Connect with us

News

SolarCity Struggles: Design Dilemmas (Part II)

Published

on

Tesla Model S SolarCity

In Part 1 of my SolarCity Struggles series, I discovered that the initial design for my solar installation would need its first revision to account for the additional power needs from my 85kWh Tesla Model S. What happens next is something that can only be described as SolarCity Struggles.

SolarCity Design Dilemmas

SolarCity Barn DesignI don’t claim to understand all of the engineering that goes into planning a solar installation but as a homeowner I can tell you that three these things really matter:

  1. How many panels will be installed and what will the configuration look like? (aesthetics)
  2. Where will the inverters, ground and wall items be installed? (aesthetics & function)
  3. What will annual production be and what will I be charged for it? (value)

Unfortunately, Solar City made mistakes in all three of these areas.

We were very clear when we first started the process that we didn’t want partial roof coverage of the panels – i.e. right half of a single roof surface. We wanted all or nothing. After all this was our house and we wanted it to be presentable (in our eyes). The Solar City folks made the mistake of designing it with partial roof coverage on multiple occasions and each time we readjusted the design, it would take about a month.

In the end, getting the correct solar panel layout came down to me having to provide specific direction despite having no experience in this area. The communications path between the sales people, whom happen to be your primary contact, and the mysterious engineering team back at headquarters is terrible.

Solar City’s design placed the inverters in front of doorways which made no sense whatsoever. When I pointed this out, even after they had already visited my property three separate times, each time taking a boatload of pictures, they didn’t seem concerned and brushed it off by saying the installer would put them in a better location. So much for engineering design. It’s not clear what the point of the design was if they don’t end up following it.

Advertisement

Design Complete?

After multiple rounds of back and forth design sessions with Solar City, we thought we had finally overcome all of the challenges. It turns out that the hard part had yet to begin – our power company wasn’t involved yet …

Part III – SolarCity Struggles: National Gridlock

 

ALSO SEE:  Integrating Portable Solar Panel Technology into the Tesla Model S

Advertisement

 

"Rob's passion is technology and gadgets. An engineer by profession and an executive and founder at several high tech startups Rob has a unique view on technology and some strong opinions. When he's not writing about Tesla

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla tops American-Made Index for sixth-consecutive year

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is atop the American-Made Index from Cars.com for the sixth-straight year, as the Model 3 and Model Y took the top two spots, respectively.

Last year, the Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X took the top four spots, respectively. The company has routinely performed well in the Index. However, Tesla discontinued its flagship Model S and Model X earlier this year, which took the two cars out of the ranking.

Cybertruck is not considered due to its curb weight being above the 8,500-pound threshold, which eliminates it from being required to have more detailed assembly information.

Cars.com uses five main categories to develop its rankings:

Advertisement
  • Location(s) of final assembly
  • Percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts
  • Countries of origin for all available engines
  • Countries of origin for all available transmissions
  • U.S. manufacturing workforce

These five major factors are then put into a 100-point scale. The vehicles with the highest scores sit atop the list. The Model 3 edged out the Model Y.

Tesla uses a strong domestic strategy to build its cars and parts domestically. It relies on intense vertical integration that reduces its dependence on global suppliers, keeping more value and jobs in the United States.

Advertisement

This strategy has helped Tesla gain a strong reputation for domestically produced vehicles and parts. However, it helps it with more than just awards like this one. Keeping a supply chain local has also helped insulate Tesla more than others from tariffs and supply chain disruptions.

This year’s American-Made Index from Cars.com studied nearly 400 vehicles from the 2026 model year. Tesla was the only manufacturer to have an EV inside the Top 10. The Kia EV9 was the next EV to make the list, scoring the 17th position.

The Hyundai IONIQ 5 was 21st, and the final EV to make the list was the Cadillac LYRIQ in 77th.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

Published

on

Credit: CNBC

Tesla has finally clarified the situation regarding the viral crash in Texas where a Model 3 slammed into a home.

