When I ordered my Tesla S I also needed to get a 240V charger installed in my garage. Tesla sends you over to SolarCity for that and they can install it for you. This also gives them the perfect opportunity to offer you solar panels as well since they can show you, based on your electricity bill and the number of miles you are going to drive, how much it is going to save you.
Long story short, bought a Tesla S from Tesla, a outlet installation from SolarCity and now have also signed up for 8.8Kw solar panel system for my house.
The vertical integration of his investments is awesome. I just hope he somehow integrates in SpaceX ... maybe solar microwave power from orbit?
I'm picking up my S tomorrow morning. When I reserved, I submitted the information for SolarCity to contact me, but they never did, even after I sent an e-mail to their sales address. I went ahead and got my local electrician to do the install for me.
I didn't know about the home Solar leases, that makes it more of a shame about the disconnect in customer service because I would have liked to investigate that option.
EDIT: Just tried to fill out their form for solar consultation and got an e-mail that they don't have service in my area. Maybe that was why they didn't get back to me.
Musk's plan in a way serves as a reminder for those of us that tend to overestimate the role luck plays in the personal journey towards entrepreneurial success.
While generally HN users are open minded, no small number have derided the notion that others (perhaps far less capable than Musk), are capable of having a meaningful vision.
Of course having a justified belief and plan is a different approach to the lean startup philosophy. Lean effectively aligns more with the randomness worldview and iteration with an impartiality (or even celebration in some cases) of failure. Whereas OTOH, the visionary approach usually has more confidence in a self-directed path.
Those with this visionary quality (in varying levels of ability), can arrogantly dismiss others too, with behavior that is equally cringe worthy. Moreover, it would be hard to objectively and meaningfully argue either approach is universally "better".
However, perhaps the most significant indiscretion, is not in picking a side that works for you, but rather failing to see that two sides exist at all.
Musk's plan in a way serves as a reminder for those of us that tend to overestimate the role luck plays in the personal journey towards entrepreneurial success.
I agree that Elon's results with Tesla and Space X are not principally (or even much) based on luck, but this is (at least in part) because he has the resources to finance his visions directly and can use his tech-celebrity status to help bring them to fruition.
How did he get into this enviable position? It's largely due to the sale PayPal to eBay, of course—and, as those in the know will tell you, luck was a big factor in PayPal's success.
His lucky play was PayPal's acquisition by eBay (and Zip2's by AltaVista prior to that). Getting that cash infusion enabled his subsequent ventures. There were many ventures competing with both.
That's not to say that Musk wasn't directed and didn't capitalize exceptionally well on his successes. But luck most definitely played a role.
What he wants now: As Musk's two most recent investments - in a space rocket and an all-electric sports car - suggest, the 35-year-old entrepreneur likes to think big. So he's intrigued by the promise of a next-generation battery called an ultracapacitor, capable of powering everything from cars to tractors. Unlike chemical batteries, ultracapacitors store energy as an electrical field between a pair of conducting plates. Theoretically, they can be charged in less than a second rather than hours, be recharged repeatedly without sacrificing performance, and far outlast anything now on the market.
"I am convinced that the long-term solution to our energy needs lies with capacitors," Musk says. "You can't beat them for power, and they kick ass on any chemical battery."
Musk would know: He was doing Ph.D. work at Stanford on high-energy capacitors before he helped get PayPal off the ground. At least one startup, EEStor in Texas, and a larger company, Maxwell Technologies in California, are working on ultracapacitors. Yet Musk believes a university-based research group has an equal shot at a commercial breakthrough, since universities are where the most promising research is bubbling up. "The challenge is one of materials science, not money," Musk says.
The team to pull this off, he says, would need expertise in materials science, applied physics, and manufacturing. Musk wants to see a prototype that can power something small, like a boom box. "Make one and show me that it works," Musk says. "Then tell me what's wrong with it and how it can be fixed."
What he'll invest: $4 million over two years for a working prototype
> the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable
Tesla cars so far have definitely been luxury cars. If they keep going downmarket into the mainstream, I wonder if they'll want to create a separate brand for their mainstream stuff, a la acura/honda, toyota/lexus, and infiniti/nissan.
Can anyone point me toward Musk's reasoning about why solar will beat out wind power in the long term? I know he owns a solar company, but why did he choose that over wind?
