[Darius]

(05-03-2015 05:36 PM)Vice Wrote:  

Links please. Don't spread unsubstantiated bullshit.

I'm not Elon Musk.

(05-03-2015 05:36 PM)Vice Wrote:  

I see the same vitriol written about Musk's other company — SpaceX and yet no one even mentions countless billion-dollar companies that receive federal funds in one way or another, like Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics etc.

I'm not in favour of anyone misappropriating taxpayer money.

Some of those companies you mention actually make money.

None of Elon Musk's companies make any money without government grants.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-08...-subsidies

[Old Fritz]

(05-03-2015 05:39 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 05:27 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

Your main point is that his companies use a lot of taxpayer money. But i don't see the problem with that.

So you would be okay with government giving me millions of dollars for my new company then?

Depends on what your company provides.

[Pontifex Maximus]

His appearance, demeanor, speech and field of interests that wet his pants reminds me of this guy...



Here's Elon Musk shaking down Americans for money repeatedly...

[IvanDrago]

(05-03-2015 05:36 PM)Vice Wrote:  

Links please. Don't spread unsubstantiated bullshit.

Here is one directly from Telsa motors website.

http://my.teslamotors.com/incentives/US


And yes, we know the loan was paid back. Now how about the federal and state subsidies I am paying for?

[AntiTrace]

(05-03-2015 05:53 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 05:36 PM)Vice Wrote:  

Links please. Don't spread unsubstantiated bullshit.

Here is one directly from Telsa motors website.

http://my.teslamotors.com/incentives/US


And yes, we know the loan was paid back. Now how about the federal and state subsidies I am paying for?

To be fair, I would rather have my tax money spent subsidizing technology that could revolutionize the world as opposed to having it spent an johnny mccrack that doesnt want to work a pizza job.

[Vice]

(05-03-2015 05:53 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 05:36 PM)Vice Wrote:  

Links please. Don't spread unsubstantiated bullshit.

Here is one directly from Telsa motors website.

http://my.teslamotors.com/incentives/US


And yes, we know the loan was paid back. Now how about the federal and state subsidies I am paying for?

That's a tax credit. That's for the individual to claim. No one's forcing you to claim the tax credit if you buy a Tesla.

And that tax credit is available for all electric cars, not just Tesla. Practically every major car maker has an all-electric car variant right now—Nissan Leaf, Toyota Prius Plugin, BMW i8 & i3, Ford Focus Electric, Chevy Volt etc.

(05-03-2015 05:47 PM)Darius Wrote:  

Some of those companies you mention actually make money.

None of Elon Musk's companies make any money without government grants.

Tesla isn't making use of any government grants right now. That article is 2 years old.

Also, it takes time for a company in aerospace (that's for SpaceX) to make money. Boeing is a 99 year old corp. I doubt you'd see massive profits if you looked at the first five years of Boeing's operations.

[IvanDrago]

(05-03-2015 06:00 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

To be fair, I would rather have my tax money spent subsidizing technology that could revolutionize the world as opposed to having it spent an johnny mccrack that doesnt want to work a pizza job.

"I don't mind" is not a valid point as others may mind. If a product was truly necessary or revolutionary, people would pay for it voluntarily.

[IvanDrago]

(05-03-2015 06:06 PM)Vice Wrote:  

That's a tax credit...

And that tax credit is available for all electric cars, not just Tesla..

Yes, I know. Where is the money for this credit coming from and who's hands is it eventually ending up in?

[tpiddy]

There's a fair amount of haterade being drank in this thread. The internet was first built with tax payer money, among a ton of other things, and like others have pointed out SpaceX is competing for government contracts not just getting incentivizes and subsidies.

Everyone that has reviewed the Tesla cars have said they are incredible to drive. Yes they are a luxury vehicle and don't make a huge amount of economic sense, but if I needed a car I'd probably enjoy having one.

Solar continues to drop in price very quickly and energy storage does as well. Economically the Tesla battery isn't ROI positive in most of US at the moment, but it is in places like Hawaii and Australia, and in a few more years it will be in many more markets.

Here's some good material to read on the subject:
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-po...ost-there/
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-s...and-cheap/

[kbell]

Wouldn't 220 lbs on the wall damage it? Also it doesn't contain a DC to AC inverter which is another cost.

[Captainstabbin]

(05-03-2015 06:19 PM)kbell Wrote:  

Wouldn't 220 lbs on the wall damage it? Also it doesn't contain a DC to AC inverter which is another cost.

