As SolarCity Crashes, Is Elon Musk Overrated?
SolarCity is struggling. Tesla is struggling. Elon Musk is not the King Midas of making companies perfect. Musk’s magic can’t do everything anymore. –Ryan McQueeney, Nasdaq, 10 May 2016
Shares of SolarCity nose-dived on Tuesday after disclosing earnings results that cast gloom over the provider of solar systems. The big problems for the solar company: The quarterly report disclosed a loss that was bigger than expected, and management followed that up with a dismal outlook for future results. So far in 2016, SolarCity shares have plummeted 65 percent. –George Avalon, Silicon Beat, 10 May 2016
The real problem with Tesla cars is that no one actually buys them. Well, not directly. Their manufacture is heavily subsidized — and their sale is heavily subsidized. Tesla does not make money by selling cars, either. It makes money by selling “carbon credits” to real car companies that make functionally and economically viable vehicles that can and do sell on the merits — but which are not “zero emissions” vehicles. It is estimated that Musk’s various ventures — including his new SolarCity solar panel operation and SpaceX — have cost taxpayers at least $4.9 billion, with Tesla accounting for about half of that dole. –Eric Peters, The Detroit News, 9 May 2016
After their hot rally at the end of last year, shares of solar energy firms have turned ice cold as concerns about slower growth and regulatory uncertainties plague the group. SolarCity led the sell-off on Tuesday after the company cut its 2016 forecast for solar panel installations late on Monday and posted a larger-than-expected quarterly loss. Investors have been worried about the outlook for growth for the solar sector, especially following a pullback in an important Nevada solar support policy and uncertainty about pending regulatory decisions in other states. Nevada regulators this year announced changes that mean new tariffs that will raise fees solar customers pay to use electric grids. Reimbursements to users are also being cut and investors fear such moves could be repeated in other states. –Caroline Valetkevitch, Reuters, 11 May 2016
Worse, the company implicitly predicted more rough quarters ahead, dialing down its target for solar-power system installations this year. With fewer homeowners and businesses opting for a SolarCity solar-power array, the company will have trouble keeping its installation costs down. After three-quarters of foiled expectations, SolarCity’s “credibility is likely at an all-time low,” analysts at Roth Capital said in a note to clients Tuesday. The stock lost more than 25% on Tuesday, on track for its lowest close and its largest one-day decrease since February. Shares are down more than 44% so far this month, and more than 66% year-to-date. Shares traded as low as $16.50 earlier Tuesday, off more than 80% from an all-time high of $86.14 in February 2014. – MarketWatch, 10 May 2016
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF
Ya ever notice how nobody ever comes to the defense of these solar companies ?
A skeptic might begin to believe it is because they don’t want to draw attention…..lest someone starts looking thru their books.
Trivia:
Solar City is now occupying the buildings in Fremont/Milpitas that were owned by Solyndra !
Greens think recycling is virtuous.
Well it seems that despite Elon Musk’s nose diving stock, there are still some brave, intrepid (scheming) souls willing to try and produce a functional electric vehicle.
I confess the concept of this semi-tractor trailer is interesting. But the question is can they build them on their own or will they have to be subsidized.
Of course I imagine it is possible by simply marketing it in a big fancy shiny box with the small print on the bottom “batteries not included”
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/05/11/nikola-motors-sleek-hybrid-semi-is-tesla-trucks/
michael
This is more like a Volt so it actually has a chance of working.
I wonder how the gas turbine is housed safely and spun up? I would have thought a gas reciprocating engine would be better suited.
I confess I am intrigued. Natural Gas for fuel. At 150 gal. what would the weight difference be with a standard diesel? What is the Battery weight? The difference in hp is enticing. Depending on how all the trade offs balance out this could be useful.
michael
Every year, the MSM recycles the same “news” item of a highly motivated team of university students who set another “record” in a solar powered-car. The “improvement” to the functionality is usually negligible, but since its a good “news” story, it runs. And runs. And runs. Unlike the car.
Have a family member who was on solar car team and these won’t fly. Even dust and scratches affect the performance. I’ve been right next to a solar car.
Nice to have university solar teams as they are teaching tools as well. And there is all the planning and coordination that goes into solar car races.
And the lightest team member is the driver.
I was told a couple of days ago that Dish Network was planning to enter the solar panel market soon.
Oh please, all they need is a few billion in government support to become ‘profitable’. Solar is viable, just ask any environmentalist. It HAS to be.
Hmmmm … Enron just kinda ‘peaked early’ it appears after reading the comments on Musk and company … plus Enron was in a different ‘market’.
Clearly the problem for SolarCity is not enough tweeting by Elon Musk to make fantasy projections and claims. Then again, that model is running out of steam for Tesla.
