one another until we cut so much off the price tag, we made the dealer shave off 8K.

The car is perfect for the wife and the two kids. And her commute back and forth with activities is substantial enough to make a lease a bad deal. OTH, we fill the gas tank only once every two weeks. For a similarly sized car, my wife would be filling up the gas tank every 4 days (I know, I used to drive one like that.)

In the grand scheme of things we will not recoup the money invested via savings in gas. But with diligence and planning we save 8K for a comfortable family car, one with a low gas consumption that is beneficial for our planned day-to-day cash flow.

Re:Here's a thought

[G00F]

I'm unaware of anyone getting 50% from government rebates, and even then its tax rebates(but I'm not seeing expired...).

And that $7500 is a tax credit, most people with families and owning a home would take multiple years to see that back. That's a hidden cost of $500-$1000 depending on interest and number of years.

You're also purchasing a cheap one with very limited range, up to 100 mile range, that will work as a commuter car, would have to be supplemented by use of another vehicle for anything more than 1 hr away. So you're hiding how cheap that car is with another that can do what it can not. The addition of insurance alone will eat up any savings.

Re:Here's a thought

[thegarbz]

Also, we've done the math on the cost of electric vs. gasoline and figured out that you'll never make back the price premium for a hybrid or an electric car during your ownership

I would like you to share that magic equation that literally eliminated the many many assumptions that go into determining which vehicle is cheaper to own in a specific scenario.

Re:Here's a thought

[nightfire-unique]

People buy expensive cars for the same reason people have perfect lawns and fancy driveways: to compensate for a lack of self esteem.

That's a little unfair.

Power (20-way adjustable) seats, heated steering wheel, tight, well tuned suspension, advanced safety and control systems, low road noise... there are plenty of reasons people buy expensive cars that have nothing to do with vanity.

Similarly, a nice lawn/driveway may well raise the perceived value of a home.

Re:Here's a thought

[worldthinker]

Already in my state, they are imposing an extra tax for EV's to make up for the lost fuel tax revenue. That's fine. The roads need maintaining.

Re:Here's a thought

[worldthinker]

Solar panels on the average house plus storage can be enough to power a house and your car. Couple that with Wind and other renewable energy sources you can charge your storage unit at night with clean power from the grid. Getting solar roofs on enough houses means more options and suddenly you have significant electrical capacity to create microgrids in neighborhoods and suddenly it becomes obvious that the century old practice of centralized energy production and transmission grids is expensive and obsolete.

Just imagine what this will do for the Hawaii market where the incumbent electrical company is RAPING the citizens of Hawaii for 49cents per KW/h and refusing to allow solar panels to be connected to its grid.

Re:Here's a thought

[Hognoxious]

Free men own guns. Slaves don't.

Do you know what janissaries were, fatty?

No, they aren't the guys who clean the floors and empty the bins.

Re:Here's a thought

[msevior]

The point about solar city was to put solar panels on your house. You charge your powerwall during the day and fill up your Tesla 3 at night.
Simple really.

Re:Here's a thought

[thinkwaitfast]

What state? I have still never seen an EV out in the wild and spent a couple days in Seattle recently. I'd expected to see them everywhere from reading the internet, but no such luck. I was even surprised to see as many SUVs as I did...and a lot of Mercedeses.

Re:Here's a thought

[Mr D from 63]

What's the MEDIAN price for a new car?

Very good question.

Re:Here's a thought

[worldthinker]

Washington State of course. How could you not see EV's? They're everywhere. Leafs, Chevy Volts especially. And I have a little game I play. I count the number of Tesla's I see each day. It averages about 4-6 and it seems the number is increasing.

The state tacks on a $100 fee for registering an EV in addition to any other fees car owners pay to register their vehicle. This is to offset the loss of gas tax revenue and to pilot a transition away from fuel taxes as the primary finance device for road maintenance.

Here's the relevant state law: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/defa...

Re:Here's a thought

[tehcyder]

Building large factories isn't 'enriching himself'.

Moron.

But do we know that he's actually building the large factories and not just pocketing the cash for his alien lizard overlords to finance their invasion of Earth?

I've never seen him outright deny this.

Re:Here's a thought

[DirkDaring]

Your math is way off. A 300W panel would maybe get you a mile or two after being in the sun all day.