The weight isn't an issue for one but one won't cut it for most homes. And, yes, the inverter and professional installation would run another 2-3 grand.

[IvanDrago]

Sorry for derailing the thread. Thanks kbell for being in it back to topic.

[Engineer]

As far as the OP, I think part of the appeal of the home battery pack is you charge it at night when it's cheaper. You can calculate the payback period given the difference in rates between night and day and when/how much you use power. I suspect in this case the payback is in decades. But if your local utility sucks then this is a quiet, fuel-free way to ride out an outage instead of using a generator. That's probably the main business case.

For the poster saying 5000 cycles is in the lab only, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Unless what you're referring to is in vehicular batteries with the same chemistry, it's not that relevant. Laptop use cases are for 2-3 years, vehicles are ~10-20 years with say one pack replacement ($5500 for a nissan leaf for example). Cars control operating temperature and charge/discharge very differently than laptops.

Aluminum-ion can potentially have 3x the energy density of lithium because of the charge level on the positive ion. But it's early days for aluminum, we'll see.

I'm hoping this doesn't devolve into another love/hate thread on Elon Musk again, that's getting old.

[Darius]

(05-03-2015 06:06 PM)Vice Wrote:  

Tesla isn't making use of any government grants right now. That article is 2 years old.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1

Nevada was selected as the final location of the Gigafactory with a $1.25 billion incentive grants from the State of Nevada in the form of tax breaks and perks.

On top of that government grants are built into Tesla's, Solarcities and Space X's business models.

Without them all three disappear.

[kbell]

Now if this technology isn't killed off we might get that aluminum upgrade in a future edition and than you might really see huge cost savings. Or perhaps another material would be discovered that's even better. I don't see why installation would be so expensive unless its a lot of in wall stuff is done.

[Carlos100]

The main problem here is the inefficiency of solar power. If I understand right, 10 solar panels (which would completely cover the roof of most houses) can produce about 2500 kWh of power a year, or 200 kWh a month. The average household in the US uses 950 kWh a month.

If you use this battery to store up solar-produced electricity during the day when you're at work, I'm not sure that it's going to give you enough power to make it through the evening. Also, even when you're at work you will be powering the AC or heat to some extent to keep your interior climate controlled while you're gone.

Maybe if you also hooked up a wind turbine, you might get enough power to allow you to stay off the grid on most days. But, the cost of all that equipment, the solar panels, wind turbine, and one or two of these batteries, is going to be something like $20-30K. It would take years and years, like decades, before you made this money back in not paying an electricity bill.

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-03-2015 05:10 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 05:04 PM)Repo Wrote:  

H As it stands now, I believe he has paid every loan back or is actively paying the loans back with interest, which actually benefits taxpayers.

This. For some reason people still like to bring the loan he took or the fact that a lot of taxpayer money goes towards his companies.

I have no problem with my taxpayer money going towards Spacex. I don't see how anyone could not support space exploration. Unless they are ignorant or short sighted.

With Tesla motors, I believe he borrowed well over 400 billion dollars. However, he paid all of this back several years early.

I think it is in reference to the 2008 bailout of the auto companies, where GM got huge subsidies to not go bankrupt too, so you can't really complain about Tesla getting bailed out (they didn't get bailed out, it was a loan for expansion and a new facility; and they paid back every dollar with interest already).

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-03-2015 06:58 PM)Carlos100 Wrote:  

The main problem here is the inefficiency of solar power. If I understand right, 10 solar panels (which would completely cover the roof of most houses) can produce about 2500 kWh of power a year, or 200 kWh a month. The average household in the US uses 950 kWh a month.

If you use this battery to store up solar-produced electricity during the day when you're at work, I'm not sure that it's going to give you enough power to make it through the evening. Also, even when you're at work you will be powering the AC or heat to some extent to keep your interior climate controlled while you're gone.

Maybe if you also hooked up a wind turbine, you might get enough power to allow you to stay off the grid on most days. But, the cost of all that equipment, the solar panels, wind turbine, and one or two of these batteries, is going to be something like $20-30K. It would take years and years, like decades, before you made this money back in not paying an electricity bill.

As all technology, and with Moore's law, the technology is becoming exponentially more efficient, theres a company out of Spain that has developed a single bulb that directs all light into a much smaller space for conversion to electric energy. Solar energy is something that has to be pushed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and create a greener planet tomorrow. The issue is with making it mainstream, which his companies are currently doing, and showing people that it is a viable way to power their homes, cars; and hell smartphones without the use of coal, oil, or natural gas. Theres a huge sector not being filled by solar in the world's energy market.

