So how do you ensure that sciencists stay careful and try to be objective, how do you have any objectivity in allocation of funds etc. without some metric? I hate the publish or perish system, but that is due to wrong metrics. If (purely pulling this out of my as, probably a horrible idea) a flimsy study counted negatively to your index and a faulty one outright wrecked it (with complete ruin if you do not redo/retract), that would probably skew the metric optimisation to more carefully thought out, substantial research
I'm not sure that scientists need to be super objective for science to work. The history of science is so littered with grudges, feuds, and grit in spite of evidence that it's hard to see the ground of objective rationality that many assert is behind it.
And pandemonium models [1] of computation show that the right rules of cummunication can produce astonishing order from chatic self interest. If scientst were forced to pre publish their methods and share all data -- science would probably work better. This is true even if this change had no effect on their behavior, or even if they made every effort to game the system.
This imrpovement to science doesn't ask a committee to define or measure anything ineffable, and it doesn't expect individuals to change thier behavior. It just changes the rule of interaction in a way that better favors the systems epistomological progress.
Objective scientists are a good thing, but are not - and should never be - considered an essencial component of the system. Any system that assumes honesty and fair play in its participants is doomed to failure. What science was aiming for is getting the true results from the aggregate - thus peer reviews, replication, etc.
Of course the more noise you have, the less efficient the system is, so it's good to incentivize people to do honest, objective work - thus pre-publishing / pre-registering, sharing data and algorithms, etc. are all good and important goals. But so should be changing the metric affecting the aggregate - like making sure scientists are actually incentivized to replicate previous work.
This was figured out long ago. Before people should believe you know what you are talking about, you need to make precise and accurate predictions about the future (comet should reappear on x date) or perform engineering feats (pull a ship out of the water using only your own manpower).
People just don't like this real solution because it means many (really, most) of the wild speculations they hold as dear dogma (and have been calling science) will need to be reassessed using the correct metric. There will undoubtedly be a lot of egg on many faces.
> how do you have any objectivity in allocation of funds etc. without some metric?
Our need for "objectivity" here is to a large extent driven by the centralization of the funding allocation that http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm warned about and has since come to pass. If funding were more decentralized, lack of objectivity in any particular funding source would be _much_ less of a problem.
Specifically: The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yes, but the point is that semiconductor companies don't focus on that problem because you'd be dissipating power anyway, which is less attractive, according to the article.
> As I pointed out above, the status quo is actually pretty good.
For you. And me. But we are not the majority. The majority does not benefit from automation, globalisation etc. as much as you and me.
And it doesn't matter if in absolute terms we are all better of(for which citation would be needed, specifically for the lowest income bracket), it matters that the benefits of this new age are not spread around to those bearing the costs as efficiently as necessary.
This is why people vote for brexit, trump, afd etc. And no, those don't have the answers either. But they offer convenient scapegoats and changes with "tangible" effect in favour of their voting base.
Politicians on the left and the right are united in their elitism and their own bubbles of what is "important", and they have become disconnected from their populace so much that they can't even coral them effectively any more.
There's a strong disconnect amongst the beneficiaries of globalization that the status quo is overall good -- it's probably TERRIBLE for a quarter of the people, treading water for half, and beneficial to the remainder who are in positions that leverage cultural and technological progress.
A lot of communities are absolutely gutted by rural flight and the shift of power to urban tech centers, and they're really hurting. This is a consistent theme across many Westernized nations.
Trump, in my estimation, hacked his way into the White House. He recognized key vulnerabilities in the way the media handles politics and exploited them for all they're worth, putting his meagre resources where they counted, and ignoring everything else. This allowed him to remain the underdog right up until he won the election.
These vulnerabilities are going to be fixed in the next four years. There's just too much at stake for it to be otherwise.
When you say that to your own supporters what you're saying is "I know that some of you don't have as much education as you may have wanted. You're welcome here, and will be listened to."
