Tesla Motors, Inc. Is Now Officially Tesla, Inc
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/cgi/convert/pdf/APPLEINC8K.pdf?pdf...
Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05Apple-Inc-and-The-...
The Powerwall 2 order page[1] used to read "Installations begin in January 2017." I just checked back and it now reads "February 2017." On March 1, will it change to "March 2017?"
I am a very serious potential customer (dad needs help ordering a power backup solution for his medical devices) and sent a detailed email asking for more information. I didn't want to put down a deposit without more details about whether the products are available, if my area is suitable, and when installation would start ("January - no, February - no, March - actually, check back this summer" wouldn't be acceptable for my use case). I didn't hear back for a few weeks.
I just followed up again. Hopefully they respond this time, but I would imagine that I am probably going to go with another battery backup solution (or a gas-based generator solution) at this point.
Any thoughts on what they might bring to market?
There's lots of energy to be saved in better home construction, and factory-made homes can be made more cheaply than on-site built homes.
That's the one I've been hoping for ever since I saw the solar roof.
A little bit of research indicates that candles are not all that different in oxygen consumption and CO2 production than a human and that a single candle (or person) wouldn't use up the oxygen quickly if the ventilation ceased.
As long as a failure of the ventilation system is obvious (so a window can be opened or whatever), it doesn't seem like it would be a major concern.
Obviously as PV price continues to drop, this point will be met earlier and earlier.
[1] https://www.bluhomes.com/ [2] http://www.acredesigns.com/
I do still believe there is a huge opportunity for companies to disrupt the building industry with modular housing and other economic choices for people who really can benefit from this.
They already partner with (or own) SolarCity so really their overarching business is as an energy company. They collect it, they store it, and they transport it.
All they need is a logistically easier way to transport it than traditional power lines which I'm guessing would step on some toes. So their next step might be something like WiTricity. That way, they can bypass physical infrastructure.
If they really want to be in the business of making batteries, they should get out of the business of making cars as quickly as possible. It's an expensive distraction.
It's extremely difficult, the R&D costs are enormous, scaling up is difficult, thousands of little things can sink you, and once you sell a product, you will be on the hook for it for the next decade.
To me, it seems that they are a car company with a battery side business - it makes a hell of lot more sense then being a battery company with a car side business - for the same reason that Exxon-Mobil isn't an oil company with a jumbo-jet-manufacturing side business.
The only two gains I could see would be diversification (But then why not merge with Bank of America? Or Google?), and an integrated logistics system (Except that logistics for electricity and gasoline are long-solved non-problems - and have nothing to do with auto manufacturing.)
The IP for this tech will be only minimally encumbered through a relationship with a friendly entity.
what flaws of traditional power lines are holding Tesla back right now? It's not a subject i've ever really thought about, but i was under the impression that high-voltage cabling was a pretty efficient way to transport power.
But I'm not really sure that the distribution network is holding Tesla back right now. With some SolarCity and a PowerWall, you're going to be able to go off-grid. In theory. The idea is to be a total alternative to traditional energy companies and utilities.
[1]: http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...
There's another concept that builds on this called "god parity", which points out that simply distributing energy via a grid has a cost (sometimes more than half of the cost you pay), so if you imagine that you had a tame god that could generate infinite energy for free, but you still had to pay the distribution costs, then if current trends continue, then PV plus batteries would still be cheaper than paying for a grid to deliver "free" energy to your home. It's perhaps not a coincidence that Tesla provides both of the items needed to make this happen, PV and home energy storage.
http://tonyseba.com/how-to-lose-40-trillion/#attachment_1567
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/tesla-sea...
UHV DC transmission lines [1]
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-c...
Responding to a question from an analyst during the company’s quarterly results call, Musk said:
“…There's no question Tesla's going to do integrated inverter. It's the logical thing to do. I think we've got the most advanced inverter engineering team in the world, and so it makes sense to, just as we do the inverters on vehicles, to do it with solar as well and have it in a very tight package at a cents per Watt level that is, I think, probably twice as good as anyone else. I think maybe better than that.”
