News
SolarCity Struggles: National Gridlock (Part III)
In this final post within my SolarCity Struggles series I’ll be outlining the additional complexities that surfaced after our local power company, National Grid, got involved.
National Grid-Lock
Having already experienced some delays on my solar project due to architectural redesigns, National Grid jumped into the mix to make things even worse by throwing up one road block after another. There was a conflict of interest for National Grid to assist on the project since we would be shifting more than $170,000 of revenue from them to SolarCity. I’d only see a tiny slice of that by way of my energy savings. Despite many city mandates to be “More Green”, the utility companies clearly have no interest in assisting customers to go solar since it would be counter productive for them.
Roadblock #1
National Grid would not allow “net metering” (where you can re-supply energy through solar power) for two different meters at the same address. SolarCity stepped up and offered to join my two meters and upgrade my panel (from 400A to 600A) in order to support net metering. Accounting issues aside, I agreed to the proposed change and moved forward with yet another site visit that would lead to an engineering redesign.
Roadblock #2
Having (verbally) moved past this, National Grid then reported that the transformer for my area was only capable of handling 23kW of generated power and could not support SolarCity’s proposed 56kW system. This was by the most serious setback since it would require a design that would cut my generation down to 23kW or less. This meant dropping the farm completely and scaling the house from 35kW to 23kW.
A 23kW design called for the front of my house to have solar panels while only a portion of the rear of the house would be retrofitted with panels. This would have looked really odd so we decided to scale back the design to a 18kW system and only include panels on the front of the house.
National Grid informed me that the transformers support between 8 – 12 houses in my area so any neighbors that undergo a solar project will be limited to the remaining 5kW that the transformer can support.
Next Steps
Going from a 56kW to 18kW (a 68% drop in planned production) system will reduce my energy coverage to 32% of my power needs through solar. This is unfortunately the case due to National Grid’s limitation despite my property having enough roof surface to generate 100% of my energy needs.
I will save approximately $56,000 over the next 20 years with this smaller set up, a far departure from the original projected savings of $105,000 but still worth pursuing.
A friendly note from SolarCity arrived on September 1st letting me know that my installation was scheduled for December 8th and 9th because of the magnitude of the project. Considering this 18kW system is a third of what would have been, I couldn’t help but wonder how SolarCity would have handled the original plans. I can’t imagine starting this project in the dead of a New England winter. SolarCity indicated that the project would require 4-6 weeks before the “go live” date which meant I wouldn’t be completing until January 2015. That puts the project at about 10 months from start (initial consultation) to finish and assuming all goes well from here on out.
Summary
SolarCity has made a number of mistakes on this project since the beginning; from improperly sizing the system to not knowing the requirements and restrictions of the local power company; to not following owner requests on layout; to not understanding power generation limits imposed by the power company.
My experience with SolarCity has led me to conclude that they’re not ready for widespread adoption outside of key markets and have a lot of work and learning to do before they will be ready for that next stage of growth.
I truly hope the project moves forward. My next updates will be on the post installation experience which will hopefully take place sometime between now and the end of this year. Stay tuned.
SolarCity Struggles Series – Read from the beginning
Image Source: Sun Powered EVs
Elon Musk
SpaceX to launch Starlink V2 satellites on Starship starting 2027
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls.
SpaceX is looking to start launching its next-generation Starlink V2 satellites in mid-2027 using Starship.
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls during remarks at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.
“With Starship, we’ll be able to deploy the constellation very quickly,” Nicolls stated. “Our goal is to deploy a constellation capable of providing global and contiguous coverage within six months, and that’s roughly 1,200 satellites.”
Nicolls added that once Starship is operational, it will be capable of launching approximately 50 of the larger, more powerful Starlink satellites at a time, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
The initial deployment of roughly 1,200 next-generation satellites is intended to establish global and contiguous coverage. After that phase, SpaceX plans to continue expanding the system to reach “truly global coverage, including the polar regions,” Nicolls said.
Currently, all Starlink satellites are launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The next-generation fleet will rely on Starship, which remains in development following a series of test flights in 2025. SpaceX is targeting its next Starship test flight, featuring an upgraded version of the rocket, as soon as this month.
Starlink is currently the largest satellite network in orbit, with nearly 10,000 satellites deployed. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates the business could generate approximately $9 billion in revenue for SpaceX in 2026.
Nicolls also confirmed that SpaceX is rebranding its direct-to-cell service as Starlink Mobile.
The service currently operates with 650 satellites capable of connecting directly to smartphones and has approximately 10 million monthly active users. SpaceX expects that figure to exceed 25 million monthly active users by the end of 2026.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s xAI and X to pay off $17.5B debt in full: report
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Elon Musk’s social platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI are reportedly preparing to repay approximately $17.5 billion in outstanding debt in full.