(I'm aware of the basic pros and cons of both. I'm really just looking for Musk's thinking.)
There's a recent talk here where Musk discusses what he thinks of the future of energy, though I don't think he goes into wind vs. solar specifically (he does explain in the Q&A at the end why he doesn't think biofuels make sense).
I believe I remember him pointing out, of all the things that need energy on earth, most of them use the sun as their source either directly or indirectly. Plants are obvious, and animals rely on plants. While products of evolution aren't perfect, they can often be a useful guide.
Besides Musk's viewpoint, I'd argue some simple math. There is vastly more potential power being emanated from the sun every second than there is in the prevailing winds on Earth's surface. The atmosphere being in differing states of high and low pressure is caused by multiple factors, but heating from the sun is one of them. In the long term, almost all of our power is derived from the sun (with exceptions like geothermal, even hydro is dependent on the water cycle being driven by solar heating) anyway - might as well go directly to the source.
I just easily see the entire planet being powered by some terrestrial satellite grid of solar panels in a few centuries. Capture it in space, transport it to surface via a space elevator or something, maximum efficiency. Would probably also slow global warming since significantly less heat by that point would be reaching the surface (given the size of an artificial ring belt of solar panels we would need to run everything by then!)
Wind is far too variable. Even if you have a very well sited wind-farm it could potentially be weeks or months when the effective power output is zero. This is ruinously impractical as a base load power system, whereas solar is far, far more predictable (even with weather variation). The big problem that solar has is storage, which hasn't been worked out yet and probably raises the cost by anywhere from a factor of 2 up to an order of magnitude.
"Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster."
A Model S for $45K? Where do I sign? The average selling price of a Model S is probably more like $90K.
> However, let’s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas, the most popular fuel for new US power plants in recent years.
Not so true national wide. According to US Energy Administration, the energy sources and percent share of total for electricity generation in 2011. Note the the combined renewable energy sources is below 10% still in 2011.
This would then change the calculation. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station) says that the efficiency for a coal powered generator is only 33%, as opposed to 56-60% of a combined cycle gas powered generator.
Based on the above data, if one assumes only hydro carbons are used, for power production, that would give 37% natural gas and 63% coal. Then, the average efficiency is 33.63+60.37= 43%. So, the over all efficiency would be 1.14*43/60=.817 km/MJ, which now doesn't look that impressive.
Also, I am not sure if the calculation accounts for transportation loss involved in getting the coal and oil to the power plant.
Given that the next contender, the Prius, has three times the CO2 emissions of the Roadster, I think theres plenty wiggle room for the energy source here.
I understand there has been a sharp rise in natural gas (and a corresponding drop in coal and nuclear) in the past two years, since fracking took off. (I wouldn't be surprised if coal is still at the top though.)
I am rooting for Tesla, but if they are counting on a "solar electric economy," that makes me worry. Let's target something practical, like a nuclear/natural gas/solar electric economy.
Tesla doesn't depend on the whole solar economy to be successful. It mostly depends on its own solar-based superchargers, and those have nothing to do with the health of the solar economy. Whether solar energy will be 50% of US energy production, or just stay at 5%, it will be irrelevant for Tesla cars, as they will still get free charging from its own solar superchargers.
I agree it presents quite a few challenges, and with the tech today it's hard to see solar as viable. However, from what I understand of Mr. Musk's plan, I agree with his idea that almost all energy on Earth came from the sun (and in the case of hydrocarbons all of it), and so the most efficient way to capture that energy should be directly. Nuclear and geothermal aside, nearly every other form of energy capture we do is indirect and represents a huge waste.
I don't see Tesla as counting on it directly. They would like to see it happen, but all they need to fuel their cars is a source of electricity. If for some reason utility-scale solar power is never practical, that doesn't really impede anything they are trying to do with their vehicles.
The lower third of the United States, particularly the southwest, could migrate toward a more solar-based economy today, economically, without the red tape or regulation around handling radioactive fuel.
It isn't as ambitious or forward-thinking, but it is also vastly easier to get started.
Read the whole thing, I'll bet you'll be satisfied with his answers regarding that. The way he's discussing it, EVs are an immediate win for efficiency with the option (not requirement) of being solar-sustainable.
I find it very practical. The best solar panels are 40% efficient, they are very very expensive today but it is a real possibility that someone someway could get this level of efficiency in the future cheaply.