Instead of that, the Democrats ran on "stupid people are mad because they are poor. We smart, enlightened people should make them shut up, and show them that this isn't their country anymore." i.e. "We will herd the poorly educated."
Trump University is indefensible, but do you really believe categorically that people with e.g. secondary education only are "gullible"? Who told you that?
You say something that doesn't even answer wojcech's point, then say "citation unnecessary"? Not very convincing.
(The point, the request for citation, was the claim that the economy is doing well for the bottom 20%. A quote from Trump does not address that question whatsoever.)
> - homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)
> - small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
> Cons
> - it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?
> - the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes
> - cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students
> - the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
...good?
> - may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy
> My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.
> If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
Unless there is another guy who does that already.
> Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
I don't understand this one
> Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think
Lots of talk in absolutes. Prices will go up - but not exactly as much as income goes up, because (lots of other economic pressures).
Its easy to play a game of FUD (fear; uncertainty; doubt) but the answer is None of the Above. A BI will change things sure. But so did pensions, and insurance, and retirement plans. They didn't bring the economy down in flames; neither will a BI.
Remember the spending of the poorest among us does not drive the entire economy. Wages will change, a little. Prices will change, a little.
The reason the poorest amoung us doesnt drive the economy is because they have no money to spend. Why would a business pwner accomadate for an individual that would cause sognificantly less profit margins.
However, when the value of USD is considered the same. But I know that _every single_ person in american can buy muy product at current price and higher. I will certainly bump it up. High until I hit a maximum where profit margins dip then settle.
Health insurance is caused the Skrelli fiasco and epipen fiasco. Probably more to come.
Universal Income sounds like a great idea from a naive perspective. But the real issue is there arent other solutions for it to compete with.
Supply and demand determine price for many consumables. Neither changes when folks have more money in their pockets. It doesn't even begin to make sense.
> But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
Part of the purpose of a union is to negotiate the costs for hard labor. Unions can still exist and arguably have more negotiation power through the threat of not working forever. I think unions are an important step for our species in that the working force can negotiate with the leader force rather than pray for a peice of cheese with their bread. Part of me worries that participating will be considered unnecessary or even undesirable since "Big Gov is here to protect you from the evil cooperations"
> costs of us manufactured goods goes up
Chyna, chyna, chyna. But really, globalization effectively allows companies to exploit other countries if the us citizens dont want to play ball. Perhaps slave like conditions for other people is a side effect of refusing to do shit work for shit pay
> realestate/rental prices will rise to just below universal income
Perhaps Im cynical but I view all landlords as "how much can I take from you before you leave?" If a landlord knows they can get $1000 out if someone. Why not? Doesnt matter if its a poor neughborhood or college students. As demand for n
> "Those who want more money [work]"
So basically we have inflation and on top of that if you dont have a job your screwed. Prices dont stay the same as more money is available. They go up. And knowing that people can make even more makes prices go even higher
> local community jobs dont exist if no one leaves them
This is an interesting concept. How many people does it take to work a job 24/7? More importantly, how many people can be serviced per 6 hr shift? And how many hours can a job be worked? What industries are necessary for a community to survive without over dependence on a centralized manufacturer or capital? Must a community exist that exports an important good or city that connected communities are dependent on?
Im not a fan at "throwing money at problems". Much more intetested in finding long lasting and realistic solutions that are in line with how we got here. If free money can get us even further, so be it!
> time for innovation comes from imbalance of jobs and who controls them
If company A has a near monopoly on jobs in the area all people wantjng a job must go to company A. Company A now can say "we omly select people willing to work 16 hour days 6 days a weak for $1 an hour". Obvious issue
If building wingdings takes 4 years of education and puts indivuduals in severe debt (because colleges charge absurd sums), they certainly want more money. Company B is the only multi billion dollar company that is capable of paying a 10 man workforce an above average wage, company B can now say "you must work 16 hour days, 6 days a weak but you will make $101 dollars an hour!". Debt payment is $90, but at least your making $10 more than company A
The claim that "less work produces better results" is simply a hypothesis that doesnt account for fear as a driving motivator.
