32 ms·

I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together

by wojcech 10y ago

I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point(and also Musk again finding a way to maximally exploit government subsidies for clean tech.) The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously due to bad tech. If it succeeds, I'd say it was because the tech was barely sufficient to keep up with the excellent luster. On a side note, I wonder whether or not the heavy government subsidies will be forgotten in the lore of clean tech, just like silicon valley seems to have forgotten the complete and utter reliance on government funding in it's infancy(or possibly even today)

aerovistae 10y ago
Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing. The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up. Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive direction, not get our financial support (a.k.a. the government's support)? Who exactly is losing out when we support our own business initiatives with our own money?
- baby_wipe 10y ago
  -
  - robbrown451 10y ago
    Yes, one is game theoretically stable, and one isn't. (the one that isn't is individuals voluntarily giving money to things where the benefit is shared by all)
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Indeed. Tesla is a stellar example of using government money responsibly and for exactly the purpose it was intended to.
- wojcech 10y ago
  I hope it came through in my comment that I dislike the denial of government aid in the creation of a "bootstraps" narrative when people want to argue against taxes, not the making use of government aid per se(otherwise now it's clear). One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money. A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt
- pbh101 10y ago
  The government is not literally just 'us.' It's a contentious idea: "government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" was oft-repeated by Rep. Barney Frank. He was repeating it because not everyone agrees. I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own. So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away. If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money. EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.
  - perilunar 10y ago
    >"government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" Definitely contentious. A more correct formulation is "government is just the word for the things we are forced to do together"
    - repsilat 10y ago
      Perhaps more even-handed libertarian dig is that it's "the things we force ourselves to do together." In that view it's a solution to market failures around externalities and bad game-theoretic outcomes in collective action/decision-making. Free-riders, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing.
    - fennecfoxen 10y ago
      More than contentious, tendentious. It's a choice about how to organize your ideology and world-view, but it's presented as an inarguable fact of existence. It's also what a small left-leaning majority says to defend themselves and shut up their detractors while they inflict their will on the minority over an issue that's contentious (e.g. our recent health care reform). And you'll notice that when legislation they don't like appears, you'll hear remarks to the effect of "that is not who we are!" (the standard obviously being relaxed when a government does something the speaker disagrees with).
- mokus 10y ago
  I imagine those loud objectors would take issue with the idea that the government is "literally just US" - it's much more literally a small minority of us who are deciding on behalf of us what we are to do with our resources. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the US was always intended to be exactly that - but it certainly leaves room for the represented to debate about the way they should be represented. "Us" consists of people with different ideas about what is worth spending money on, both in terms of goals and effective ways of pursuing those goals, and using the government to allocate funding ignores all that. It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations. The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them. Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.
  - __s 10y ago
    North Dakota pipeline is nice example of an operation receiving a good dose of government funding that arguably goes against the best intentions of the future population
    - webscaleizfun 10y ago
      Hey now, we need to get that oil out of the US and into a higher priced market ASAP, hence the need for a new pipeline and the removal of restrictions on the exportation of domestically produced oil. That way, these large foreign oil companies like BP (owned by Britan's public employee retirement funds) and Royal Dutch Shell can make a ton more dough while also raising prices by a few bucks in the domestic gas & natural gas market.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  Please do not use the word we in this context. Half of my colleagues are paying very hefty federal and state taxes but do not have the right to vote.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - aerovistae 10y ago
    Why don't they have the right to vote? DC?
    - scaryspooky 10y ago
      Probably they are in the US on work visa's.
- refurb 10y ago