You get over 1000W/m2 of sun radiation so you could get over 400W/m2.
probably it does not look like much but given that plants are 1% efficient, and most radiation escapes earth it really is. You could absorb sun's energy and then use that energy to grow plants!! in a much more efficient way(inside buildings, under the surface).
I am a huge fan of Elon and have a lot of faith in anything he's involve in.
I am interested, however, in how this reconciles with the Innovator's Dilemma. He's starting at the top of the market and working his way down.
My possible explanation (assuming he will be successful) is:
There isn't enough of an existing market to be disrupted for the Innovator's Dilemma to apply. What I would be worried about here is the other electric cars that ARE on the market are on the lower end (comparatively. The Leaf is $23,000 vs Tesla @ $52,000).
Nissan is working on using cheaper tech, and then will find ways to improve that cheaper tech versus Tesla using expensive tech and finding ways to make it cheaper.
The Innovator's Dilemma doesn't say you have to start at a "low end" and work up. That's just how it was for the computer storage industry (the example in the book) in the second half of the twentieth century.
It says that you have to start with a new market - i.e a set of people who want to buy your product who are different fundamentally from the existing market.
Plenty of innovations are rolled out starting at the high end. An obvious example is the iPhone (which changed the smartphone market from business/hobbiest to consumer, and which began doing that with rich consumers).
Another way of looking at it... New things can be relatively expensive within their new market - the first PCs were very expensive, they just happened to be cheap compared to Minicomputers. From a product side, they looked like cheap, crap computers. From the market side, they had a totally different market (e.g. individual finance professionals, rather than large corporations).
It's natural as a geek to look just at products. You have to look at both products and markets - they are not just both important, they are the same thing (http://www.flourish.org/blog/?p=371).
Tesla's product is electric cars. It's market is people who want:
a) To not have to recharge every day on their commute.
b) To have more accessible storage space.
c) To have cheap power when gas finally gets more expensive than electricity/batteries
Short term they have been bootstrapping that using a market of people who have longer term motivations (concern about climate change or an energy crisis) which will later go mainstream in the form of c).
Not that he's presumably anywhere near the end of his life - but does Tesla or SpaceX have a contingency plan should something happen to Elon Musk? Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love everything they're doing. It just scares the crap out of me that such a grand movement opposing very powerful forces is led by a single individual. Please tell me there's more brilliant leaders with the same mindset involved in his mission, ready to take the reins should the need ever arise.
I find it incredible how one many seems to be driving such a change in the future of our planet. Considering people have apparently been putting time and money in to this for decades, why are we not seeing more attempts like this? Is it because it's not considered lucrative enough for the capitalist market? Or is Elon just a very good at convincing us (me) he's breaking new ground?
Xprise 100 mpg winner seriously considered EV but won with
Gas engine. Where's the discrepancy?
At least Germany is a good case study in the feasibility
Of a solar electric infrastructure. I thought diesel/ hybrid is best bet but it's good musk is here pushing the envelope.
Experimental cars have surpassed the 100km/l (235mpg) barrier a long time ago. That doesn't mean they are anywhere near feasible as a product - no interior finish, exotic body materials, no air-conditioning, electric/hydraulic assistance, electric windows, abs, and all kinds of power-hungry electronics.
Assuming all observed warming is anthropogenic, the amount of global warming caused by the cumulatie emissions of all of America's cars ever: 1/40th of 1 degree Centigrade.
Richard A. Muller, Nobel Prize in Physics, posted an short article on energy efficiency and pollution in gasoline, hybrid, and pure battery powered cars. Gasoline vs best battery powered car is a factor of 40.The only car has zero pollution is the hydrogen powered.
The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes ... At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth's crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element.
[+] [-] spullara|13 years ago|reply
Long story short, bought a Tesla S from Tesla, a outlet installation from SolarCity and now have also signed up for 8.8Kw solar panel system for my house.
The vertical integration of his investments is awesome. I just hope he somehow integrates in SpaceX ... maybe solar microwave power from orbit?
[+] [-] DEinspanjer|13 years ago|reply
I didn't know about the home Solar leases, that makes it more of a shame about the disconnect in customer service because I would have liked to investigate that option.
