11 ms·
Elon Musk's finances
- xiphias 10y agoThe whole article is failing to point out the biggest risks that the clean-tech companies are fighting against: global warming and lung cancer. Even though all older car companies have the ability right now to take a huge financial and PR risk, they're still not talking about the damage car emissions cause. Tesla is the first company that convinced me to buy a new car instead of an 8 year old one, as I didn't see enough difference between the new and old cars before (except the price).
- 115100 10y agoMost of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing, so global warming is made worse by Tesla selling more cars instead of people buying older ones.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing Do you have a reference for this?
- JimmyAustin 10y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
- anindha 10y agoIt depends on the car you own, the one you are buying and how much you drive. If you don't drive a lot and have a fuel efficient car, keep the car. If you own a Land Rover and drive a lot, buying a Tesla you'd be up over a few years. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093657_buying-a-new-car-is-greener-than-driving-an-old-one-really http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093657_buying-a-new-car...
- pcarolan 10y agoSource?
- anindha 10y agoTesla aims to make their cars last 10 times longer than the average gasoline car. There are less things that can go wrong with an electric car. They are creating ways to increase utility on each car. Less people will need their own car. Edit: I should clarify. Tesla is aiming to make their drive trains last 1m miles. Most car companies don't offer extended warranty past 100k miles. Normal car companies want you to buy a new car at that point. https://electrek.co/2015/11/04/musk-we-want-drive-units-that-just-never-wear-out-tesla-targets-powertrains-lasting-1-million-miles/ https://electrek.co/2015/11/04/musk-we-want-drive-units-that...
- ulfw 10y agoTen times longer. Where is the proof in that hyperbole statement? So a Tesla lasts 200 years? And really - lithium ion batteries don't go bad ever? Of course an electric car needs less maintenance on engine, transmission etc. But it is by no means no maintenance. Especially a Tesla. See all the reports of people reporting how much repairing and maintenance they have to do. http://gas2.org/2016/05/21/2012-tesla-model-s-needs-8500-brake-repair/ http://gas2.org/2016/05/21/2012-tesla-model-s-needs-8500-bra...
- RealityVoid 10y agoAre you kidding me? 10 times longer lifespan is _huge_, if we assume the average car lasts only 10 years that would mean you'd be able to use a Tesla for 100 years. That is totally not happening, especially with Tesla's reluctance to share maintenance manuals. It seems, on the contrary, that the Tesla cars have lower life-span than classic combustion engine cars.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoElon has specifically said he's targeted a million miles of reliabiiity on the drivetrain. Maybe not 10 times longer, but still far more service life than a traditional ICE. Tesla doesn't need to share the repair manuals. You're not touching the battery pack internals or the electric motors; if they fail, they are swapped out entirely and sent to the Gigafactory refurbishment line.
- JimmyAustin 10y agoTrue, but it's easier to fix those causes. It's a lot harder to take the millions of ICE cars off the road then it is to cleanup the environmental impact of a lithium mine.
- RealityVoid 10y agoIt's not about lithium mines per se... it's about needing a new car and not a used one since you're buying a (new) Tesla. That means extra carbon in the atmosphere.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoNew cars will be made and sold anyway; what Tesla is trying to do is to ensure that those new cars will all be electric.
- greglindahl 10y agoSure, as an individual I can always buy a used car. But that doesn't change much globally: cars are generally driven until they're uneconomic. If not by me, then by someone else. Put another way: if too many people buy new cars, then the price of used cars falls. There are enough people who compare the value of used cars vs new ones that a lower used car price causes them to prefer used over new. This is a fundamental feature of the car market, and that's why car dealers make it easy for you to trade in your used car.
- sweden 10y agoWhat is a better situation: having a polluting factory making polluting cars or having a polluting factory making eco-friendly cars? Maybe if the automotive industry had made this step a long ago, we could have been buying old but eco-friendly electric cars right now instead of buying gas/petrol cars. On another perspective, Tesla is also heavily investing in self-driving technology. So we could even stop buying cars and start using a fleet of unmanned self-driving cars which are also friendly to the environment.