As more companies are able to provide for their employees in the way the employee needs financially, the more relaxed each company must become to get the employees they are looking for.
If company C offers only $80 an hour but you only work 5 hour days 5 days a week and they hire more people. This allows 3 people a day to have 5 hours > of free time and a livable wage. But can only exist through negotiation power and competition.
The reason why most successful companies run people into the ground is because it works. Amazon and walmart are great examples of this. Google only offers utopia in order to attract the greatest minds. But that is because they believe the value of a great mind on your team is worth more than what they spend.
I certainly support free transportation. A place like Flint can only exist because there is no escspe.
> Socialism and Communism has always been led by intellectuals. Marx was hardly a member of the proletariat for example.
It was led, but one of the official foci was "Arbeiter bilde dich", "worker teach yourself". Basically, a goal of the saner strands of the left is to make what we call "intellectual" right now the new baseline. And with good reason. The only way to make a political system like democracy work is to build a good education system to get "mündige bürger", emancipated citizens. And originally workers thought for their education(it is telling that https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeiterbildung exists only in German), recognising it as a tool that the upper classes used as an advantage. But for decades an anti-intellectualism has developed, reinforced by the "get a good career" educational goals(and if you want to be conspiratory, also a shift against critical political education pushed by those in power. I don't believe in that though, I just think in the well meaning pursuit of a "good education to get a job" in what is just too little time and with too little resources luxuries like politics get cut as collateral) . And elitists on the left,center and right, who think they were born smarter than everyone else didn't help either, thinking they need to "lead the masses" or that they can decide acceptable options.
As before, one of the real goals should be to fight together to ensure everyone reaches the level of education that allows them to participate in an informed political process.
Don't know how much that applies here, but there is no inherent moral or egalitarian negative to a "harem" (or "unicorn" arrangements if I remember my polyamory lingo correctly) if everyone involved is actively and consciously consenting. But Gandhi is probably not in that camp
I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point(and also Musk again finding a way to maximally exploit government subsidies for clean tech.)
The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously due to bad tech. If it succeeds, I'd say it was because the tech was barely sufficient to keep up with the excellent luster.
On a side note, I wonder whether or not the heavy government subsidies will be forgotten in the lore of clean tech, just like silicon valley seems to have forgotten the complete and utter reliance on government funding in it's infancy(or possibly even today)
Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing.
The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up.
Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive direction, not get our financial support (a.k.a. the government's support)?
Who exactly is losing out when we support our own business initiatives with our own money?
I imagine those loud objectors would take issue with the idea that the government is "literally just US" - it's much more literally a small minority of us who are deciding on behalf of us what we are to do with our resources. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the US was always intended to be exactly that - but it certainly leaves room for the represented to debate about the way they should be represented. "Us" consists of people with different ideas about what is worth spending money on, both in terms of goals and effective ways of pursuing those goals, and using the government to allocate funding ignores all that.
It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations.
The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them.
Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.
North Dakota pipeline is nice example of an operation receiving a good dose of government funding that arguably goes against the best intentions of the future population
Hey now, we need to get that oil out of the US and into a higher priced market ASAP, hence the need for a new pipeline and the removal of restrictions on the exportation of domestically produced oil.
That way, these large foreign oil companies like BP (owned by Britan's public employee retirement funds) and Royal Dutch Shell can make a ton more dough while also raising prices by a few bucks in the domestic gas & natural gas market.
The government is not literally just 'us.' It's a contentious idea: "government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" was oft-repeated by Rep. Barney Frank. He was repeating it because not everyone agrees.
I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own.
So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away.
If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money.
EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.
Perhaps more even-handed libertarian dig is that it's "the things we force ourselves to do together." In that view it's a solution to market failures around externalities and bad game-theoretic outcomes in collective action/decision-making. Free-riders, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing.
Go live where there is no government, its great to act so infringed upon by the government in the place in which you currently reside, but you do have choices.
