Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla CEO Says Gov't Loan Is 99% Sure and Deserved

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-your-piece-of-the-pie dept.

N!NJA writes "Two major themes of our time — the desire to achieve energy independence and the furor over public bailouts — have collided in the drama surrounding swanky electric carmaker Tesla. Late last year, a New York Times column whipped Silicon Valley innovators and bailout-weary taxpayers into a frenzy. Valley professor and writer Randall Stross wrote that Tesla was hoping for government money to produce its cars, which only the very wealthy could afford. It wasn't exactly true, since the loan was intended to produce the $50,000 Model S sedan, not the $109,000 Roadster. Still, Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company. Never mind, Tesla has developed two cars on less than $200 million — compared to the $1 billion General Motors spent developing the now-deceased EV1."

73 of 652 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Buggy whip manufacturers say that loans to "internal combustion engine" companies inappropriately drives technology that is "not ready for prime time"; they also state that "horses have a long way to go yet" when making their case that they should get the loan, rather than these newfangled folks. "Horses are cheaper", claims CEO of International Whipping Boys, Inc. Valley professor and writer Randall Stross wrote that was a risky waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing internal combustion company.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. It's a loan not a bailout. by ender06 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a LOAN, not a bailout. You have to pay back loans. College students get them all the time, but you don't see people complaining about them.

    1. Re:It's a loan not a bailout. by johnsonav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a LOAN, not a bailout. You have to pay back loans.

      The government is "giving" them the difference between the market interest rate, and the one the government would give them. If the market rate is 10%, and the government gives them the loan at 4%, the government is giving them the 6% difference as a handout. That's the equivalent of writing Tesla a check. It's a bailout.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    2. Re:It's a loan not a bailout. by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're ultimately correct that the loan is not a bailout for Tesla, but I wanted to add a few clarifying points (which make Tesla look even better):

      Much of the bailout for the Big Three was also in the form of loans. Where Tesla differs, however, is that Tesla actually has a chance of paying it back, while it's pure fantasy to believe GM and Chrysler could do the same. The former's bonds are currently yielding 220% or thereabouts, meaning investors place a HUGE risk discount on loaning to GM. In contrast, Tesla's biggest "problem" is keeping up with demand.

      Moreover, whatever the pretense of the "loans", including the one allegedly to help "retool" for more energy efficient cars, the fact of the matter is that the money for the Big Three is really going to pay off legacy costs that they were too stupid and short-sighted to plan for, *not* to improving technology, and especially not when you consider how close to collapse they are.

      Now, in fairness, I don't think the government should be making these loans at all. (To the extent that the environment is a problem, that should be addressed by pricing environmental costs into fossil fuels, and then let the market do whatever's efficient given that price premium.) However, *if* it's going to make these loans, they should go to companies that have a realistic chance of accomplishing the stated goals of the loans. And so far, Tesla has been far more efficient at it, and has no legacy costs to pay off.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  3. Tesla Business Plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (Yes, I know you get it. I'm replying to your comment to back you up, not to hassle you.)

    Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company.

    Tesla's business plan has always been to work their way down to an affordable car. They can only accomplish this by building some expensive ones first, because they don't have an outlet for large numbers of cars nor income from other lines to pay for the sunk costs of development.

    If anything, we need to eliminate all subsidies and allow the major automakers to fail. Then we carve them up into smaller automakers, pat them on the back, and set them loose. This keeps them in business and in theory encourages innovation. GM is simply a balkanized tool of the status quo and it's incapable of turning a corner. The same is true of all of the major American and Japanese automakers. But if we are going to continue handing out money to failing automotive business models, we should certainly give some to Tesla motors in the hope that they can not fail to execute their business plan and after the luxury model, bring us a relatively affordable family car with a useful range.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Tesla Business Plan by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tesla's business plan has always been to work their way down to an affordable car. They can only accomplish this by building some expensive ones first, because they don't have an outlet for large numbers of cars nor income from other lines to pay for the sunk costs of development.