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/tesla-confirms-plan-to-use-own-i...
I see potential for nuclear energy in the future, and spaceships will have to resort to nuclear energy because fuel isn't going to cut it for energy intensive long term missions.
And if they figure ways to do it with minimal risk, we wouldn't have to depend on solar energy and hope it gets more and more efficient in the future.
I feel like the risks with nuclear energy are overhyped. With proper security precautions, nuclear plants wouldn't be so dangerous are many think. Except unexpected natural disasters of course. But is it really that hard to reconcile the advantages vs. disadvantages? Many coutries aren't low on space like Japan and can handle things going wrong in the nuclear plant area.
This wouldn't be a problem if nuclear fusion is achieved of course, but I waiting for someone to make a law related to "It'll be there within the next decade". Net positive energy nuclear fusion will nicely fit in with quantum computers that exhibit quantum supremacy.
To conquer low Earth orbit, chemical engines have been enough.
To conquer the solar system, we'll need nuclear.
To go much further beyond, we'll need total mass conversion.
That sounds cool, are there any links you'd suggest reading up on that? Are you talking about mass-> energy conversion in general or something specific which has already been theorized successfully?
And I was thinking not just exploration, but sustained energy intensive missions. Chemical energy will be enough for entry to space, but solar energy might not be sufficient for long term missions.
If heavy machinery needs to be operated (like space mining) we need nuclear energy, and this can happen soon enough that humans haven't yet figured out complex energy production measures like the 'total mass conversion' you mentioned.
Not today for sure. But who knows just me thinking out loud.
Musk is very much motivated by progressing humanity. At this point, the electric car and solar revolutions are well underway (thanks in part to him). But if he were to die tomorrow, it's very possible that a lot of his dreams for space travel would die with him. The industry just hasn't reached the same level of competitive self-sufficiency.
Its easier to keep the companies separate just from a compliance standpoint as what would otherwise be a minor issue can turn into a hundred million dollar fine (eg: someone accidentally given access to the wrong file server). If everyone in your company is a US citizen its much harder to accidentally create an issue under the eyes of ITAR.
Boats with solar panels running on wind+electric [this is a fantasy of mine that I have drawings with, alas it is unlikely I have 10 million to build my dream boat, but that does not mean I cannot make sketches :-) ]
[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a8101/elon-musk-o...
Here's the paragraph:
One thing we learned today: While Musk loves electric cars and spaceflight, there's one thing he hates: space solar power. "You'd have to convert photon to electron to photon back to electron. What's the conversion rate?" he says, getting riled up for the first time during his talk. "Stab that bloody thing in the heart!"
He's talking about space based solar power for terrestrial consumption. Solar cells actually generate more electricity without the atmosphere filtering the solar spectrum. But in LEO they can't stay aligned with a ground receiver. Beyond LEO they face enough charged particle radiation damage that standard silicon cells degrade too quickly, so you have to use more expensive cells. And all solar power satellite schemes rely on converting solar electricity to microwave energy in space and converting back to electricity on the ground; that's the lossy "photon to electron to photon back to electron" conversion that he (rightfully, IMO) gets riled up about.
As I see it, the solar power satellite concept could only sound plausible in the 1970s. That was back when both silicon and gallium arsenide solar cells were exotic and before the Space Shuttle had actually flown, so people could still use its ridiculously optimistic on-paper attributes to plan SPS construction. When it turned out that the Shuttle was not going to fly anywhere close to 50 times per year, and the costs per flight went up commensurately, that was a major setback. The falling cost of terrestrial PV modules based on crystalline silicon undermined another rationale for SPS. It made a lot more sense to think about exotic, expensive installation locations when the solar hardware itself was expensive regardless of location. The third setback, the falling cost of battery storage, is currently underway. A geosynchronous solar power satellite can deliver power even when it's night on Earth, but the relative value of that too is falling.