Not saying its a rosy picture to live in an area with no publicly owned infrastructure, or any baseline public services like water, sewer, trash, education, courts, etc, but there are places in Latin America which have legal carveouts for a non-governmentally controlled area to exist, without taxes, laws or infrastructure.
Unless you are willing to live & fight for your beliefs, they are absolutely worthless, Martin Luther King & Cesar Chavez didn't accomplish anything sitting at home, they took to the streets and organized like minded people to stand with them and fight for the way things ought to be, regardless what businesses or government tried to do.
It doesn't necessarily follow from what perilunar or fennecfoxen said that they think 'no government' is the right answer: even if you think the government policy-making wields force, that can just mean the bar for what government should be doing is higher, not that nothing at all ever clears that bar.
Example: one could characterize investment in cleantech as hedge fund-like speculation (other example: US monetary policy), albeit with the dividends paid to the American economy (and some larger proportion to Tesla etc shareholders). I think reasonable people can disagree over whether that is an appopriate action for a government to take (i.e. whether it is in their purview/mandate) separate from whether other issues are (utilities, defense, welfare, etc). A rejection of one is not a rejection of all, and similarly support for one is not support for all.
(Speaking generally: I don't know the specific views of perilunar or fennecfoxen)
More than contentious, tendentious. It's a choice about how to organize your ideology and world-view, but it's presented as an inarguable fact of existence.
It's also what a small left-leaning majority says to defend themselves and shut up their detractors while they inflict their will on the minority over an issue that's contentious (e.g. our recent health care reform).
And you'll notice that when legislation they don't like appears, you'll hear remarks to the effect of "that is not who we are!" (the standard obviously being relaxed when a government does something the speaker disagrees with).
Dude, grow up. You do not have to live under govt rule, if you choose to follow an ideology that would rather see government not exist, you can and should fully adhere to your ideology and move to such an area. They do exist in Latin America and other places, and you are not living your ideology or helping it in any way if you won't support it in the most basic of ways.
I hope it came through in my comment that I dislike the denial of government aid in the creation of a "bootstraps" narrative when people want to argue against taxes, not the making use of government aid per se(otherwise now it's clear).
One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money.
A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt
A big part is how gov't money is doled out. It forces the gov't to pick winners and losers. And since politics always seems to permeate everything the gov't does, people start to question the decisions.
Even if it's something as straightforward as "green credits", the process can always be perverted to advantage one business over another.
It's a tough balance. Often we (in the US) don't invest, then complain when jobs shift to other countries. We've seen so much bashing of $0.54 billion for Solyndra (a tiny gamble); but now most solar panels are made in China. Need to gamble, but wisely.
Spot on. I'm all for subsidizing industries to incentivize the behaviour we want, but I'm not sure the people who can afford these homes, or $100,000 cars, need it.
They may not need it, but it is worth for the rest of us. Technology becomes much cheaper when it becomes commonplace. If we all pay a bit of that 30% subsidy to rich people, what's the matter? That will allow us to eventually buy it with more than 30% reduction of price without subsidies.
Some people construe foreign military adventures such as Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003 as oil subsidies. Without those, oil markets would be less stable, and consequently oil would be much less attractive as a fuel.
> I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point
Except one ingredient is missing: most people cannot afford one, even if they tried really hard.
He's pitching it as being basically break even, when electricity costs are factored in. My guess is an awful lot of people can afford this, especially for new construction. Certainly enough to keep up with ability to ramp up manufacturing and training of installers.
And then the economies of scale (and hopefully competition) will kick in and it should reach a point where nearly every new house, and nearly every replacement roof, will be solar by default. At least in climates friendly to solar.
IPhone got a lot of attention when it was released, but it was a while before they became common with more than just the early adopter crowd. This might take a while longer for various reasons, but still, this is a big deal.