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Morgan Stanley, which arranged the debt financing for both companies, has reportedly informed existing lenders that X and xAI plan to pay back the full amount of the $17.5 billion debt. Bloomberg’s sources did not disclose where the capital for the repayment would be coming from.
X, formerly known as Twitter, assumed roughly $12.5 billion in debt during Musk’s acquisition of the company. xAI separately borrowed about $5 billion through bonds and loans last June. The two firms merged last year under xAI Holdings.
Bloomberg noted that portions of the debt are relatively recent and may carry early repayment penalties. xAI’s $3 billion in high-yield bonds are expected to be redeemed at 117 cents on the dollar, reflecting a premium since the debt was expected to stay outstanding for at least two years.
X has been servicing tens of millions of dollars in monthly debt payments, while xAI has reportedly been burning approximately $1 billion in cash per month as it invests heavily in data centers, chips, and AI talent. That being said, xAI also concluded a funding round in January, where it raised $20 billion of new equity.
The repayment plans come as Musk consolidates several of his businesses. SpaceX recently acquired xAI, making it a subsidiary as the company explores plans for space-based data centers. The combined entity has been valued at approximately $1.25 trillion.
Bloomberg previously reported that SpaceX is targeting a confidential IPO filing as soon as this month, potentially positioning the private space firm for a public listing later this year. Representatives for Morgan Stanley declined to comment, and X and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin head calls out Handelsblatt’s claimed 2025 production figures
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
Tesla Gigafactory Berlin’s plant manager has publicly pushed back against recent reporting by German business publication Handelsblatt, which cited reportedly erroneous data about the factory’s production figures and financial performance.
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
In his LinkedIn post, Thierig called out Handelsblatt’s claim that 149,000 Model Y vehicles were produced at Giga Berlin in 2025. He noted that “the article is simply filled from front to back with false information and claims!
“I have to set the record straight here! In the last article about Tesla in Grünheide, the Handelsblatt speaks e.g. of 149,000 Model Ys built in 2025. WRONG!
“In 2025, we again produced over 200,000 vehicles. And this despite the fact that we stopped production in Q1 for the changeover to the new Model Y and then ramped it up again to 5,000 units per week over several weeks,” Thierig wrote.
He added that production increased each quarter in 2025 compared to the prior quarter and stated that more than 700,000 Model Y units have been produced at Grünheide since manufacturing began in 2022. For the first quarter of 2026, he stated that the factory is planning another production increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025.
Thierig also questioned Handelsblatt’s reported 0.74% profit margin, writing that how the publication calculated the figure “remains reserved for their secret ‘calculation skills.’”
Beyond production data, Thierig highlighted Tesla’s broader footprint in Germany, stating that the company has invested more than €5 billion in Grünheide since 2020 and created nearly 11,000 permanent, above-tariff jobs. He added that Tesla is currently investing nearly €100 million into battery cell production at the site, which is expected to generate several hundred additional positions.
In a follow-up comment, Thierig noted that he did communicate with the publication’s editor-in-chief in an effort to “start fresh,” but he was informed that Handelsblatt’s current approach works just fine.
“Last year, I spoke to a representative of the Handelsblatt editor-in-chief and suggested that we “start anew” again. Handelsblatt turned down this offer on the grounds that their current approach works well for them,” Thierig noted.
Sönke Iwersen, Head of Investigative Research at Handelsblatt, responded to Thierig’s post, stating that the newspaper’s figures were based on Tesla’s own annual financial statements for the Grünheide entity.
He cited reported 2024 revenue of €7.68 billion, operating profit of €156.8 million, and net income after taxes of €55.6 million. Iwersen also referenced prior public comments from Elon Musk about Cybertruck demand, noting the gap between reported pre-orders and subsequent annual sales figures.
He also stated that the works council election eligibility figures Giga Berlin had dropped to 10,703 employees today from 12,415 two years ago.
“As far as production figures are concerned, these are figures from the data service provider Inovev. This is also stated in the article. Please compare this with Elon Musk’s information on demand for the Cybertruck. According to Musk, there were one million pre-orders. In the first year, 39,000 units were sold, in the second year 20,000. How can this be explained? With a million pre-orders?
“You yourself have repeatedly pointed out in recent months that no jobs would be cut in Grünheide because Tesla is different from the competition. Now a new works council is being elected in Grünheide. 10,703 people are eligible to vote. Two years ago, 12,415 people were eligible to vote. So there were exactly 1712 fewer from 2024 to 2026,” Iwersen wrote.