      If anything, we need to eliminate all subsidies and allow the major automakers to fail. Then we carve them up into smaller automakers, pat them on the back, and set them loose. This keeps them in business and in theory encourages innovation. GM is simply a balkanized tool of the status quo and it's incapable of turning a corner. The same is true of all of the major American and Japanese automakers. But if we are going to continue handing out money to failing automotive business models, we should certainly give some to Tesla motors in the hope that they can not fail to execute their business plan and after the luxury model, bring us a relatively affordable family car with a useful range.

      This is just plain stupid. Look, Tesla wants to be "alternative" but in reality it's just a sportscar with an electrical motors and a shitload of batteries. That's their vision. What the hell is innovative about that? You use the similar amount of energy as any car, but now in electrical form. Whooptey doo. All it has going for it is eyecandy.

      Aptera is much better. Mostly because they're actually affordable from the get go ($30k) and actually redefine an efficient car. All Tesla really does is offload the environmental footprint to the electric generation station, it doesn't aim to be all that much more efficient aerodynamically, going for the conventional look and along with that, similiar conventional all-around amount of power to push it. Aptera aims to be efficient overall (and the hybrids look to be rather usable). That's important when batteries are nasty things with chemicals/elements that need to be mined, Tesla' second weakness.

      And the hybrid small gas engine feeding an electrical motor and batteries is time tested (diesel-electric trains) and makes more (environmental/economic) sense than batteries alone atm.

      http://www.aptera.com/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors

    2. Re:Tesla Business Plan by lupine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Batteries(95% efficient) * Electric Motor(95% efficient) = 90% efficient
      ICE(20-25%) * Batteries(95% efficient) * Electric Motor(95% efficient) =
      23% efficient

      The tesla has a range of 220 miles on 53kwh of batteries.
      The amount of energy in the batteries is equivalent to about 2 gallons of gas.
      Electricity cost to fill the pack, about $4.

      I agree that the Aptera is a more innovative design, the slippery shape is more aerodynamic and the front wheel drive train is more efficient at capturing regen brake energy more effectively. The Aptera will initially only be sold in California and I am not sure how a three wheeler would handle the snow so I probably wont be buying one soon.

      But the Tesla pure electric drive train is more efficient overall and they have been building and delivering vehicles, but as you said 120k is too much for a vehicle. The model S is more tempting, but still very pricey.

      --
      We have the best government that money can buy.
    3. Re:Tesla Business Plan by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my mind, that's a whole lot closer to the real reason for the outrage over Tesla, than bailing out VC's.

      Republicans are the ones alwasy being accused of bowing to big corporate interests, but both sides do it. They just cater to different industries for the most part, and the Dems do a better job of making it look like they are doing it for the people that work for the company instead of the company. However, I think the political side of things is less of a motivator than the damage such large companies wreak when they collapse.

      Tesla is a start-up and employ's only a fraction of the work force that GM has (never mind the legions of pensioners that would be SOL if GM goes belly up). GM and certain banks are considered too big to fail, not because of the inherent value of the corporations themselves, but because of the huge impact their insolvency would have on the unemployment rolls, property values, etc.

      If Tesla goes belly up, it will definitely suck for those who work for/with the company, the VCs and those who've paid for, but yet to receive their electric sports car. However, the VCs and potential customers are not going to end up in the unemployment line, or file for bankruptcy, and those who work for the company make up a relatively small portion of their local work forces, respectively.

      I'm not saying that GM should be bailed out. Bankruptcy court exists for a reason, and I think the freedom it would allow for restructuring debt would go alot further toward changing the culture of failure at the companies than taking handouts from the government every couple of months. I just don't believe that Tesla deserves any money either. I can stomach the bailout of GM (if with a lot of indigestion) because of how important the company is to large swaths of the country, but I'm by no means happy about it. Tesla has none of those arguments in its favor except that it's "Greener" than the alternative.

