News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by harryh on Thursday September 01, 2016 @11:42AM (#12406173)
It's not at all clear to me that power generation via solar has anything at all to do with supplying electricity to cars.

The power generated can be used for anything. The vast majority will go to things other than cars.

Electric cars can consume electricity from any source and, at least for a while, the vast majority will be coming from sources other than solar.

Vertical integration can make a lot of sense in weird markets where goods aren't fungible or there isn't a high quality market for trading. Electrical power is basically the opposite of this though. There is a very very large and very liquid market for pricing electrical power. I see no reason that SolarCity can't just be a supplier to this market while Tesla Owners would be consumers.

It's pretty clear to me that the merging of the companies is mostly due to cashflow management on the part of Musk and has little to do with any real synergies between their businesses. Stockholders in one or both companies are likely to suffer due to the merger.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by Tharkun on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:02PM (#12406382)
> It's not at all clear to me that power generation via solar has anything at all to do with supplying electricity to cars.

Tesla is a battery company that just so happens to also make a couple of cars. When you look at it that way, it makes a lot more sense.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by harryh on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:43PM (#12406773)
This actually makes sense. And perhaps SolarCity will also become a battery company that just so happens to also make solar panels because solar power turns out to be more of a storage problem than generation problem.

You are making me rethink my position a little bit. Thanks!

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by labster on Thursday September 01, 2016 @03:03PM (#12407985)
Tesla is an energy company that just happens to make cars, batteries, and solar panels. Or so they would like to be.

If you look a the energy industry now, there's an iron triangle, if you will, between fossil fuel extraction, electric utilities, and the automobile industry. Tesla is aiming to replace all three sides with solar, batteries, and electric cars. A person could use Tesla products and, in theory, not interact with the current energy sector of the market at all. Which, if it works, would be some kind of disruption!

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by forgetsusername on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:38PM (#12407287)
>Tesla is a battery company

What advantage do they have in battery tech that say, Panasonic (who provides their batteries), doesn't?

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by abledon on Thursday September 01, 2016 @02:06PM (#12407530)
Tesla will be the owner of the gigafactory, a factory in which Panasonic will own a small portion of the manufacturing space inside. I suppose an advantage here is the willingness for the two companies to work together.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by toomuchtodo on Thursday September 01, 2016 @02:14PM (#12407594)
Demand. No one is clamoring to buy Panosonic batteries. They are clamoring to buy Tesla vehicles (which so happen to require quite a few cells).
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by semi-extrinsic on Thursday September 01, 2016 @03:05PM (#12408000)
Total Tesla sold battery capacity is about 10 GWh. For comparison, Nissan has sold 6 GWh, and Chevrolet has sold 2 GWh. But all are beaten by Toyota, who have sold more than 17 GWh in their hybrid vehicles.

For further comparison, the total capacity of existing pumped hydroelectric storage plants is 740 000 GWh. (This puts plans of battery-based electricity storage in a rather harsh perspective.)

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by marvin on Friday September 02, 2016 @03:33AM (#12411512)
Do you have a reference for the hydroelectric storage number? Does this include hydroelectric dams without reverse-pumping capability, which still do have the capacity to perform fast grid leveling?
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by semi-extrinsic on Friday September 02, 2016 @04:00AM (#12411620)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectric...

I believe this number only includes dams with reverse pumping. The global production capacity for all hydroelectric power is much larger, but it's not a widely used number, since you typically don't empty a reservoir due to the lower water having less potential energy.

So this capacity number is a bit theoretical, since you wouldn't use it that way in practice. But then again, so is the capacity number for batteries, since you really want to avoid doing a full discharge.

Annual global hydroelectric production is a more useful number, and is a little more than 4 000 TWh.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by marvin on Friday September 02, 2016 @05:00AM (#12411811)
Cool, thanks. I wasn't aware that pumped hydroelectric had this great installed capacity. Those are very big numbers. Of course, it isn't an either/or proposition, since pumped hydroelectric is limited by geography. Battery-supported grid levelling can also be installed locally at each residential solar project, which makes adoption less of a political case.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by greglindahl on Friday September 02, 2016 @03:15PM (#12415489)
These things all have different growth rates. You might want to mention those, too.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by forgetsusername on Thursday September 01, 2016 @03:11PM (#12408042)
>Demand. No one is clamoring to buy Panosonic batteries

Tesla is.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by mr_spothawk on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:53PM (#12407427)
Government backed/funded manufacturing facilities based in the US
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by seesomesense on Friday September 02, 2016 @09:45PM (#12417305)
"Tesla is a battery company "

That is common misconception. Tesla repackages batteries bought from Panasonic.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by mr_spothawk on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:52PM (#12407413)
> There is a very very large and very liquid market for pricing electrical power. I see no reason that SolarCity can't just be a supplier to this market while Tesla Owners would be consumers.