The Musk Doctrine: Never set a deadline you’re likely to keep.
Elon Musk’s Tesla Strategy: Win Big by Falling Short – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-09/elon-musk-s-tesla-strategy-win-big-by-falling-short
And the interconnected finances between his companies is just a way to hide how leverage his position is. The failure of any one will almost certainly bankrupt the others.
Elon Musk Supports His Business Empire With Unusual Financial Moves – http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-supports-his-business-empire-with-unusual-financial-moves-1461781962
As much as I want Solar City to fail, I’d prefer Tesla to succeed. Because, car dealerships are even worse than global warming salesmen.
The old saying applies here… a fool and their money are soon parted.. sadly the fools in this case are .. the taxpayers, shareholders and customers.
Im no Musk fan, but not huge on gloating about innovators doing poorly, regardless of field
Musk’s “innovation” is his hyped up, leveraged, subsidized business model.
He does not personally contribute in a technical sense to his businesses
Musk is a modern day snake oil salesman. He uses slight of hand to make billions by scamming governments for clean energy subsidies. ENRON comes to mind!
Bill
I sure hope he has SpaceX walled off from Tesla and Solarcity. There at least he appears to be making real money and demonstrating real progress. No, providing contracted services to the government isn’t a subsidy. The US government is getting a good deal. They’d get an even better one if the NASA turkeys got out of the way.
I cannot believe how a smart hard working bloke like Musk as fallen for the enviroscam. Possibly he is cynical enough to simply be working it for all it is worth. I hope so.
Makes D.D. Harriman’s little scam in “The Man Who Sold The Moon” look like peanuts.
Nope. Read this article to see how SpaceX is being used to prop up SolarCity by “investing” in the latter’s bonds
http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-supports-his-business-empire-with-unusual-financial-moves-1461781962
Circular leveraging is part of Musk’s ponzi
Repackaging 18650s is a mere marketing art form. As ever, the cash is in the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0DaXNiBQLU
I’ve always been so conflicted by Elon Musk. On the one hand, PayPal was a brilliant exploitation of capitalism. There was a need and PayPal fulfilled it. Exactly what free market capitalism is supposed to engender. SpaceX’s undeniable accomplishments are already legendary. As a demonstration of how the free market can out perform the established military industrial complex, it is even more legendary. But it’s all government money.
Tesla is another great example. Actually building and deploying to meet a perceived need whilst everyone else just thinks about it. Brilliant. And retroactively enabling “Ludicrous Speed”, even more brilliant. But, again, that doesn’t work without government money.
When I was confronted with my first SolarCity pitch, I recognized exactly what they were actually selling. Their upfront expenditure on the hardware and installation so that they could subsidy farm from these installations for decades. Brilliant. Again, all based on raking in government money.
I was pleased, and proud, that the video of the first successful landing of the Falcon showed the SpaceX employees that had accomplished this great feat chanting “U! S! A!” at their headquarters. But I still can’t quite figure out if Elon Musk is the great innovator and creator that the world all too desperately needs, or if he’s the worst sort of Aynn Randian crony capitalist that spells our final doom.
Musk has figured out how to monetize the ignorant voter. Kudos for that.
SpaceX launches are not all government contacts.
The last launch was for the Japanese, so Musk is now a major exporter, earning money for America Inc. And now his rockets have proven to be reliable, there are private many companies looking for launches, because Musk is much cheaper than NASA or Ariane. And cheaper than the Ruskies too. It is a matter of power and payload. When SpaeX designs a launcher capable of reasonable geostatioary payloads, he will attract a whole host of private/commercial launches.
And this was really quite forward thinking. Branson and Bellos were thinking of sub-orbital lobs for tourists, while Musk went straight to orbit to capture work from NASA. Who would have thought, ten years ago, that NASA would allow a private company to dock with the ISS space station? Who would have thought that a private company could underbid and take NASA launch slots?
That is quite a ballsy goal, for a new company that had never even launched a firework before.
Ralph
According to the Rennix Index (German index of world’s largest alt en companies stocks), Alt en stocks have crashed from a peak in 2007 of about 2,000 to just 150 in 2012 (a 93% collapse).
http://www.renewable-energy-industry.com/stocks
There has been a recent dead-cat bounce since hitting a temporary bottom in 2011/12, (150 to 400), but the market is clearly screaming that wind and solar are dead and unviable industries.
Once the HUGE government wind and solar subsidies are forced to end, wind and solar companies will be forced into bankruptcy as a large number already have.
The only people that will end up make money on wind and solar companies are those that short-sold these silly companies, or better yet, bought puts.