      (I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    4. Re:Tesla Business Plan by Gription · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Batteries(95% efficient) * Electric Motor(95% efficient) = 90% efficient
      ...

      You forgot a a major part of the system. It doesn't start at the batteries. It starts and the power plant. The losses over just the transmission lines are estimated at 7.x%. The actual generation equipment isn't 100% efficient either.
      It still is better then internal combustion by a whole bunch though and power plants are much more efficient then an ICEs and cleaner too...

    5. Re:Tesla Business Plan by g8oz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? "Offloading the environmental footprint to the electric generation station" is a *HUGE* step forward for automobiles.

      And their vision is far more than a sports car. Its about using cash flow and experience gained from high end luxury cars to create mass market electric vehicles that normal people would want to drive. Not to knock Aptera, but Tesla is creating a new kind of car company. Aptera is creating an interesting device.

    6. Re:Tesla Business Plan by forand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As best I can tell from the links you provided Aptera has yet to produce anything. All their "pictures" are photo shopped and you can't buy ANYTHING. Tesla is selling an electric car NOW, you may not like it and it may cost to much and be too sporty for you but they are doing something. Finally as others have already noted an electric sports car is better than the traditional simply due to the efficiency in energy generation and usage.

    7. Re:Tesla Business Plan by WCguru42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)

      First off, when it comes to combusting fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine is one of the least efficient ways of doing it. Then toss that in with the whole drive train and you lower its efficiency even more. You're right that Tesla isn't eliminating fossil fuels but pollution control and efficiency are a lot easier to attain at a power plant than in a car. And if power generation shifts to cleaner technologies then these cars are allowing for cleaner driving. As for recycling, the batteries are recyclable and aren't anything foreign to the world (we've been using Lithium batteries for a while now). I would hope that Tesla would at least facilitate (if not run) the recycling of these batteries for their customers.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    8. Re:Tesla Business Plan by BlueParrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All Tesla really does is offload the environmental footprint to the electric generation station

      Siiiigh, do we have to go through this every time ?

      i)Even if that was all they did it would still be worth it to move emissions away from population centers.

      ii)Power station turbines are more efficient than internal combustion engines, even when transmission losses are taken into account.

      iii)Because power stations are stationary you can fit them with better filters, catalysts and scrubbers that are superior to what you can fit on a moving car.

      iv)Because power stations have an even burn that doesn't peak at equally high temperatures they produce less nitrous oxides than internal combustion engines.

      v)Power stations generally achieve a more complete combustion than internal combustion engines, which helps reduce emissions.

      vi)Not all power stations use coal. Nuclear and Hydroelectrics produce orders of magnitude lower emission levels. Natural gas produces quite a bit of CO2 , but much less so than coal and petroleum ( due to a higher fraction of hydrogen ) and the rest of their emissions are lower too.

      vii)Using electric cars reduces reliance on oil from unstable regions of the world.

      There's more, but that is all I can be bothered with for now.

    9. Re:Tesla Business Plan by Soulslayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, but if you are going to do that kind of calculation you then have to factor in the costs of exploration, drilling, refining, transporting, storing, and pumping fossil fuels. Plus the intangibles like the economic impact of gas stations to a local economy; etc. You also need to factor in the costs of locating, mining, and processing battery materials vs their real world life span. One could also include the cost of shipping, storing, and recycling the batteries.

      Then you get into the maintenance costs. A modern internal combustion engine and its necessary ancillary components comprise hundreds (if not thousands) of components. Many of them moving, in a caustic environment, and subject to wear. Compare that to a BEV where there are a couple dozen drive components with only two moving parts and MTBF ratings. Switch to electric vehicles and suddenly you are only getting the brakes, tires, and transmission/differential serviced. And with regenerative braking your period between maintenance is greatly extended.