I suspect SolarCity's microgrid program and system service contract (which allows for customers to participate in yet-to-be-developed markets) is intended to disrupt the whole shit. IIRC, SolarCity already purchased a utility company. I expect they're looking to buy more utility poles & make their own market, cash squeeze realities notwithstanding.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by endswapper on Thursday September 01, 2016 @11:56AM (#12406329)
Electric cars represent a substantial demand for electricity. Solar represents a cost-effective renewable supply of electricity. The two do go hand-in-hand.

"Vertical integration can make a lot of sense in weird markets where goods aren't fungible or there isn't a high quality market for trading. Electrical power is basically the opposite of this though. There is a very very large and very liquid market for pricing electrical power. I see no reason that SolarCity can't just be a supplier to this market while Tesla Owners would be consumers." Yes, but the point is that there is a reason to combine those two, if the long-term agenda is to create a next-generation energy company, as opposed to simply competing in their respective markets, which was a response to pfarnsworth's comments.

I do agree with the likelihood of certain shareholders being negatively affected. You are also probably right about the motivation being cashflow, but that is due to circumstances/timing rather than a lack of synergy.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by harryh on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:14PM (#12406505)
Airline companies represent a substantial demand for jet fuel but you don't see them merging with oil companies. Because there is a deep, liquid market for jet fuel. Just like electricity.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by trimbo on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:59PM (#12406939)
> Airline companies represent a substantial demand for jet fuel but you don't see them merging with oil companies

They are creeping in that direction though. Delta purchased their own refinery in 2012:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-delta-jetfuel-exclusive-id...

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by harryh on Thursday September 01, 2016 @03:16PM (#12408081)
If you read your link it explains why this sort of vertical integration is almost certainly a bad idea. Delta can't capture all the gains that the refinery creates by operating in ways that reduce its effectiveness. It's money losing overall.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by endswapper on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:38PM (#12406729)
If they could convince an oil company to do so they might.

Given that, "there is a deep, liquid market for jet fuel," is having Emirates airline and Emirates National Oil Company under the same umbrella poor strategy?

You're also omitting the fact/point that the energy industry is evolving very quickly and that calls in to question the established markets. Energy over-supply in general creates opportunities for disruption and new business models.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by harryh on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:42PM (#12406760)
is having Emirates airline and Emirates National Oil Company under the same umbrella poor strategy?

Yes. The only reason it exists this way is because they're both owned by the corrupt government/monarchy of Dubai.

Keep in mind that under the same umbrella you also have everything from banks to a cement company to hotels to a mineral water company. This isn't a coherent business strategy, it's just what happens when a single family rules over an entire economy and basically owns everything.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by endswapper on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:02PM (#12406959)
Why is it poor strategy beyond liquid markets for jet fuel?

You could equally argue that is exists that way because they need to deploy extremely large amounts of capital. So, an infrastructure company in a region that is going through phenomenal, albeit temporary growth, makes a lot of sense. Once that growth levels off they could transition to higher-tech endeavors.

Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by barney54 on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:59PM (#12406937)
One counter example is that Delta bought an oil refinery for this reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_Refinery
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by ldargin on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:45PM (#12406800)
The difference is that solar power works best with battery storage because it's not continuous, so Tesla's vehicles can benefit from that source more easily than most other consumers.
Re:Cash Squeeze at Tesla, SolarCity by mr_spothawk on Thursday September 01, 2016 @02:00PM (#12407487)
the Powerwall product uses the same battery for home storage.

also, a sweet deal like: "charge your electric car for a discounted rate m when your home already has SolarCity brand electricity" is a much easier sale than "Oh, you've got a Tesla... don't you want to charge it with your standard meter rate from Vivent?"