- tombone12 10y agoBuying an 8 year old car means buying a used car, no? In that case you are comparing the polluting factory to no factory at all. Fleets of self driving cars are called public transport or taxis (depends on your preference), and have been around for a while. The environmental benefit of exchanging the bus driver with a more efficient steering method is probably offset by the idea that the inefficiencies of cars compared to buses for mass transit. Probably a net win for taxis though, but nothing revolutionary.
- sweden 10y agoBut a 8 year old car nowadays means a polluting car, not an electric one. I don't see fleets of self driving cars being the same as public transportation or as taxis, I view them as something between private transportation and public transportation, an enhanced version of the we nowadays call car pooling. A self driving vehicle can be a private one but at the same time, it could be also used to provide rides to other people other than the owner. For example: I am imagining that it would make it easier for companies and work places to arrange an efficient transportation to their employees without relying on the local governments or in public transportation agencies. But I admit that expecting this to be revolutionary and game changing for the environment might be a bit of a stretch.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoIt's made worse in short term this way, yes. But the car production happens and will happen anyway - Musk is only a small fraction of that now. Tesla is aiming to convince everyone to switch to eco-friendly cars, which means that besides adding its own production, it's basically trying to force everyone else's production to switch to making electric cars. So you can't look just at this year's increase in numbers of cars manufactured vs. environmental savings of those cars when in use. You want to look at how car manufacturing and use will evolve over the years. Tesla is trying to change the trajectory of the entire industry, and so far it seems to be succeeding.
- dilemma 10y agoAre there any credible sources that show Teslas as more environmentally friendly? Electric vehicles run on coal and natural gas to varyingly large extents.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoThey also run on nuclear power and wind power and solar power - it all depends on what a local power grid uses. But regardless, burning fuel at a power plant is much more efficient than doing it in an ICE, so even if Teslas were powered by gasoline, as long as it's burned at the central plant, it's more energy-efficient and better for the environment.
- wott 10y agoUh? Straight fuel -> mechanical energy conversion is less efficient than a series of fuel -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy -> transportation -> storage -> mechanical energy conversions?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoYes, because ICEs are very inefficient compared to both electric motors and powerplant turbines. In the latter case, scale buys efficiency. And that's all before you factor in the transport costs of car fuel - gotta burn the fuel to move fuel to top up the gas stations, after all.
- xiphias 10y agoThis not true, but also you have to look at the huge solar panel on top of the Tesla Gigafactory that decreases the footprint even more. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manufacturing-a-Tesla https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manuf... Also I'm biased because I'm suffering from COPD because of the car emissions, so actually I take health impact into account more than most people.
- hyperbovine 10y agoThe Gigafactory makes batteries, not cars. Having toured Teslas factory in Fremont, it sure looked pretty carbon intensive to me. I'm thinking of the house-sized aluminum press, hundreds of giant robotic arms, etc.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoEverything at the factory you described runs on electricity, most likely clean renewable electricity. And if not, it will be shortly as solar and wind continue to drive out fossil fuels in the electrical generating mix.
- jernfrost 10y agoIt is starting to be a while ago since that was true. Today usage by far contributes most to pollution, not the manufacturing.
- brador 10y agoIt's not a risk if we know it exists.
- tim333 10y agoI guess the whole thing hinges on Tesla producing and selling a lot of cars. Succeed and they are good, fail and it collapses. Best of luck to them.
- anindha 10y agoThe $400m cash flow from pre-orders is an example of it being easier to tackle hard problems than easy ones. A lot of people would rather risk money in Tesla then make money investing in a bank or an oil company.
- rahrahrah 10y agoWhat's your point? I would expect that both small banks and small oil companies have very high fail hate, and that the returns on investing in a big bank or big oil company are very small percentage wise.... no?
- xiphias 10y agoThe only problem here is that $1000/car is nothing compared to what they need to deliver in return: a huge manufacturing plant
- codeulike 10y agoa business empire with a financial structure that works only if risky companies perform perfectly on ambitious plans Everyone talks about the wonders of capitalism and how risk is rewarded, but then someone comes along who is actually taking risks to achieve big objectives and the industry watchers collectively shit their pants.
- radiorental 10y ago> Everyone talks about the wonders of capitalism and how risk is rewarded Yes, when that risk is spread across the system and the fundamentals are stable ventures. Point being when all you do is take large risks, that's a problem. (fwiw: long on tsla)
- codeulike 10y agoMusk is basically undertaking a moon shot: either a huge success or crash and burn. There's not much point keeping reserves.