      The main advantages of electric vehicles are:

      1) 90-95% efficient drive train.
      2) Can use any energy storage medium that can be converted into electricity. (flywheels, fuel cells, gasoline powered generators, turbines, batteries; etc).
      3) More torque at lower (zero) RPM.
      4) Less components to wear out.
      5) With BEVs you have a centralized fuel delivery system with a pre-built infrastructure that allows you to increase efficiency/environmental impact for millions of vehicles (assuming everyone is driving one) with a single upgrade over a very short period of time.
      6) BEVs can actually help balance a power grid by acting as local storage systems for neighborhood power during periods of peak load and consuming poer at off-peak when that power is otherwise wasted.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    10. Re:Tesla Business Plan by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Informative

      All their "pictures" are photo shopped and you can't buy ANYTHING.

      What? GTFO of here.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUhPaxvhJCI

  4. The end of a meme by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like whoever figured it out (sorry, I forget your handle) was right! They finally figured out the "???" step:

    1. Have environmentally friendly idea
    2. Realise it's too expensive and the market too small to keep you afloat
    3. Get government hand-out
    4. Profit!

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Re:Rich peoples' toys by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Does anyone else think that $50,000 is a hell of a lot of money to pay for a car? "

    No, not really. Not for a cutting edge...early adopter technology no. I mean, you see lots of Joe sixpacks getting LCD HDTV's today, which a few years ago, were much too $$$ for them, and only for the 'rich'.

    You gotta start somewhere man...no, not everyone can afford the first things out the door. It takes time, those early adopters, that can afford them...pave the way for Joe and Sall Sixpack later down the road.

    Geez, for some reason....there seems to be an almost inherit distaste for anyone with any type of wealth in this country these days. You almost seem to feel some level of vitriol anytime someone mentions people who make over $100K/yr and can afford something slightly 'nicer' than the people living in the projects.

    Are we at the beginning of a race to the bottom...where no one can have an advantage no matter how hard they try?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. Re:$50k *after* subsidies by Chrontius · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, the charger issue is fixed by trickle-charging not just your car overnight, but also a high-current, high-capacity battery pack in the garage (li-poly? NiMH? Lithium-iron-phosphate? Lithium-magnesium phosphate? Silver-zinc? Lead-acid? Anything but lithium-cobalt, basically) that can deliver the thick, chewy amps needed to fast-charge the car battery.

  7. 1 step forward, 2 steps back by martinw89 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing is, alternative energy DOES have a long way to go.

    I was a big fan of the Tesla until Top Gear's review. It seemed like the perfect electric car: it can smoke most internal combustion cars off the line, AND it can run for more than 200 miles on a single charge. Plus, there are the benefits of less emissions due to economies of scale and a cheaper running cost. But Top Gear pointed out that once you deplete the battery, you have to charge it all night before you can use it again (I think the exact time was 14 hours).

    So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day. So it's one step forward, but two steps back. The car doesn't adapt to us, we have to adapt to it. This isn't right, the next alternative fuel needs to fit our lifestyles or people are unlikely to change for it. That's why we need something that can be refueled quickly, which the Tesla certainly is not.

    1. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Chrontius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      High-current home batteries. They sit on the wall and trickle-charge over 14 hours, and you plug the car into it (with a bus-bar) and it fully charges in between 5 and 30 minutes. Tesla could do this, if they could afford to engineer it. Until and unless we run heftier power cables to homes, or install EV charging stations at the gas station, we put up with overnight charges.

      Point is, this can change with a little work and/or commitment.

    2. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Lapzilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that TopGear, while often entertaining, has a certain "style" with editing footage together to convey whatever message they feel like conveying. Really though, how often do you drive >200 miles in a day? Typically you're not going to completely deplete the battery every day, and you're going to be leaving the car charging overnight, so for most drivers that would work out quite well.

    3. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day. So it's one step forward, but two steps back.

      Maybe. Or maybe that means we should put more money into battery-swapping stations.

      It doesn't seem to me that a problem like that should cause you to say, "Oh, whoops, I guess we can't use these cars because the battery runs out after driving for a few hours straight. Sinking any more money into this would be a waste." You run out of gasoline after driving for a few hours straight, and we developed a system where our country is littered with "gas stations" to help us refuel.