I pay $6/month, every month here in Tucson AZ, as a non-solar TEP customer (Tucson Electric Power) so that Musk’s Solar City scheme can stay afloat. End the billionaire welfare.
I still have a problem with electric vehicles being called ‘Zero Emissions’, when they put out more emissions than my diesel. Especially in coal-fired America.
The Nissan Leaf advertised this in the UK, so I got the Advertising Standards Authority to rule that this claim was untrue and misleading. So did Nissan admit the truth? No, they changed the advertising tag-line to ‘ The Car With No Exhaust Pipe’.
Grrrrrrrrrr.
I have said this before, but Musk’s real name is Nibbor Dooh (the reverse of Robbin Hood). He takes money from poor tax payers, and gives it in subsidies to the rich who can afford his Teslas.
Having said that, I like Musk’s new rocket technology. It is high technology, forward thinking, cutting edge, providing s useful service, and unashamedly NON-GREEN. How many carbon credits does he have to give back, with each launch?
NASA have been in the rocket business for 65 years, and never even thought of doing this. Then Musk perfects the art in less than five years. Suck on that, NASA.
SpaceX lands the first stage launcher back on a barge….
NASA attempted reusability with the Space Shuttle which lasted seemingly forever and never developed far from its original concept. The cost was bizarre, increasing over time instead of decreasing if I recall correctly.
I suppose so. But as I understand it, they had to rebuild the engines after each launch, which was almost as expensive as building new ones. It never became a true reusable spaceplane. And now they are back to expendable Saturn 5 lookalikes.
Musk is quoting multiple launches from each engine. We shall see.
R
Very cool.
I’d feel a lot better seeing a video of the navy (or anybody ) shooting it down.
Musk says that fuel far a Falcon 9 launch costs about $200k.
I’d rather see private financing for adventures like space, Tesla, solar, but the government already takes 40 pct from profitable companies. If PayPal had been taxed less, the money would have been availible for investment or other, as Musk saw fit. EdwardConard.com makes a strong argument in editorials and videos explaining the benefits of letting the rich spend their money.
Government money is clumsily trying to replace money that should have been spent or invested by the earner. In the past there have been successes like the interstate highway system, but that should have been sold off generations ago. There are also the advances like the transistor and other military financed inventions that also advanced civilian economy.
Looks to me that many here are Luddites but masquerading as small government fans of which I am one. christopherchantrill.com is a good conservative site which presents US government spending and revenue in pre made or customizable graphs so you can see things like total government spending of 100 years ago at roughly ten percent of GDP, but amazingly distributed with localities having the largest share of tax and spend, federal second, and states third! Great amounts of detail can be broken out. Wonderful tools, but it takes some work to master everything. Chantrill answers emails.
I just got back from Europe. I saw more Teslas in Amsterdam in two days than I have seen on the road in the US since the Tesla brand was established. A bunch of them were taxi cabs.
How does the carbon subsidy work for cars sol overseas? Are we paying for those, too?
Don’t know about Holland but in Denmark cars are subject to 180% purchase tax. Electric cars like the Tesla are exempt making them only slightly more expensive than your average exec saloon. Copenhagen is stuffed with them.
Musk is often compared to Tony Stark by greenies/leftists.
I would love to see Josh do a cartoon of Musk as a superhero whose super power is subsidies.
Musk has paid back his half billion dollar loan according to Wikipedia.
Elon Musk and SpaceX are overrated. His Dragon spacecraft does not carry any astronaut, cannot carry the Hubble Space Telescope (weigh 11 tons) and can only carry 3.3 tons of cargo. It is inferior to the Space Shuttle that can carry 7 astronauts and 27 tons of cargo. Dragon is also inferior to the European ATV and the Japanese HTV spacecrafts that can carry 7.6 tons and 6 tons respectively. Current SpaceX falcon rockets cannot carry 3 men to the moon like the 1960s Saturn V rocket. These are cheaper, smaller, less impressive rockets. Musk’s plan to colonize Mars is science fiction and will not happen in his lifetime. He’s a shrewd businessman and a lousy scientist.
I think you are competing with him, then, for you are a lousy scientist.
1) Of course the cargo Dragon capsules do not carry passengers; that is what the crewed Dragon capsule (in development) will do. Name me any other US space transportation system that can get an astronaut to the International Space Station (answer: none). I guess you could criticize a Corvette for not being able to carry a piano.
2) Nothing on earth, except possibly a Russian Proton, could carry the Hubble Space Telescope. What is the point in dwelling on the glory of an extinct technology? Space Shuttles are museum fossils.
3) Not sure about the ATV and HTV, but do they bring-em-back-alive? The Dragon capsule allows a cargo return.