This has an interesting twist. While it is subtle, people can tell you have it. People like to impress their neighbors. But this one isn't just "look how much money I have" but "look how I am using my money to be a responsible citizen of the planet." If you are going to try to enter the "keep up with the Jones's" race, this isn't a bad way to go about it.
He's pitching it as being basically break even, when electricity costs are factored in. My guess is an awful lot of people can afford this, especially for new construction.
I think this is key - often the pitch that "sure, it's expensive up front but will save you money in the long run" falls on deaf ears when people don't have the disposable income to immediately absorb that large up front cost, but when you're buying a house in most cases you're already taking out a large loan to finance a big up-front cost.
You're aware, of course, that SolarCity's entire business model is leasing solar panels back to consumers with no up-front costs, and a net savings, right?
Okay, so what they do is install the panels on your house for "free" (or some rough approximation thereof). They claim the Federal (and perhaps state?) tax credits on your behalf, and then "lease" the panels back to you. I believe you pay a set monthly fee and are also responsible for your electric bill, though of course the system is sized so as to minimize the bill that you pay the utility. They also maintain the system (cleaning, repairing broken parts, etc).
The advantage, of course, is the 0/low upfront costs.
Whether or not this model works for the roof tile system is another question entirely. Of course, the bill would be much larger, but the tax credit might be larger as well.
I'm not sure how they handle a circumstance in which your income causes your tax credit to be phased out. Likely there's fine print where you have to pony up extra money.
BTW this is now being shifted. They are allocating less and less to outright leasing. Musk said he expects in two years that all of their sales will be either loans by banks or outright full purchases and the leasing business going away.
The way I remember the first iPhone, it was hilariously expensive, yet lacked appeal to business users who at the time were the key demographic for such expensive widgets.
Relative to the benchmark of "People who can afford to buy a home in the US," perhaps a solar roof is not so unattainable. It just has to look great, convey social status, and be durable.
Most US home owners don't pay for their house (or car) outright. The putative purchase price of photovoltaic panels may not be prohibitive even for plebs.
Like any new technology early adopters pay way more, because economies of scale have yet to be achieved. Musk knows this, same with Tesla, he is marketing to a high-income target market first, because they are the ideal early adopters and it's easier to scale down rather than scale up features in a product.
And factoring in subsidies, electricity cost savings over a period 5-10 years, it might be more affordable than you think.
High end models few can afford at first, then slowly moving into the "regular guy" market once the R&D is done and mass production bottlenecks are solved.
"That kind of reminds me of Ballmer's "FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?" moment."
$500 is not that much more expensive than a Nokia device at the time, and well within the surplus that a good chunk of people have to pay - especially when subsidized by carriers.
$30 000 - $100 000 - is another ballpark entirely in terms of cost. And it has to work out economically or it won't get anywhere, many ingredients are needed to make it work right.
Rolled up into a 30 year loan that turn into a few hundred a month. Much less if you can subtract your electricity and gas bills from that. I remember the biggest turn off for me on the original iPhone was the $70 a month data plan contract. But people bought it.
The timing may be calculated but that's about it. If a product isn't going to work out, that's one thing, but Musk doesn't waste time on vaporware. Notice that Tesla never put a silly will-never-be-an-actual-product car for display at auto shows.
It sounded like this was condensedware/liquidware (what's the opposite of vaporware?), namely that the event had actual houses with actual manufactured, installed solar roofs in the form of traditional roofs. Presumably there were at least four of them, the four tiles pictured. There is a picture of what appears to be an actual house, presumably with a solar roof.
I do feel the same. Musk has its own Jobs recipe. Jobs took bad consumerism, propped up features, slick user interface (material and logical). And peeled plastic. Musk swaps carbon for electric, makes it as stylish as the rest if not more, plus way more sturdier than the rest.
I guess what confuses me is that most people with enough money to drive a Tesla keep it in a garage. I guess most offices probably don't have parking garages in suburbia, but I was surprised to hit control F "garage" on these comments and not see a single mention...
There are lots of upsides for future research and gained efficiency in the future though. Especially as electric moves toward big trucks down the road. (a semi full of solar panels could probably help propel the truck and save fuel etc.)