    4. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do realize that Top Gear admits to having faked the episode, right? It's an entertainment show; quit taking it so seriously.

      As for your particular example: No, it doesn't take 14 hours to charge. The *standard* Tesla charger takes about 3 hours to charge a fully dead battery, and that's only *if* you drove it about 240 miles that day on a drivecycle akin to the EPA combined numbers / 120-200 if you raced everywhere / 50-100 if you were sprinting on a track. How often do you drive 240 miles a day, or race 120-200 miles? Even if you only charge it on a standard garage NEMA 5-15 (they're usually on a 20A breaker, so 18A is a safe draw, and let's assume 117V): Wall to wheels on the Roadster is about 250Wh/mi, combined. The average person drives about 35 miles a day. 35mi*25kW/mi=8750Wh=8750VAh. 8750VAh / 117V / 18A = 4.15h. So even if you, for some reason, *don't* have the standard charger installed, you can easily handle your daily drive and then some just on an ordinary wall socket. And a dryer socket has 3 times the power as a garage socket, and a range or RV socket 5 times the power.

      That's why we need something that can be refueled quickly, which the Tesla certainly is not

      Tesla is working on 45 minute charging stations for the Roadster and Model S. Of course, that limitation is due to their particular, unusual choice of batteries. Most other li-ion variants being considered for automotive applications can charge far faster. The titanates, for example, can charge in 5 to 10 minutes. Oh, and Tesla is planning to offer pack swapping for the Model S.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    5. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is the batteries ... but if you wait until super batteries appear before even starting to develop a car then you'll never make a car. It's chicken and egg.

      The first car was obviously going to be expensive to buy so it had to be something flashy (if it was dull/mundane the rich people would ignore it). It was always very high-risk.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the only bad impression I did get from it was the mileage on the battery. Sure, they were driving the car hard, but the life span didn't seem up to par.

      Top Gear admitted that it didn't actually run out of charge. The entire "pushing it back" scene was staged.

      They "estimated" that it would only last 55 miles sprinting at top speed... but you know what? A Bugatti Veyron will only go about 60 miles or so if you sprint *it* at top speed. Track driving ranges have nothing to do with normal city/highway driving ranges.

      which subsequently overheated and then had some major subsystem failure....

      The vehicle never heated; that was faked, too. The "system failure" was real, but way overplayed. In the process of thrashing it on the track, they blew one brake fuse (of several). It took a matter of minutes to swap out the fuse. At no point during the filming was Top Gear without a fully working Roadster.

      Don't be surprised; they fake tons of things, and Clarkson is a huge hydrogen fanatic (he's admitted that he would have trashed the Roadster even if everything had been flawless because he sees hydrogen as being the future)

      Don't trust everything you see on TV.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    7. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      And my diesel can 'charge' in 1-2 minutes, even on the move

      That's fascinating! So how does that work? Is there a refueling aircraft that approaches from at front, dangling a gas pump on a boom arm, and you maneuver the car to get the fill? The rest of us have to slow down, take an exit, drive to the gas station, pull up to a pump, stop the car, get out, take the gas cap off, hook up the pump, fill, remove the pump, pay, put the gas cap back on, get back in the car, start it back up, drive out of the station, back to the highway, and accelerate back up to speed, making the whole process set us back by 10-ish minutes on the freeway (for the equivalent situation in the city, perhaps 5-ish minutes).