  A big part is how gov't money is doled out. It forces the gov't to pick winners and losers. And since politics always seems to permeate everything the gov't does, people start to question the decisions. Even if it's something as straightforward as "green credits", the process can always be perverted to advantage one business over another.
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    It's a tough balance. Often we (in the US) don't invest, then complain when jobs shift to other countries. We've seen so much bashing of $0.54 billion for Solyndra (a tiny gamble); but now most solar panels are made in China. Need to gamble, but wisely.
    - webscaleizfun 10y ago
      Not every investment will be successful either, as any person with a basic sense of business will know.
- jasonlingx 10y ago
  In this case it's taxpayers subsidising high end roofing for nice houses owned by well off people.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    Spot on. I'm all for subsidizing industries to incentivize the behaviour we want, but I'm not sure the people who can afford these homes, or $100,000 cars, need it.
    - DiThi 10y ago
      They may not need it, but it is worth for the rest of us. Technology becomes much cheaper when it becomes commonplace. If we all pay a bit of that 30% subsidy to rich people, what's the matter? That will allow us to eventually buy it with more than 30% reduction of price without subsidies.
  - gefh 10y ago
    In the short term, yes. In the longer term, they're subsidising kick starting a market that can only come down in price once the volume increases. Some good ideas need a bump through the 'chicken and egg' stage.
amelius 10y ago
> I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point Except one ingredient is missing: most people cannot afford one, even if they tried really hard.
- jackmott 10y ago
  That kind of reminds me of Ballmer's "FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?" moment.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "That kind of reminds me of Ballmer's "FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?" moment." $500 is not that much more expensive than a Nokia device at the time, and well within the surplus that a good chunk of people have to pay - especially when subsidized by carriers. $30 000 - $100 000 - is another ballpark entirely in terms of cost. And it has to work out economically or it won't get anywhere, many ingredients are needed to make it work right.
    - dougmany 10y ago
      Rolled up into a 30 year loan that turn into a few hundred a month. Much less if you can subtract your electricity and gas bills from that. I remember the biggest turn off for me on the original iPhone was the $70 a month data plan contract. But people bought it.
- robbrown451 10y ago
  He's pitching it as being basically break even, when electricity costs are factored in. My guess is an awful lot of people can afford this, especially for new construction. Certainly enough to keep up with ability to ramp up manufacturing and training of installers. And then the economies of scale (and hopefully competition) will kick in and it should reach a point where nearly every new house, and nearly every replacement roof, will be solar by default. At least in climates friendly to solar. IPhone got a lot of attention when it was released, but it was a while before they became common with more than just the early adopter crowd. This might take a while longer for various reasons, but still, this is a big deal. This has an interesting twist. While it is subtle, people can tell you have it. People like to impress their neighbors. But this one isn't just "look how much money I have" but "look how I am using my money to be a responsible citizen of the planet." If you are going to try to enter the "keep up with the Jones's" race, this isn't a bad way to go about it.
jackmott 10y ago
fossil fuel industry people are somehow able to forget that they get subsidies right now every time they comment about clean tech subsidies.
- eric_h 10y ago
  I think it's more that they're counting on the consumers of their comments to forget that fact. I'm quite certain they all remember it.
- aianus 10y ago
  Can anyone explain to me these oft-mentioned government subsidies on fossil fuels? Gas has 25% taxes where I live. Surely that's the opposite of 'subsidizing' it (vs, for example, electricity which is taxed at 5%). What am I missing?
  - Graphon1 10y ago
    In the USA, - Strategic Petroleum Reserve - LIHEAP - exemption for farm vehicles on fuel See more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surp... Some people construe foreign military adventures such as Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003 as oil subsidies. Without those, oil markets would be less stable, and consequently oil would be much less attractive as a fuel.
  - dannypgh 10y ago
    It's supply side. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Gas meaning petrol? The tax is over 200% in most of the European Union, yet still doesn't fully cover the cost of roads and the external effects of pollution. Some countries also subsidise it, such as by paying for prospecting or research.
- manigandham 10y ago
jomamaxx 10y ago