4) Titan-Gemini rockets couldn’t carry 3 men to the moon, either. I guess you will have to wait for Musk to produce his moon-worthy vehicle family (not long to wait).
5) Any plan to colonize Mars is science fiction, right up there with orbiting around the Earth and going to the Moon. I’m glad you are familiar with your science fiction. I guess none of this happened in your lifetime. How old are you? Maybe it happened before you were born!
And me? I’ve only worked in aerospace for the past 40 years, keeping close tabs on SpaceX and how they are recapitulating the history of rocketry as their enterprise continues.
The Dragon capsule is small compared to the Space Shuttle whether it carries men or cargo. Dragon is not a sports car. It is designed to carry payloads to space like the Space Shuttle. They are comparable.
The “museum fossil” is better than the SpaceX “state of the art”
Musk is still dreaming of his moon rocket. Von Braun is long dead and his moon rockets had brought 36 men to the moon 42 years ago. 12 walked on it.
We have not colonized the moon, not even Antarctica – which is much more hospitable to life than Mars. A space station on the moon is not a colony. Colonization means an established community of ordinary people living in a place for good. The Spaniards explored the United States in the 16th century but it was the Americans who colonized it in the 17th century. I know my history and science fiction. You seems confused about these two.
Correction: Not 36 but 21 astronauts
More of Musk’s “scientific innovations”
The Tesla Roadster is a wonderful electric car but it is inferior to gasoline cars in performance. The 1965 Shelby Cobra is faster (165 mph vs. 125 mph) and quicker on the quarter mile (12.2 sec. vs. 12.6 sec) Another example of “museum fossil” beating Musk’s “state of the art”
The advantage of electric cars is in energy efficiency but that is not unique to Tesla cars. It’s an old technology. Edison built an electric car in 1912.
We should count the crew of the aborted Apollo 13 mission as they reached within 254 km above the moon’s surface. 21 + 3 = 24 men went to the moon riding Von Braun’s “museum fossils” while Musk’s “state of the art” has not send a single man 250 km above earth
Dear Doctor,
This is almost hilarious, except that you are so earnest in your failure to see the point.
1) You are comparing a living commercial enterprise to a dead government pyramid. You don’t deny that it is a fossil.
2) “Better” how? Certainly not by price per pound placed in orbit. (I had a mentor who observed that the Space Shuttle was “the world’s heaviest payload shroud.”)
3) It took von Braun about 30 years to realize his dream, so be patient and see what Musk has accomplished in that time. So far, he has progressed more rapidly than von Braun. He is arguably the first to perfect a reusable first stage (full reuse still needs to be verified).
4) Yes, we have not colonized anywhere. Did anyone say we had? (This is a variation of the “sky is blue” assertion. Who can argue with it?) Myself, I thought it was science fiction. Of course, it could come to pass. Stay tuned.
5) Mentioning the Tesla line of coal-burning automobiles is impertinent.
6) If we are counting crew, then the Apollo program deserves credit for putting 3 below ground, and the Space Shuttle program should be remembered for killing 14 crew in two separately hideous manners. At least Musk’s technology and methodology has not yet killed anyone, which puts him above the deathtrap you seem to idolize. These deaths were the result of deliberate design decisions which proved to be ill-considered. I really have no sympathy for those who rhapsodize over a hugely expensive technological project like the Shuttle, which was intrinsically compromised from its conception, never achieved its mission goals of economical space transportation, and destroyed 14 people through a technical obsession with the use of cryogenic propellants. Somehow, the preciousness of human life just doesn’t compare to the glamor of a fiery launch.
I have concentrated on the design of launch vehicles for years of my career, so I rebuff any suggestion that I am antagonistic to space travel. But I have also recently married, and I now have a step-family that I thought I never would have…and I am reminded that all the dreams of glory are as nothing compared to the wonder of love.
For SolarCity, if you go on vacation, you are still paying for power generated.
It [Tesla] makes money by selling “carbon credits” to real car companies that make functionally and economically viable vehicles that can and do sell on the merits — but which are not “zero emissions” vehicles.
Only in some far away world inhabited by Unicorns could anyone claim that a Tesla vehicle is “zero emissions”. It simply leaves its emissions elsewhere. The idea that it gets “carbon credits” for doing so simply throws ‘limelight’ on yet another aspect of this corrupt game.
JUST THANK ALL THE ELECTRIC CAR OWNERS …….. CARS POWERED BY ” COAL ” ….. WONDERFUL ( OH ….. DON’T LET THEM KNOW THIS , THEY MIGHT BE UPSET )
“”””GREEN IS THE NEW BLACK””””
What is the trend with reliability and maintenance/running costs of solar? Is it getting any better? Or worse?