CraigJ[/url]":i85yqv95]
[url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=31416147#p31416147:i85yqv95 said:
Statistical[/url]":i85yqv95]
AFAIK the biggest problem that Solar City is having is that local and regional power companies (owned by the likes of Berkshire Hathaway, etf) are getting the net metering rules changed because they are eating into profits. Over the last few years they have been able to buy seats on the regulatory commissions that oversee the utilities. Regulatory capture says hi!
In Central Arizona SRP was able to change their rating to actually make solar more, not less, expensive for a lot of consumers. I ran the numbers and at best solar would be break even for me. It sure wouldn't save any money.
Looking at ownership, Musk owns about 20% of the outstanding shares of both SCTY and TSLA. Not surh how the deal would be structured, but I can't imagine that a lot of cash will be involved. Probably most if not all a stock swap.
Powerwall would be a way around that. If you are right this would be another area where synergies make sense. Granted net metering is better for most consumers so lobbying to keep net metering in effect makes sense but having storage is a fallback when they lose a territory to the ruinous powers.
Powerwall might be. The problem is in the summer my house can easily pull 20kW due to the AC (and my house isn't that large) and the fact that we don't have natural gas. I calculated that I would need 3 powerwalls (7kWh) maybe 4, to make it from dusk to dawn on hot nights. So that's $10,000 or $13,000 in addition to a properly sized PV system. In this case properly sized is in excess of 18kW. I could go on a rant about how SRP decided that net metering customers had to be on time of use metering, but no one else does. And the $50 fee to connect. But I won't. SRP is run by a bunch of people who think they are the reincarnation of Barry Goldwater...