From a popular perspective - you are maybe right - they 'sexified' something not quite so sexy. However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone. Why? Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics. Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their home is up for a new roof. The other market would be new homes. So there's a growth/market limit. Second is price. This kind of technology exists already in many forms. It hasn't been adopted because it's very expensive, and requires some other ugly equipment that has put a drag on PV installation like the conversion technology required to connect to the grid. The choice to purchase an iPhone is mostly emotional. The choice in roofing is not. It's definitely mostly a calculation. They are very expensive, and people will look into the long-term conversion value etc. I'll wager that this new Tesla roof will not be price competitive for current solar/roofing situations, moreover, even if it were - it still might not make sense from a dollars perspective, as the current solar/roof installations basically don't work out economically. It's for wealthier types and/or those with 'green aspirations'. Finally - these are not things you can buy from wallmart and install yourself. You can't even get your local roofer to do it. Typically, roofers have to be trained on the materials, installation etc.. There is the issue of warranty and distribution for 'new tech' in building - which is slow to adoption. Builders etc. are not 'magpies' like techies. They are averse to new gear, and typically wait for others to figure it out before buying in. Also - they simply tend not to be ver progressive. Go and ask your local builder if he wants to send his crew to California for 'Training on Tesla's new roof' and his mental calculation will be 'how many of my current customers are asking for it'? And of course the answer will be none. The fundamental issue with all of this solar tech is that it simply does not generate enough electricity to quite warrant the cost unless all the conditions are right. + If it's really sunny a lot + Major government subsidies + A new subdivision was created with 'all solar roofing' thereby keeping the costs down to economies of scale + High electricity prices in the region + The grid is fundamentally designed for renewables etc. etc. It takes a lot of the right ingredients.
- wojcech 10y ago
  Interesting points, thank you. EEVblog agrees with some of them and did the numbers on others, I might link it if I remember(it's bed time here soon) One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice. The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 10y ago
I'm not sure. Rumor mill has it that SC has been struggling, and the recent buyout from Tesla makes it look like Musk is transferring cash to himself. Musk talks alot, and I'm still on the fence as to whether this is vaporware meant to distract from that.
- tokipin 10y ago
  The timing may be calculated but that's about it. If a product isn't going to work out, that's one thing, but Musk doesn't waste time on vaporware. Notice that Tesla never put a silly will-never-be-an-actual-product car for display at auto shows.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    But he does take sign ups to colonize Mars, talk about being able to do the hyperloop for $1B, etc.
- wayn3 10y ago
  musk may be talking a lot but he's also delivering a lot. look at all the commercial space flight companies out there crushing it. ez.
- prewett 10y ago
  It sounded like this was condensedware/liquidware (what's the opposite of vaporware?), namely that the event had actual houses with actual manufactured, installed solar roofs in the form of traditional roofs. Presumably there were at least four of them, the four tiles pictured. There is a picture of what appears to be an actual house, presumably with a solar roof.
  - ebalit 10y ago
    Hardware should do.
- Graphon1 10y ago
  > Rumor mill has it that SC has been struggling It wasn't a rumor. Solar City was publicly traded and the struggles were documented. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/09/even-with-musks-magic-solarcitys-light-is-fading-fast/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/09/eve...
agumonkey 10y ago
I do feel the same. Musk has its own Jobs recipe. Jobs took bad consumerism, propped up features, slick user interface (material and logical). And peeled plastic. Musk swaps carbon for electric, makes it as stylish as the rest if not more, plus way more sturdier than the rest.
wtvanhest 10y ago
I guess what confuses me is that most people with enough money to drive a Tesla keep it in a garage. I guess most offices probably don't have parking garages in suburbia, but I was surprised to hit control F "garage" on these comments and not see a single mention... There are lots of upsides for future research and gained efficiency in the future though. Especially as electric moves toward big trucks down the road. (a semi full of solar panels could probably help propel the truck and save fuel etc.)
- matt_kantor 10y ago
  Your comment is what confuses me. Can you explain how keeping a Tesla car in a garage is related to the parent comment about Elon's product design/marketing/business strategies?
  - wtvanhest 10y ago
    Solar panels do not work well when the car is always garaged. It seems like a gimmick rather than a solid feature that the user actually wants.
    - stevetrewick 10y ago
      The main source of your confusion stems from misinterpretation of the phrase "Tesla's solar roof" which is solar roofing material produced by Tesla for buildings rather than a solar roof for a Tesla automobile. I'm a 'comments first' reader myself but TFAs are generally a must read for context and disambiguation before actually wading in.
      - wtvanhest 10y ago
        Oh man, I deserve the down votes.