[Darius]

(05-03-2015 07:07 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

I think it is in reference to the 2008 bailout of the auto companies, where GM got huge subsidies to not go bankrupt too, so you can't really complain about Tesla getting bailed out (they didn't get bailed out, it was a loan for expansion and a new facility; and they paid back every dollar with interest already).

I don't get this logic.

People say it over and over again. It's the same argument a child would make when getting caught doing something they shouldn't.

"Well Bobby did it, too."

[Darius]

(05-03-2015 07:16 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

The issue is with making it mainstream, which his companies are currently doing, and showing people that it is a viable way to power their homes, cars; and hell smartphones without the use of coal, oil, or natural gas. Theres a huge sector not being filled by solar in the world's energy market.

What do you think powers the machines and factories that make these "green" products?

[AntiTrace]

(05-03-2015 06:07 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 06:00 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

To be fair, I would rather have my tax money spent subsidizing technology that could revolutionize the world as opposed to having it spent an johnny mccrack that doesnt want to work a pizza job.

"I don't mind" is not a valid point as others may mind. If a product was truly necessary or revolutionary, people would pay for it voluntarily.

Nah, people are more worried about waiting 6 hours in line for the next smart phone than spending time and money on something that actually benefits humanity.

Can't blame anyone though, I would rather spend a few hundred on a new phone than donating that to space-x or whatever. I get more utility out of my phone than good feelings about donating.

Except for vasagel, ive thrown those guys several hundred over the past years.

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-03-2015 07:33 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 07:16 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

The issue is with making it mainstream, which his companies are currently doing, and showing people that it is a viable way to power their homes, cars; and hell smartphones without the use of coal, oil, or natural gas. Theres a huge sector not being filled by solar in the world's energy market.

What do you think powers the machines and factories that make these "green" products?

Please Inform me. Because I'm sure that the end impact of the sum of manufacturing and utilizing the products is far less than that of not producing them in the first place.

And with regard to the "Well he got bailed out so I should get bailed out" America would be absolutely fucked if the bailouts didn't happen. I don't condone them, but the largest investment firms in the world would have been under water, millions would've lost investments and savings, and there would be a massive revolution. Now with regards to the "bailout" which was more of a loan to expand production, they've already paid it back, it's a moot point.

[Captainstabbin]

Also, peak output is 2kw - That's not even enough to power a hair dryer and microwave together. Forget about air conditioning unless you wanted to buy 5 of these to string together.

[Darius]

(05-03-2015 07:38 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

Please Inform me.

That would be the products I highlighted from your post.

(05-03-2015 07:38 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

Because I'm sure that the end impact of the sum of manufacturing and utilizing the products is far less than that of not producing them in the first place.

Really? How sure? Have you done the calculations yourself?

(05-03-2015 07:38 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

And with regard to the "Well he got bailed out so I should get bailed out" America would be absolutely fucked if the bailouts didn't happen. I don't condone them, but the largest investment firms in the world would have been under water, millions would've lost investments and savings, and there would be a massive revolution.

Right.

So the middle class and the poor were sacrificed to save government and corporations that should have went bankrupt. This is a natural side effect of being an inefficient corporation or business. You go bankrupt.

Long term this means that the taxpayers are on the hook for debts that the US has no way of paying off. If the interest rates are raised even a few percentage points, the interest on the debt become unserviceable.

This means the only way out for the government is to inflate the debt away. Which means that the savings of the people get inflated away.

So the very thing you were worried about is now guaranteed to happen.

(05-03-2015 07:38 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

Now with regards to the "bailout" which was more of a loan to expand production, they've already paid it back, it's a moot point.

We are talking about grants that are built into the companies economic model. Without a constant supply of government money through grants, the company goes bankrupt. In essence the company is financially insolvent. Without a constant supply of taxpayer money it will die.

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-03-2015 08:08 PM)Darius Wrote:  

Really? How sure? Have you done the calculations yourself?

Have you? You were making the claims, thus I was looking for something that would tell me definitively that the energy and resources used to produce these environmentally friendly components are (in the long term) more harmful than using traditional fossil fuels. And don't say "Prius Batteries".

Quote:

We are talking about grants that are built into the companies economic model. Without a constant supply of government money through grants, the company goes bankrupt. In essence the company is financially insolvent. Without a constant supply of taxpayer money it will die.

I think you're forgetting they're publicly traded and have a market cap just shy of $28.6bil.