Re:Pyramid scheme

[haruchai]

His network of companies are looking suspiciously like a pyramid scheme. Next he will announce a "Deep Learning AI Cloud" project.

Tesla Vision & Autopilot Fleet Learning fit that bill already

Hmm...

[johnsmithperson123]

I wonder what will happen when the feds end subsidies for solar panels and electric cars. I might start optioning Tesla stock, judging by what the new presidential administration will probably do.

Re:Hmm...

[The-Ixian]

Oh, you mean how car stocks tank every time there is a vehicle fire?

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric car subsidies are already limited to a specific number of cars per manufacturer (with some rounding to end of quarters, etc.) in the US. Tesla is confident they can make a car that will sell fine without the subsidy. (I personally don't think this is fair, since the oil industry is basically heavily subsidized directly, and also indirectly letting everybody else pay for the cost of pollution. A proper CO2 tax, that would actually cover that cost, would more than double the price of fossil fuels, maybe even above today's fuel prices in Europe.)

Tesla should be a "B" corporation

[Bruce Perens]

Obviously, Elon Musk has a direction he's planned for the world, not just for Tesla, and he's going that way and damn the stockholders if they aren't interested in being there for the ride.

This is all fine, but the corporate governmental structure that would fit it is to be a "B" corporation. Then your stockholders know what they're signing on to and the courts don't get to hold you to producing profit without regard for the long-term viability of your company or the world around it.

Re:Tesla should be a "B" corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

Then your stockholders know what they're signing on to and the courts don't get to hold you to producing profit without regard for the long-term viability of your company or the world around it.

What utter tripe. Don't want courts to hold you to "profit uber alles"? Don't declare that as your intent in your corporate charter.

There IS NO LEGAL DUTY whatsoever for any corporation to "maximize shareholder value" or "increase profitability" or any other such thing. This "B Corporation" thing is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. Barring conflicts-of-interest or gross negligence, boards and executives are largely protected from judicial second-guessing via the business judgment rule - which, in essence, says that as long as directors operate within their duties of care & loyalty, there is a strong presumption in favor of the directors and their business decisions - regardless of the outcomes of the decision. If you don't state that you will "maximize shareholder value" as your guiding principle, nobody can hold you to that as if you had.

So, to review:
1) If you state in your corporate charter that your corporate goal is "sending a large amount of our profits to Alpaca farmers in Switzerland, to foster sustainable and green alpaca sweater production," then no court in the land will come along and tell you you have a duty to not do that, and instead you must do everything in your power to bump your stock price or profits up.
2) Declaring yourself a "B Corporation" has no bearing on whether or not a corporation can be held to a fiduciary standard as you've suggested, anyway;
3) This program from "B Labs" sounds like a ridiculous marketing gimmick thought up by two hipsters on a smoke break from barista duty, who have zero legal, financial, or market experience, and a fundamental misapprehension about how corporate law works, probably fostered by the fact that their only actual information about the world comes from Facebook and the Daily Show. #idiots #wheresmyparade #greenwashing

Little Can Stand in Elon Musk's Way

[elrous0]

Except pesky physics, which still refuses to budge.

Re:Little Can Stand in Elon Musk's Way

[fustakrakich]

Regardless, 0 - 60 in 2.4 seconds ain't too shabby. Time to test the brakes...

Re:Little Can Stand in Elon Musk's Way

[bobbied]

Except pesky physics, which still refuses to budge.

Hey, they are just laws, and we all know laws are for breaking......

Really Elon?

[hey!]

Well, OK. But stay away from white Persian cats. That'd be a little on-the-nose.

Re:Solar City...

[elrous0]

I came across one table at the old location where someone practically raped the pine needles off a small Christmas tree.

Probably one of those new "ecosexuals". And yes, that's apparently an actual thing now, and not just some joke about extremist eco-hippies. And no, they don't get nature's consent first, presumably.

I swear, it's becoming harder and harder to parody the left when so many of their own have become parodies of themselves.

Re:Pyramid scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the actual products being produced.

Re:Solar City...

[__aaclcg7560]

I swear, it's becoming harder and harder to parody the left when so many of their own have become parodies of themselves.