by wojcech 10y ago

aerovistae 10y ago

Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing. The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up. Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive direction, not get our financial support (a.k.a. the government's support)? Who exactly is losing out when we support our own business initiatives with our own money?

baby_wipe 10y ago
-
- robbrown451 10y ago
  Yes, one is game theoretically stable, and one isn't. (the one that isn't is individuals voluntarily giving money to things where the benefit is shared by all)
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Indeed. Tesla is a stellar example of using government money responsibly and for exactly the purpose it was intended to.
wojcech 10y ago
I hope it came through in my comment that I dislike the denial of government aid in the creation of a "bootstraps" narrative when people want to argue against taxes, not the making use of government aid per se(otherwise now it's clear). One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money. A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt
pbh101 10y ago
The government is not literally just 'us.' It's a contentious idea: "government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" was oft-repeated by Rep. Barney Frank. He was repeating it because not everyone agrees. I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own. So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away. If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money. EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.
- perilunar 10y ago
  >"government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" Definitely contentious. A more correct formulation is "government is just the word for the things we are forced to do together"
  - repsilat 10y ago
    Perhaps more even-handed libertarian dig is that it's "the things we force ourselves to do together." In that view it's a solution to market failures around externalities and bad game-theoretic outcomes in collective action/decision-making. Free-riders, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    More than contentious, tendentious. It's a choice about how to organize your ideology and world-view, but it's presented as an inarguable fact of existence. It's also what a small left-leaning majority says to defend themselves and shut up their detractors while they inflict their will on the minority over an issue that's contentious (e.g. our recent health care reform). And you'll notice that when legislation they don't like appears, you'll hear remarks to the effect of "that is not who we are!" (the standard obviously being relaxed when a government does something the speaker disagrees with).
mokus 10y ago
I imagine those loud objectors would take issue with the idea that the government is "literally just US" - it's much more literally a small minority of us who are deciding on behalf of us what we are to do with our resources. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the US was always intended to be exactly that - but it certainly leaves room for the represented to debate about the way they should be represented. "Us" consists of people with different ideas about what is worth spending money on, both in terms of goals and effective ways of pursuing those goals, and using the government to allocate funding ignores all that. It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations. The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them. Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.
- __s 10y ago
  North Dakota pipeline is nice example of an operation receiving a good dose of government funding that arguably goes against the best intentions of the future population
  - webscaleizfun 10y ago
    Hey now, we need to get that oil out of the US and into a higher priced market ASAP, hence the need for a new pipeline and the removal of restrictions on the exportation of domestically produced oil. That way, these large foreign oil companies like BP (owned by Britan's public employee retirement funds) and Royal Dutch Shell can make a ton more dough while also raising prices by a few bucks in the domestic gas & natural gas market.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Please do not use the word we in this context. Half of my colleagues are paying very hefty federal and state taxes but do not have the right to vote.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aerovistae 10y ago
  Why don't they have the right to vote? DC?
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
    Probably they are in the US on work visa's.
refurb 10y ago
A big part is how gov't money is doled out. It forces the gov't to pick winners and losers. And since politics always seems to permeate everything the gov't does, people start to question the decisions. Even if it's something as straightforward as "green credits", the process can always be perverted to advantage one business over another.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  It's a tough balance. Often we (in the US) don't invest, then complain when jobs shift to other countries. We've seen so much bashing of $0.54 billion for Solyndra (a tiny gamble); but now most solar panels are made in China. Need to gamble, but wisely.
  - webscaleizfun 10y ago
    Not every investment will be successful either, as any person with a basic sense of business will know.
jasonlingx 10y ago
In this case it's taxpayers subsidising high end roofing for nice houses owned by well off people.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  Spot on. I'm all for subsidizing industries to incentivize the behaviour we want, but I'm not sure the people who can afford these homes, or $100,000 cars, need it.
  - DiThi 10y ago
    They may not need it, but it is worth for the rest of us. Technology becomes much cheaper when it becomes commonplace. If we all pay a bit of that 30% subsidy to rich people, what's the matter? That will allow us to eventually buy it with more than 30% reduction of price without subsidies.
- gefh 10y ago
  In the short term, yes. In the longer term, they're subsidising kick starting a market that can only come down in price once the volume increases. Some good ideas need a bump through the 'chicken and egg' stage.