EDIT: Just tried to fill out their form for solar consultation and got an e-mail that they don't have service in my area. Maybe that was why they didn't get back to me.
[+] [-] dasmoth|13 years ago|reply
More here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/how-to/blog/elon-musk-on-spa...
[+] [-] api|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhughes|13 years ago|reply
To be green and to save money you need money to buy an electric car, charger and solar panels to save money and be green.
[+] [-] dave1619|13 years ago|reply
How do you like your Model S so far? Does it meet your expectations?
[+] [-] ams6110|13 years ago|reply
Are you paying for it outright or on a plan where you pay based on electricity generated?
[+] [-] chenster|13 years ago|reply
How much power does it generate in a day? Will be enough to fully charge a Telsa?
[+] [-] wamatt|13 years ago|reply
While generally HN users are open minded, no small number have derided the notion that others (perhaps far less capable than Musk), are capable of having a meaningful vision.
Of course having a justified belief and plan is a different approach to the lean startup philosophy. Lean effectively aligns more with the randomness worldview and iteration with an impartiality (or even celebration in some cases) of failure. Whereas OTOH, the visionary approach usually has more confidence in a self-directed path.
Those with this visionary quality (in varying levels of ability), can arrogantly dismiss others too, with behavior that is equally cringe worthy. Moreover, it would be hard to objectively and meaningfully argue either approach is universally "better".
However, perhaps the most significant indiscretion, is not in picking a side that works for you, but rather failing to see that two sides exist at all.
[+] [-] mhartl|13 years ago|reply
I agree that Elon's results with Tesla and Space X are not principally (or even much) based on luck, but this is (at least in part) because he has the resources to finance his visions directly and can use his tech-celebrity status to help bring them to fruition.
How did he get into this enviable position? It's largely due to the sale PayPal to eBay, of course—and, as those in the know will tell you, luck was a big factor in PayPal's success.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|13 years ago|reply
That's not to say that Musk wasn't directed and didn't capitalize exceptionally well on his successes. But luck most definitely played a role.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)
From 2006. Nice to know they are still sticking with it :-)
[+] [-] trhaynes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angstrom|13 years ago|reply
The New Power Play
The Investor: Elon Musk, co-founder, PayPal
What he's backed: SpaceX, Tesla Motors
What he wants now: As Musk's two most recent investments - in a space rocket and an all-electric sports car - suggest, the 35-year-old entrepreneur likes to think big. So he's intrigued by the promise of a next-generation battery called an ultracapacitor, capable of powering everything from cars to tractors. Unlike chemical batteries, ultracapacitors store energy as an electrical field between a pair of conducting plates. Theoretically, they can be charged in less than a second rather than hours, be recharged repeatedly without sacrificing performance, and far outlast anything now on the market.
"I am convinced that the long-term solution to our energy needs lies with capacitors," Musk says. "You can't beat them for power, and they kick ass on any chemical battery."
Musk would know: He was doing Ph.D. work at Stanford on high-energy capacitors before he helped get PayPal off the ground. At least one startup, EEStor in Texas, and a larger company, Maxwell Technologies in California, are working on ultracapacitors. Yet Musk believes a university-based research group has an equal shot at a commercial breakthrough, since universities are where the most promising research is bubbling up. "The challenge is one of materials science, not money," Musk says.
The team to pull this off, he says, would need expertise in materials science, applied physics, and manufacturing. Musk wants to see a prototype that can power something small, like a boom box. "Make one and show me that it works," Musk says. "Then tell me what's wrong with it and how it can be fixed."
What he'll invest: $4 million over two years for a working prototype
Send your pitch to: [email protected]. -- M.V.C.
[+] [-] surrealize|13 years ago|reply
Tesla cars so far have definitely been luxury cars. If they keep going downmarket into the mainstream, I wonder if they'll want to create a separate brand for their mainstream stuff, a la acura/honda, toyota/lexus, and infiniti/nissan.
If they do, the low-end brand should be "Edison".
[+] [-] jessriedel|13 years ago|reply
(I'm aware of the basic pros and cons of both. I'm really just looking for Musk's thinking.)
[+] [-] MikeCapone|13 years ago|reply
http://www.treehugger.com/green-investments/tesla-ceo-elon-m...
[+] [-] zoba|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JulianMorrison|13 years ago|reply
He also owns a rocket company. Coincidence?