- friendlygrammar 10y ago>Musk is basically undertaking a moon shot A mars shot if you will
- jacques_chester 10y ago> Musk is basically undertaking a moon shot: either a huge success or crash and burn. I wish people would stop using the Apollo program as an example of an expensive gamble. There was no market uncertainty. The problem was complex but the physics showed it could be done. The overall plan was tested in multiple stages (which is why the first landing was by Apollo 11) undertaken with massive armies of bright folk overengineering the living daylights out of everything in view. Meanwhile people call any old MVP a "moonshot" or a speculative research program a "moonshot" and it's just ... a poor analogy.
- codeulike 10y ago
- nabla9 10y agoI have no problem whatsoever if Elon Musk destroys investor money to build new technological future. In fact, I fully encourage and support his endeavor as long as it's not my money. Here is epic piece from Warren Buffet from November 22, 1999. Just five months before internet bubble collapsed he explained why he didn't invest in internet technology when everyone said that he was being stupid old fool. http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/11/22/269071/index.htm http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive... > The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage.
- samfisher83 10y agoA 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders." http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-shareholder-value http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor... Under US law there would be a problem if he did that.
- nabla9 10y agoI don't see how his interests are separate from promoting the value of the corporation. His approach is just very risky. Hyping investors to take too much risk is OK unless he intentionally hides something and don't put it in financial statements.
- mrfusion 10y agoIf a CEO genuinely believed climate change was an existential threat wouldnt actions to mitigate it be acting in the interest of the shareholders even if the company loses money?
- kgwgk 10y agoAnd if he genuinely believed that the world was coming to an end unless he sacrificed a newborn every midnight, would the killings be in the interest of the shareholders?
- anondon 10y ago> or invoke the poison-pill provisions Tesla has in its statutes Anyone know the details?
- kryptiskt 10y agoRescuing SolarCity seems like a waste to me. It's in a commodity business and is performing awfully. Why not just fold that hand and not saddle the stronger company with it?
- finchisko 10y agoI would say Musk is saving SolarCity just not to have failure on his back. It would be harder to get money, if investors can point out on your failures.
- grizzles 10y agoSolar City is basically a bundle of loans that will pay off over the next 20 years. The company has lost a ton of money loaning out other people's money before govt solar subsidies expired. Now that it's at it's shittiest point, Musk/Tesla is swooping in and buying it at a discounted price, without spending a cent in the purchase. Musk is a genius.
- vermontdevil 10y agoHe's doing an AMA today on Reddit. Exclusively about SpaceX though.
- comboy 10y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/58yc14/elon_musk_will_be_doing_an_ama_on_rspacex_at_3pm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/58yc14/elon_musk_wi... 22:00 UTC
- RoboTeddy 10y ago> The proposed SolarCity acquisition illustrates this: by getting Tesla to buy the struggling SolarCity, Mr Musk can keep it alive and maintain control. Why doesn't the author believe Musk's claim that Tesla<->Solar City are merging in order to produce a superior product/service? One company comes and installs both solar cells and batteries. The batteries help you get more value out of your solar cells. You don't have to schedule installations with separate companies, or use separate apps to manage them, or worry about different versions of each product interoperating with the other. If it's not working, there's one number to call, and one responsible party. Sales and marketing can be unified. Looking from the outside, it makes sense... Am I missing something?
- bkanber 10y agoShame on HN for downvoting you. This was a reasonable and thoughtful comment. What you're missing is the skepticism that is so rampant in the media and especially on HN these days. It is certainly possible that they're merging to produce a superior experience. It's certainly possible that they're merging for financial reasons. It's certainly possible that the reality is some combination of both.
- vidoc 10y agoI'm suffering from Advanced Elon Musk fatigue!
- qwrusz 10y agoSimilar articles were written about Jeff Bezos and Amazon 20 years ago. "no profit", "losing money every year", "unsustainable" etc... I admire Musk. Not a huge fan of the way he is funding his goals but don't really care, do what you gota do, it's caveat emptor in the stock market. Musk's companies are not even close to the riskiest financial structures among public companies. Rooting for success of Tesla and SpaceX. But I don't own the stock. Sometimes the financial press comes across like they don't want anything important to happen ever. Reward requires risk.