amelius 10y ago

> I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point Except one ingredient is missing: most people cannot afford one, even if they tried really hard.

jackmott 10y ago
That kind of reminds me of Ballmer's "FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?" moment.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "That kind of reminds me of Ballmer's "FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?" moment." $500 is not that much more expensive than a Nokia device at the time, and well within the surplus that a good chunk of people have to pay - especially when subsidized by carriers. $30 000 - $100 000 - is another ballpark entirely in terms of cost. And it has to work out economically or it won't get anywhere, many ingredients are needed to make it work right.
  - dougmany 10y ago
    Rolled up into a 30 year loan that turn into a few hundred a month. Much less if you can subtract your electricity and gas bills from that. I remember the biggest turn off for me on the original iPhone was the $70 a month data plan contract. But people bought it.
robbrown451 10y ago
He's pitching it as being basically break even, when electricity costs are factored in. My guess is an awful lot of people can afford this, especially for new construction. Certainly enough to keep up with ability to ramp up manufacturing and training of installers. And then the economies of scale (and hopefully competition) will kick in and it should reach a point where nearly every new house, and nearly every replacement roof, will be solar by default. At least in climates friendly to solar. IPhone got a lot of attention when it was released, but it was a while before they became common with more than just the early adopter crowd. This might take a while longer for various reasons, but still, this is a big deal. This has an interesting twist. While it is subtle, people can tell you have it. People like to impress their neighbors. But this one isn't just "look how much money I have" but "look how I am using my money to be a responsible citizen of the planet." If you are going to try to enter the "keep up with the Jones's" race, this isn't a bad way to go about it.

jackmott 10y ago

fossil fuel industry people are somehow able to forget that they get subsidies right now every time they comment about clean tech subsidies.

eric_h 10y ago
I think it's more that they're counting on the consumers of their comments to forget that fact. I'm quite certain they all remember it.
aianus 10y ago
Can anyone explain to me these oft-mentioned government subsidies on fossil fuels? Gas has 25% taxes where I live. Surely that's the opposite of 'subsidizing' it (vs, for example, electricity which is taxed at 5%). What am I missing?
- Graphon1 10y ago
  In the USA, - Strategic Petroleum Reserve - LIHEAP - exemption for farm vehicles on fuel See more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surp... Some people construe foreign military adventures such as Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003 as oil subsidies. Without those, oil markets would be less stable, and consequently oil would be much less attractive as a fuel.
- dannypgh 10y ago
  It's supply side. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Gas meaning petrol? The tax is over 200% in most of the European Union, yet still doesn't fully cover the cost of roads and the external effects of pollution. Some countries also subsidise it, such as by paying for prospecting or research.
manigandham 10y ago