CEO Elon Musk replied to reports on Monday that stated the crash was due to the company’s Full Self-Driving or Autopilot suite, which seemed unlikely to those who are familiar with it. Video showed the car slamming into a house at an excessive rate of speed, making it highly unlikely the crash was due to the suite’s operation, as it does not travel at those speeds in residential areas.

Musk said:

“This makes no sense. FSD drives slowly through neighborhood streets, and this was a high-speed crash!”

Advertisement

Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, added context, revealing that the company’s data shows the driver “manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.”

He revealed the speed reached by the car was 73 MPH, and the accelerator was still pressed “even after the crash.”

Advertisement

Authorities are reportedly investigating “whether Tesla’s Autopilot system played a role after a Model 3 left the roadway…slammed through a brick house at high speed and fatally struck Matha Avila as she sat inside,” the New York Post reported.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is now investigating the crash. Tesla will work with the agency to provide them with whatever information they need in order to clarify the cause of the crash.

Similarly, Tesla had claims of a fatal accident in Harris County, Texas, a few years ago. Early reports indicated that Full Self-Driving was the cause of the crash. After the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) worked with Tesla, the agency proved there was “no use of the Autopilot system at any time during this ownership period of the vehicle, including the time frame up to the last transmitted timestamp on April 17, 2021.”

Tesla alleged “driverless” crash in Texas: What is known so far

Advertisement

“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws have default speed limits of 30 MPH in residential streets.

This appears to be a similar situation. However, an investigation will prove what happened for sure.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

SpaceX makes $20 billion move to optimize its balance sheet

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX announced today that it commenced its first-ever public bond offering, marking a significant step in the newly public company’s capital markets strategy.

The company announced an offering of senior unsecured notes expected to raise at least $20 billion.

The move comes just a short time after SpaceX completed one of the largest initial public offerings in history. In mid-June, the company priced shares at $135 and raised more than $85 billion, propelling founder Elon Musk’s net worth past the trillion-dollar mark and giving the firm substantial liquidity.

According to the company’s SEC filing, the net proceeds from the notes will be used primarily to repay in full the outstanding borrowings under its existing bridge loan facility, cover related fees and expenses, and fund general corporate purposes. The offering is being conducted under Rule 144A, as well as Regulation S, targeting qualified institutional buyers and non-U.S. investors. Notes will be unsecured obligations ranking equally with other unsubordinated debt.

Advertisement

The $20 billion bridge loan was used to refinance approximately $17.5 billion in higher-cost “junk” debt tied to X and xAI. SpaceX had merged with xAI in February 2026 in an all-stock deal. The bridge facility, which matures in September 2027, had represented the bulk of SpaceX’s long-term debt.

SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise

In connection with the bond launch, SpaceX disclosed it held approximately $100.8 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of June 19. Investor calls began on the announcement date, with pricing and launch expected shortly thereafter. Rating agencies have assigned investment-grade ratings to the proposed bonds, reflecting confidence in SpaceX’s dominant position in commercial launches and the growth trajectory of its Starlink internet offering.

The debt raise also allows SpaceX to optimize its balance sheet by replacing short-term, higher-cost bridge financing with longer-date, lower-cost fixed-income securities. This provides greater financial flexibility to support capital-intensive initiatives, including the development of Starship, the expansion of the Starlink constellation, and the integration of AI capabilities following the xAI combination.

Advertisement

SpaceX shares (NASDAQ: SPCX) fell sharply on the news, dropping over 16 percent overall on the market on Monday. The stock had surged initially after debuting but pulled back amid profit-taking and broader market dynamics.

Overall, the bond offering underscores SpaceX’s transition to a mature public company with access to diverse funding sources. It positions the firm to pursue its long-term vision of multiplanetary expansion and AI infrastructure, while maintaining a disciplined approach to its capital structure in a high-growth but capital-heavy industry.

Continue Reading