-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
doggusfluffy
Closed
I guess we know they didn't bother polling one excruciatingly logical soul...
Poll shows majority of Nevadans support rooftop solar — and old rates
NV Energy customers to see another rate drop this week
Poll shows majority of Nevadans support rooftop solar — and old rates
NV Energy customers to see another rate drop this week
I know Solarcity has historically been focused on residential solar. The stated goal for Tesla acquisition of Solarcity is to provide a retail customer with an EV, solar and battery backup shopping solution.
However, one other thought I had was that the synergy of solar and powerwall solutions seems a more obvious fit for commercial purchasers. For example, MGM and NRG now (although no powerwall that we know of, anybody know otherwise?). Also other Casinos (Wynn and Sands) have expressed a desire to separate themselves from NV Energy. It would seem that commercial customers would stand to gain the most from Solar/Powerwall since most are the primary consumers of peak demand power during the day. I do not know if commercial customers can negotiate better rate terms, but since the big casinos want to leave NV Energy, it doesn't seem that way.
I know Musk had met with the Pentagon, and likely discussed energy solutions for the military. That could be a potential large scale buyer of Tesla/Solarcity products. I can only imagine the list would grow exponentially if Tesla can offer larger scale energy solutions.
Just thinking.
However, one other thought I had was that the synergy of solar and powerwall solutions seems a more obvious fit for commercial purchasers. For example, MGM and NRG now (although no powerwall that we know of, anybody know otherwise?). Also other Casinos (Wynn and Sands) have expressed a desire to separate themselves from NV Energy. It would seem that commercial customers would stand to gain the most from Solar/Powerwall since most are the primary consumers of peak demand power during the day. I do not know if commercial customers can negotiate better rate terms, but since the big casinos want to leave NV Energy, it doesn't seem that way.
I know Musk had met with the Pentagon, and likely discussed energy solutions for the military. That could be a potential large scale buyer of Tesla/Solarcity products. I can only imagine the list would grow exponentially if Tesla can offer larger scale energy solutions.
Just thinking.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
The post-Brexit world is looking pretty nuts, treasuries are paying next to nothing. In this environment isn't the yield on a clearly safe SolarCitry PPA bond highly attractive?
Does the pending(seemingly inevitable if Elon wants it) merger with TSLA provide enough additional "corporate certainty" to allow the cost of financing to shrink considerably right now? In essence, can we get something close to TSLA rates now?
Does the pending(seemingly inevitable if Elon wants it) merger with TSLA provide enough additional "corporate certainty" to allow the cost of financing to shrink considerably right now? In essence, can we get something close to TSLA rates now?
Interesting article by David Crane.
TeslaCity: Will car company + solar company = shareholder happiness?
I usually like where his head is with our transition to sustainable energy, but not sure he understands the whole energy circle with Tesla. Here are some quotes:
I agree with this - the market never let up on the company's projections after that and seemed to have forgotten why SolarCity did what it did.
Short-sighted opinion since Elon said at the Annual Shareholder Meeting that Tesla's energy business will probably be at least 50%.....market still ignores this.
Short-sighted again. If you have been paying attention to what Tesla is doing, the energy and solar industry, JB interviews over the years, it's a no-brainer.
I think something like this was proposed on here, but I still think Tesla will make it even better than before with their strategic ideas on the future of the grid.
TeslaCity: Will car company + solar company = shareholder happiness?
I usually like where his head is with our transition to sustainable energy, but not sure he understands the whole energy circle with Tesla. Here are some quotes:
I agree with this - the market never let up on the company's projections after that and seemed to have forgotten why SolarCity did what it did.
Short-sighted opinion since Elon said at the Annual Shareholder Meeting that Tesla's energy business will probably be at least 50%.....market still ignores this.
Short-sighted again. If you have been paying attention to what Tesla is doing, the energy and solar industry, JB interviews over the years, it's a no-brainer.
I think something like this was proposed on here, but I still think Tesla will make it even better than before with their strategic ideas on the future of the grid.
The IB rate to short SCTY just hit 211%. Not a typo! What is going on??
jhm
Well-Known Member
I've been playing with CAISO hourly data from November to present. The more I work with it, the more I come to the opinion that solar will dominate wind in the longrun. I am looking forward to a time when there is sufficient battery storage to smooth out intradaily mismatch of supply and demand. At this point, thermal power is only needed to address energy shortfall, not load balancing. So here are the limitations of wind.
First, daily wind production is quite variable from day to day. Solar provides a more stable supply of daily energy. So with lots of wind, wider regional transmission networks are needed, and multiple days of battery storage are needed to smooth out the supply. So that is a lot more hardware to make wind stable relative to what solar would need at the same scale of annual production.