I very much doubt anyone will be able to top the Trump parodies for the next four years.

Solar paneled cars

[DylanCombellick]

If the panels provide enough to cool the interior on a hot summer day, I'm happy!

Huh?

[MMC Monster]

Elon Musk most certainly wanted this to happen, but he actually recused himself from the actual vote, citing conflict of interest.

That being said, good for him and other Tesla investors (I don't own any stock in any individual company, but I own mutual funds which own just about all stocks in the market) for looking a little bit at the long game rather than the next quarterly profit.

Minecraft....

[spire3661]

What pisses me off is that Minecraft was valued at 2 billion dollars and was sold to MS without anyone even thinking twice about it. But actual useful stuff that humanity needs? Lets fuck around and delay and wring our hands about it.

Re:Minecraft....

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference being that Minecraft actually makes a PROFIT. TSLA, not so much....

Re:Minecraft....

[barc0001]

"We destroyed the planet sure, but for a brief beautiful moment there we were really creating value for the shareholders"

Re:Minecraft....

[randallman]

Way to make his point.

And actually pull up Tesla's financial report before spouting that nonsense. I'll help. http://files.shareholder.com/d...

See the lines "Revenues" and "Cost of Revenues", where the former is greater than the latter. That's profit. Something tells me game developers don't require billions of dollars in capital expenses for manufacturing facilities, service centers, etc. Geese, why do I bother. You're probably just trolling.

Re:Minecraft....

[DirkDaring]

Tesla announces first quarterly profit in over three years

http://nypost.com/2016/10/26/tesla-announces-first-quarterly-profit-in-over-three-years/

Re:Pyramid scheme

[Gr8Apes]

It's similar to the Japanese keiretsu more than anything else, with the exception that a single entity owns the majority stock. I suppose you could argue that Elon's the tip of the pyramid, but it's not a pyramid scheme.

Transformation

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is now building in Autopilot 2 into their vehicles and they provided a new demo video of the code that will eventually be enabled on the vehicles shipping today:
https://www.tesla.com/videos/a...

The acquisition of Solarcity has to do with turning Tesla into an integrated transportation company including the energy and the vehicles. Tesla is uniquely positioned for the coming changes in transport, both at the individual vehicle level and in commercial trucking.

The acquisition also has to do with the transformation of the energy... one example is the Kauai Solarcity project that uses Tesla PowerPacks:
http://fortune.com/tesla-solar...

The amount of solar + stationary storage (batteries) that the combined company is looking to deploy in 2017 will represent a staggering growth level.

yeah, mullaney HATES musk

[WindBourne]

Mullaney has been all over Musk declaring that he would fail at Tesla, Solar City, and SpaceX every 6 months or so
The best way to figure out how Musk is doing is to check Mullaney's postings and as long as they continue to say, that he expects musk to fail, tell you that Musk is doing JUST FINE.

And Totally understand why AC posted. Chances are high that it is Mullaney himself.

note worth it

[WindBourne]

Simple fact is that the weight of the solar panel is not worth it. As it is, Tesla just came out with an max and min temps for the cabin so that if somebody leaves a dog or kid in the car, they will not die due to heat. If this was to run continually while the car was parked, it would last some 6-9 months.

Re:note worth it

[WindBourne]

it does not matter what I say or the numbers that I come up with.
What DOES matter is that only 2 cars have ever bothered with solar for HVAC usage, and both stopped it because it was NOT WORTH IT.
And if you really want it, you should buy a car and put it on, OR go to china and get them to do it since they like wasteful things there.

Correction... shouldn't use math if tired...

[denzacar]

Or logic... How did I get those 53 miles is beyond me...

It's ~16 miles. So... Still just about worth it AT triple the surface, more if driving 45 mph.
I should really get some sleep. XD

Right

[Flicker]

Linking articles from credulous, retweet "journalists" and energy/auto industry sock puppets? Nice to know Slashdot has no problem with fake news.

So is yours.

[denzacar]

I corrected "my math" almost immediately to ~16 miles for 12 hours in the sun and 300 Watts.
I was tired like a dog and half asleep with a pounding headache writing that post. Still... my estimate was only about three times too big.

What's your excuse for an estimate that's more than ten times too small?