-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Okay so to summarize: does anyone here seriously believe that Tesla is making an offer knowing full well that SCTY is in dare short to medium term financial trouble? That seems to be the linchpin of the argument.
I'd liken Kauai to Ivanpah, CA. What they're doing with molten salt, heated by solar, serves the same timing difference Solar City is trying to solve. As to cost, nothing beats natural gas once CO2 regs are complied with. You can only make those regs more difficult, with 100% RPS requirements, etc.
A Tower of Molten Salt Will Deliver Solar Power After Sunset
I believe that project's cost was to be 2.2bb, resulting in 340MW output (from full sun). That’s $6.50 per watt, or $13, if we nix 12 hours of the day off. The Kauai project, if 40 million, for 13MW, would be a better ~$3, but nowhere near an NG peaker, at closer to a buck, before (cheap) fuel costs.
Lazard pegs NG peakers at LCOE of $165 - $218 / MWh assuming a NG price of $3.50/MMBtu (which is a fair assumption). At $2.43 NG their low-end price is $155/MWh.
Kauai is contracted at $145 / MWh. In short, yes, it is cheaper than building a new peaker.
Kauai is contracted at $145 / MWh. In short, yes, it is cheaper than building a new peaker.
stealthology
Member
If the large shareholders who will be voting think so, they'll likely not let the deal go through. If the deal is let through, smart money is thinking long term and this could all turn out quite well in due time.
You're comparing a unit cost (MWh), to a cost to build. You can't build PV battery projects close to the cost of NG. NG is closer to 3 cents kwh's all-in ($30/MWh), assuming your plant hasn't paid down. Nobody is getting paid back, in wholesale power, whose project needs $145MWh to recover.
Yes
Check Cash & Equivalents from SCTY balance sheets for past few quarters to assess the trend. Check the recent financing deals and cash flows. Put the puzzle together. You tell me what Cash & Eqiv will be for Q2.
Then also tells us what you think will happen when various financing and business partners see that number in broad day light.
If that's your main criticism, I suggest sticking to solitaire. Cost, reliability, ease of use, and communication are the main differentiators between Solar companies. SolarCity is the gold standard for all of these. Unfortunately, most people don't have going solar at the top of their priorities. That's why SolarCity advertises. You think the Ra ads are pushy? Have you seen the ratings for them on YouTube. People enjoy them and the Ra campaign has gone viral.
SolarCity is the least pushiest of all Solar companies. Green Mountain Solar and some random no-name companies that keep calling me are pushy. SolarCity reaches out to those who express interest and follows up with people on a reasonable basis. If you've run into one or more excessively pushy SolarCity reps, I'd suggest you tell SolarCity about those people.
SolarCity lowers people's energy bills with a product that is guaranteed to work as promised, and is a very well run and managed company. For most people, these are the main things that matter.
No, I'm comparing a unit cost (LCOE) to a unit cost (LCOE). This is the only way to do it because solar + batteries are capital-intenstive while fuel-burning is fuel-intensive.
Indeed.
At this point, even if they have spectacular news on delivery numbers, how much would that even bump the SP? Back to 215?
This is nothing like ivanpah in my opinion. Solarcity's Kuaui product is more like a nat gas peaker plant for demand response then a centralized utility power plant off in the desert.
Solarcity's product has immediate dispatchable capabilities which can not be duplicated with nat gas peakers, just not technically/physically possible. Also they can built this product in months as opposed to years for nat gas peaker. In addition , fuel costs are zero, which makes all cost come down to technology cost reduction with scale and innovation that fossil fuel sourced tech can't duplicate either. If we take out all corporate subsidization of fossil fuel industry and utility industry as well as solar, right now, today Solarcity would be massively cheaper then any nat gas peaker, in addition to pollution/environmental costs avoided. Imagine what is going to happen as Solarcity product continues to reduce costs to best out nat gas with all the fossil fuel corporate subsides... Societal tax savings could skyrocket as well down the line which becomes a major sellin point for society at large for this tesla/Solarcity technology.
But more immediately, Solarcity's product spins up and down in the fraction of the time of nat gas and others, is faster to develop and implement, significantly reduces societal/environmental costs compared to nat gas peaker, and can be scaled up and down to any size and be place anywhere it is required, and this is a nod to rooftop solar and its flexibility to aggregate these systems to act as a peaker plant for nearly any capacity requirement required. It is why Elon says this technology has infinite scaling ability which is not afforded by nat gas or other fossil fuel based technologies.
stealthology
Member
We're taking the slide down right now. No shares available to short at IB btw. Probably safe to say short interest has ramped up. Traders piling on? SeekingAlpha is having a field day with Tesla today.
Alright, SCTY likely won't be a price moving catalyst for a little bit. Our next catalyst is earnings. Toss up. I am really hoping Tesla is able to produce 100-200k Model 3's during the 2nd half of next year. My LEAP's basically depend on it.
Want to go to $180?? DO IT. See what happens.
That's what I'm thinking.. what meaningful catalysts do we really have? Meeting this year's guidance? A gigafactory party? Most meaningful catalyst I can think of is next year with Model 3 prep and production.
Alright, SCTY likely won't be a price moving catalyst for a little bit. Our next catalyst is earnings. Toss up. I am really hoping Tesla is able to produce 100-200k Model 3's during the 2nd half of next year. My LEAP's basically depend on it.
Want to go to $180?? DO IT. See what happens.
That's what I'm thinking.. what meaningful catalysts do we really have? Meeting this year's guidance? A gigafactory party? Most meaningful catalyst I can think of is next year with Model 3 prep and production.
Last edited:
From what I see Causalien is one of the few here who is actually looking at the financial reports to see what's going on.
Him and I are precisely on the same page on pretty much every post he made so far regards to this deal.
Him and I are precisely on the same page on pretty much every post he made so far regards to this deal.
Now you're comparing Kauai to an *existing* peaker, which is an entirely different scenario from comparing it to a *new* peaker. Yes, battery installs are not going to replace *existing* paid-off peakers. They will eliminate the market for *new* peakers.
(Question how large the market for new peakers will be. I haven't actually sat down and analyzed this. My first instinct is "electricity demand is dropping, so the demand for new peakers will be low". But my second instinct is "electricity demand is getting more peaky, so the demand for new peakers will be high". Have to look into this more carefully!)
Last edited:
EM himself has lost more money in tesla share value than his entire stake in solar city today.
Try looking at this as a need to develop a peaker plant to meet demand response requirements and then do the cost projections... How's this compare in market for other demand response technologies in order to integrate this capability onto the grid?
Compare how many times a peaker is actually used as well... What is the cost to develop and implement a peaker plant that spins up and down no more then 6-8 times a year?
Last edited:
Seriously. All of you people are loco. I haven't seen people posting this frequently about something they clearly don't understand in over a year. So many on here who clearly don't understand SolarCity or the type of arrangement Tesla is proposing. Chanos is wrong and clearly doesn't understand SolarCity's business model. Apparently most of the people on here are rehashing the same nonsense being reported by people who also don't understand SolarCity's business model.
The majority of SolarCity's sharers are owned by around 5 parties. All of these parties are long and have no intention of selling. What do you people not understand about this?
The majority of SolarCity's sharers are owned by around 5 parties. All of these parties are long and have no intention of selling. What do you people not understand about this?
You know what happened in last qrtr that didn't happen this qrtr? I mean did you compare in coming financing.
Secondly what was the size of the company when it was last running under sub 300mln cash? What is the size now?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