jomamaxx 10y ago

From a popular perspective - you are maybe right - they 'sexified' something not quite so sexy. However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone. Why? Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics. Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their home is up for a new roof. The other market would be new homes. So there's a growth/market limit. Second is price. This kind of technology exists already in many forms. It hasn't been adopted because it's very expensive, and requires some other ugly equipment that has put a drag on PV installation like the conversion technology required to connect to the grid. The choice to purchase an iPhone is mostly emotional. The choice in roofing is not. It's definitely mostly a calculation. They are very expensive, and people will look into the long-term conversion value etc. I'll wager that this new Tesla roof will not be price competitive for current solar/roofing situations, moreover, even if it were - it still might not make sense from a dollars perspective, as the current solar/roof installations basically don't work out economically. It's for wealthier types and/or those with 'green aspirations'. Finally - these are not things you can buy from wallmart and install yourself. You can't even get your local roofer to do it. Typically, roofers have to be trained on the materials, installation etc.. There is the issue of warranty and distribution for 'new tech' in building - which is slow to adoption. Builders etc. are not 'magpies' like techies. They are averse to new gear, and typically wait for others to figure it out before buying in. Also - they simply tend not to be ver progressive. Go and ask your local builder if he wants to send his crew to California for 'Training on Tesla's new roof' and his mental calculation will be 'how many of my current customers are asking for it'? And of course the answer will be none. The fundamental issue with all of this solar tech is that it simply does not generate enough electricity to quite warrant the cost unless all the conditions are right. + If it's really sunny a lot + Major government subsidies + A new subdivision was created with 'all solar roofing' thereby keeping the costs down to economies of scale + High electricity prices in the region + The grid is fundamentally designed for renewables etc. etc. It takes a lot of the right ingredients.

wojcech 10y ago
Interesting points, thank you. EEVblog agrees with some of them and did the numbers on others, I might link it if I remember(it's bed time here soon) One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice. The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bduerst 10y ago

I'm not sure. Rumor mill has it that SC has been struggling, and the recent buyout from Tesla makes it look like Musk is transferring cash to himself. Musk talks alot, and I'm still on the fence as to whether this is vaporware meant to distract from that.

tokipin 10y ago
The timing may be calculated but that's about it. If a product isn't going to work out, that's one thing, but Musk doesn't waste time on vaporware. Notice that Tesla never put a silly will-never-be-an-actual-product car for display at auto shows.
- bduerst 10y ago
  But he does take sign ups to colonize Mars, talk about being able to do the hyperloop for $1B, etc.
wayn3 10y ago
musk may be talking a lot but he's also delivering a lot. look at all the commercial space flight companies out there crushing it. ez.
prewett 10y ago
It sounded like this was condensedware/liquidware (what's the opposite of vaporware?), namely that the event had actual houses with actual manufactured, installed solar roofs in the form of traditional roofs. Presumably there were at least four of them, the four tiles pictured. There is a picture of what appears to be an actual house, presumably with a solar roof.
- ebalit 10y ago
  Hardware should do.
Graphon1 10y ago
> Rumor mill has it that SC has been struggling It wasn't a rumor. Solar City was publicly traded and the struggles were documented. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/09/even-with-musks-magic-solarcitys-light-is-fading-fast/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/09/eve...

agumonkey 10y ago

I do feel the same. Musk has its own Jobs recipe. Jobs took bad consumerism, propped up features, slick user interface (material and logical). And peeled plastic. Musk swaps carbon for electric, makes it as stylish as the rest if not more, plus way more sturdier than the rest.

wtvanhest 10y ago

I guess what confuses me is that most people with enough money to drive a Tesla keep it in a garage. I guess most offices probably don't have parking garages in suburbia, but I was surprised to hit control F "garage" on these comments and not see a single mention... There are lots of upsides for future research and gained efficiency in the future though. Especially as electric moves toward big trucks down the road. (a semi full of solar panels could probably help propel the truck and save fuel etc.)

matt_kantor 10y ago
Your comment is what confuses me. Can you explain how keeping a Tesla car in a garage is related to the parent comment about Elon's product design/marketing/business strategies?
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  Solar panels do not work well when the car is always garaged. It seems like a gimmick rather than a solid feature that the user actually wants.
  - stevetrewick 10y ago
    The main source of your confusion stems from misinterpretation of the phrase "Tesla's solar roof" which is solar roofing material produced by Tesla for buildings rather than a solar roof for a Tesla automobile. I'm a 'comments first' reader myself but TFAs are generally a must read for context and disambiguation before actually wading in.
    - wtvanhest 10y ago
      Oh man, I deserve the down votes.