Your comment is what confuses me. Can you explain how keeping a Tesla car in a garage is related to the parent comment about Elon's product design/marketing/business strategies?
The main source of your confusion stems from misinterpretation of the phrase "Tesla's solar roof" which is solar roofing material produced by Tesla for buildings rather than a solar roof for a Tesla automobile.
I'm a 'comments first' reader myself but TFAs are generally a must read for context and disambiguation before actually wading in.
From a popular perspective - you are maybe right - they 'sexified' something not quite so sexy.
However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone.
Why?
Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics.
Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their home is up for a new roof. The other market would be new homes.
So there's a growth/market limit.
Second is price. This kind of technology exists already in many forms. It hasn't been adopted because it's very expensive, and requires some other ugly equipment that has put a drag on PV installation like the conversion technology required to connect to the grid.
The choice to purchase an iPhone is mostly emotional.
The choice in roofing is not. It's definitely mostly a calculation. They are very expensive, and people will look into the long-term conversion value etc.
I'll wager that this new Tesla roof will not be price competitive for current solar/roofing situations, moreover, even if it were - it still might not make sense from a dollars perspective, as the current solar/roof installations basically don't work out economically. It's for wealthier types and/or those with 'green aspirations'.
Finally - these are not things you can buy from wallmart and install yourself. You can't even get your local roofer to do it. Typically, roofers have to be trained on the materials, installation etc.. There is the issue of warranty and distribution for 'new tech' in building - which is slow to adoption. Builders etc. are not 'magpies' like techies. They are averse to new gear, and typically wait for others to figure it out before buying in. Also - they simply tend not to be ver progressive.
Go and ask your local builder if he wants to send his crew to California for 'Training on Tesla's new roof' and his mental calculation will be 'how many of my current customers are asking for it'? And of course the answer will be none.
The fundamental issue with all of this solar tech is that it simply does not generate enough electricity to quite warrant the cost unless all the conditions are right.
+ If it's really sunny a lot
+ Major government subsidies
+ A new subdivision was created with 'all solar roofing' thereby keeping the costs down to economies of scale
+ High electricity prices in the region
+ The grid is fundamentally designed for renewables
Interesting points, thank you. EEVblog agrees with some of them and did the numbers on others, I might link it if I remember(it's bed time here soon)
One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice.
The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.
I'll second that from personal experience, roofs are definitely an emotional decision. They can look great, be artsy, and even cover your house in the most visible of manners.
Source? Roofs last 20-30 years. 125 million homes in the U.S., with roofs being replaced every 25 years means 5 million roofs per year. Triple that for Europe, China, and the rest and you've got 15 million a year. It's a big ticket item so you don't have to capture that much of the market to start hitting pretty serious revenue numbers.
In Europe (or at least the parts I've been in) roofs last much more than that. At least twice as long. Esp in countries like mine (Spain) where climate is much less aggressive with rooftops. And we don't use tar shingles.
iPhone was a platform. As more people bought the iphone,
- the phone became more attractive to 3rd party accessory makers (protective cases, cables, etc) and apps makers.
- the phone itself became more valuable to owners, as more complementary products became available.
- the phone became more valuable to Apple, who could get feedback and make the phone better.
The hockey stick on the analogous factors for Tesla is much shallower. The "complementary products" for owners of cars will be primarily recharge stations. Still few and far between.
There is no benefit to 3rd parties, that I see. No benefit to other stakeholders like utilities. And Tesla itself does not enjoy a growing, self-reinforcing cycle of value, as sales increase. It's really just economies of scale.
An entire charging industry akin to gas/petrol stations is another side benefit. These businesses could be located in "unusual" areas such as multi storey car parks because there isn't the same danger posed by large amounts of liquid fuel. This alone will be an enormous industry.
We could make a new word for people who manage each other mutually, coexisteling in their operations without blind hierarchy...we could call it mumanagement