Second, in California, spring and fall are more productive seasons for wind, though summer and winter are when demand are highest. By contrast solar production varies smoothly through the season with minimum production in January and maximum in July. The daily average doubles from January to July. So if there is sufficient solar for summer and winter, there is more than enough in spring and fall. So when it comes time to balance seasonal loads, there will be little value in having substantial wind generation.
Third, I suspect that wind in California may be limited geographically, but this is hardly a problem for solar. If wind were dominant in the state, it would mostly be imported from other western and midwestern states, but this is simply reiterating the point of dependency of extensive transmission networks.
So far the advantage that wind has enjoyed is economic. It became price competitive with traditional generation years before solar did, and it is still largely cheaper than solar. It also tends to generate a more even supply of power throughout the day, so it may be a bit easier to integrate with thermal generation. But in this mix day to day variation in production is not a huge problem as thermal generators fill the gap. But in a day when there is very little thermal generation and quite substantial storage capacity (> 10 hours at average consumption), solar will be the more reliable supply of energy and better matched with the seasons, at least for California. The situation may well be different for other states.
First, daily wind production is quite variable from day to day. Solar provides a more stable supply of daily energy. So with lots of wind, wider regional transmission networks are needed, and multiple days of battery storage are needed to smooth out the supply. So that is a lot more hardware to make wind stable relative to what solar would need at the same scale of annual production.
Second, in California, spring and fall are more productive seasons for wind, though summer and winter are when demand are highest. By contrast solar production varies smoothly through the season with minimum production in January and maximum in July. The daily average doubles from January to July. So if there is sufficient solar for summer and winter, there is more than enough in spring and fall. So when it comes time to balance seasonal loads, there will be little value in having substantial wind generation.
Third, I suspect that wind in California may be limited geographically, but this is hardly a problem for solar. If wind were dominant in the state, it would mostly be imported from other western and midwestern states, but this is simply reiterating the point of dependency of extensive transmission networks.
So far the advantage that wind has enjoyed is economic. It became price competitive with traditional generation years before solar did, and it is still largely cheaper than solar. It also tends to generate a more even supply of power throughout the day, so it may be a bit easier to integrate with thermal generation. But in this mix day to day variation in production is not a huge problem as thermal generators fill the gap. But in a day when there is very little thermal generation and quite substantial storage capacity (> 10 hours at average consumption), solar will be the more reliable supply of energy and better matched with the seasons, at least for California. The situation may well be different for other states.
jhm
Well-Known Member
big funds who lend out their shares to short for interest need to recall those shares for voting purposes.
So a fair dinkum short squeeze must occur.
but, its not due to fundamentals, and the bond market consider SCTY itself to be unviable as an independent entity.
Bonds Detail
I've never seen such conviction that a short squeeze occurs on a company that is so reasonably headed for 'extinction'
(ownership by another is extinction, so when TSLA absorbs SCTY, SCTY will be extinct)
blood is thicker than water
Fidelity presumably has lent out many of its 14 million shares to short. What happens when they recall these shares to vote? Why have most of the shorts not covered their position based simply on the announced intent of Tesla to purchase SCTY?
The large institutional investors in this game have insider knowledge of both companies. I would like to understand better the strategies of both sides. Sentiments of small investors probably aren't influences prices much at this point.
doggusfluffy
Closed
jhm
Well-Known Member
Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) & SolarCity Corp (SCTY) Deal Has Near-Term Synergies Of $156-389 Million
Not sure if this has been posted, but Credit Suisse analyst estimates that near-term SG&A synergies could reduce the cost per watt by 16 to 39 cents.
Not sure if this has been posted, but Credit Suisse analyst estimates that near-term SG&A synergies could reduce the cost per watt by 16 to 39 cents.
This is what I'd like to know. Anyone shorting SCTY at this point is betting very heavily that the merger will not go through, which seems like an extraordinary gamble, given that it's a bet against both companies' management, a bet that "no" voters haven't already sold their stock, and a bet against the single largest independent stockholder (a Fidelity fund) which has already come out in favor of the merger. If you think the merger will go through, and you're totally sour on the business, you would short TSLA instead (much cheaper to borrow and higher priced). Some people are not thinking clearly.
Had I been short SCTY before the merger announcement, I would have immmediately gotten out of SCTY and shorted TSLA instead, just for the arbitrage value. But I don't short stock. I don't know how these short-sellers are thinking, but I can't think of any explanation which makes them rational.
The only rationale I can come up with for current shorting situation is folks expect a disastrous Q2 from Solar City and are falling all over each other to get in before the drop.
Good thought. However -- Shorting is almost always a terrible idea because you can usually make a bearish bet with less risk and higher payback using options. So actual shorting is only appropriate if you are being bearish for an *indefinite period* (because options expire). So someone making a bet based on expectations of Q2 numbers should be using options, not shorting -- so shorts are *still* not thinking clearly if your hypothesis is right.
doggusfluffy
Closed
- Status
Similar threads