[+] [-] zanny|13 years ago|reply
I just easily see the entire planet being powered by some terrestrial satellite grid of solar panels in a few centuries. Capture it in space, transport it to surface via a space elevator or something, maximum efficiency. Would probably also slow global warming since significantly less heat by that point would be reaching the surface (given the size of an artificial ring belt of solar panels we would need to run everything by then!)
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexeiSadeski|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonshen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codex|13 years ago|reply
A Model S for $45K? Where do I sign? The average selling price of a Model S is probably more like $90K.
[+] [-] chenster|13 years ago|reply
Above statement is mostly true in state of California where natural gas generates one third of its total power (source: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.h...)
Not so true national wide. According to US Energy Administration, the energy sources and percent share of total for electricity generation in 2011. Note the the combined renewable energy sources is below 10% still in 2011.
• Coal 42%
• Natural Gas 25%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 8%
• Other Renewable 5%
• Biomass 1.38%
• Geothermal 0.41%
• Solar 0.04%
• Wind 2.92%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%
(source: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3)
Coal is still the king.
[+] [-] smileey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revelation|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpressey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoPiece|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greghinch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmcy22|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mburns|13 years ago|reply
The lower third of the United States, particularly the southwest, could migrate toward a more solar-based economy today, economically, without the red tape or regulation around handling radioactive fuel.
It isn't as ambitious or forward-thinking, but it is also vastly easier to get started.
[+] [-] mpyne|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|13 years ago|reply
You get over 1000W/m2 of sun radiation so you could get over 400W/m2.
probably it does not look like much but given that plants are 1% efficient, and most radiation escapes earth it really is. You could absorb sun's energy and then use that energy to grow plants!! in a much more efficient way(inside buildings, under the surface).
[+] [-] jaggederest|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zacharycohn|13 years ago|reply
I am interested, however, in how this reconciles with the Innovator's Dilemma. He's starting at the top of the market and working his way down.
My possible explanation (assuming he will be successful) is:
There isn't enough of an existing market to be disrupted for the Innovator's Dilemma to apply. What I would be worried about here is the other electric cars that ARE on the market are on the lower end (comparatively. The Leaf is $23,000 vs Tesla @ $52,000).
Nissan is working on using cheaper tech, and then will find ways to improve that cheaper tech versus Tesla using expensive tech and finding ways to make it cheaper.
Opinions?
[+] [-] frabcus|13 years ago|reply
It says that you have to start with a new market - i.e a set of people who want to buy your product who are different fundamentally from the existing market.
Plenty of innovations are rolled out starting at the high end. An obvious example is the iPhone (which changed the smartphone market from business/hobbiest to consumer, and which began doing that with rich consumers).
Another way of looking at it... New things can be relatively expensive within their new market - the first PCs were very expensive, they just happened to be cheap compared to Minicomputers. From a product side, they looked like cheap, crap computers. From the market side, they had a totally different market (e.g. individual finance professionals, rather than large corporations).
It's natural as a geek to look just at products. You have to look at both products and markets - they are not just both important, they are the same thing (http://www.flourish.org/blog/?p=371).
Tesla's product is electric cars. It's market is people who want: a) To not have to recharge every day on their commute. b) To have more accessible storage space. c) To have cheap power when gas finally gets more expensive than electricity/batteries
Short term they have been bootstrapping that using a market of people who have longer term motivations (concern about climate change or an energy crisis) which will later go mainstream in the form of c).
It's very very smart.
[+] [-] btipling|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HyprMusic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mactitan|13 years ago|reply
Xprise 100 mpg winner seriously considered EV but won with Gas engine. Where's the discrepancy? At least Germany is a good case study in the feasibility Of a solar electric infrastructure. I thought diesel/ hybrid is best bet but it's good musk is here pushing the envelope.
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
Audi is said to be working on a production vehicle, an hybrid, with 260mpg efficiency, but we'll have to wait a little bit to see if it becomes real: http://www.roadandtrack.com/future-cars/spy-shots/caught-tes...
[+] [-] TechNewb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexeiSadeski|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chenster|13 years ago|reply
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/...
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
Should I be buying lithium now to sell it later?
[+] [-] Lagged2Death|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial
[+] [-] vignesh_vs_in|13 years ago|reply
Elon explains the master plan himself.