      Now, let's compare to rapid-charge electric with, say, AltairNano's titanate cells. Instead of 1-2 minutes for the "fill" step, it's 5-10 minutes for the "rapid charge" step. Everything else remains the same. Hence, on the freeway, the total fill time goes from 10 minutes to more like 15 minutes. Oooh, fear and surprise, whatever shall we do? And that's just the freeway case. In the city case, the time goes *down* to about 1 minute -- plugging your car in to a normal, non-rapid-charge outlet whenever you get home and unplugging it before you leave. And since the city case is far more common than the freeway case for most people (i.e., their everyday lives)...

      gets 600 miles to the tank

      Holy heck, how big is your fuel tank? Does it have its own zip code? Do you *seriously* drive for 10 hours on end without eating, using the restroom, stretching, picking up coffee, or anything of the sort? If so, please let me know when you'll be driving near Iowa City so I can stay *off* the road. Standard safety advice is to average 5-10 minutes of break per hour of driving.

      gets better MPG than a typical hybrid

      Complete nonsense, when you compare mass-market cars on the same drive cycle cars in the same class from the same year (i.e., same safety/pollution req's). And that's *ignoring* the fact that diesel is a denser fuel than gasoline, and hence a gallon of diesel actually contains more petroleum and emits more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. And a *LOT* more of other pollutants. Yes, there exist diesels that are cleaner than gasoline cars that exist, but on a whole, even comparing only new cars, gasoline cars average a lot cleaner than diesels. For example, show me a single SULEV diesel on the market.

      And that's vs. hybrids that we're talking about. Vs. electric cars, it's no contest, esp. with clean electricity.

      and hosts about 1/5th as much.

      As a hybrid or an electric? If you mean vs. a hybrid, you're living in a dream world. If vs. an electric, you're *still* living in a dream world, just not as much of one. The Aptera 2e I'm on a waiting list for, for example, starts at $25k.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    8. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Informative

      he's admitted that he would have trashed the Roadster even if everything had been flawless because he sees hydrogen as being the future

      That is so fucking ignorant it's not even funny. Unless he's talking about hydrogen combustion which everyone agrees is a just a stepping stone to fuel cells and not the end goal, then hydrogen cars ARE electric cars. The fuel cell generates power, which gets stored in batteries and large capacitors, which get used in the same way as an all-electric car would use the power.

      Do you know what the difference is? The difference is that everyone already has electricity available in their homes, but hydrogen requires a whole new infrastructure to be built. That and the added inefficiency of using electricity to produce the hydrogen that will be transported to the fueling stations only to be converted back into electricity in the car. I never understood why anyone would even consider hydrogen for fueling cars, much less prefer it.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    9. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you not bother to read the link?

      After reading Clarkson's review online, it's clear that the biggest problem the TG presenter has with the Roadster is that it's not powered by hydrogen. Clarkson suggests that even if the car were completely flawless, it would still be old-tech, since hydrogen is clearly the fuel of the future as far as he's concerned, and until then, apparently we should all be content with fossil fuels

      From the original, re Clarkson:

      In the fullness of time, I have no doubt that the Tesla can be honed and chiselled and developed to a point where the problems are gone. But time is one thing a car such as this does not have. Because while Tesla fiddles about with batteries, Honda and Ford are surging onwards with hydrogen cars, which don't need charging, can be fuelled normally and are completely green. The biggest problem, then, with the Tesla is not that it doesn't work. It's that even if it did, it would be driving down the wrong road.

      Clarkson has repeatedly and publicly expressed his disdain for electrics and his love of hydrogen. This is just yet another example.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    10. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the range/mileage standard for diesels now is "it's not unheard of"? Meanwhile, the standard for electrics seems to be "what happens if you race it on a track as fast as you can".

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    11. Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the one advantage of hydrogen is refilling times. It is very straightforward to refill a hydrogen tank quickly and be off on your way (though some safety issues do exist).

      Do you know how long it takes to refill, for example, the Fuel Cell Equinox (GM's hydrogen showpiece)? 25-30 minutes for a full tank. Phosphate and spinel batteries charge in 10-20 minutes, and titanate batteries in under 10 minutes from quick chargers. GM is looking at doing what Honda does, which is store the hydrogen in bulk at the station at the same sort of massive pressures used in the vehicle tanks, but that's a nightmare waiting to happen, IMHO, as well as a major increase to the already-way-to-expensive price of hydrogen fuelling stations.

      1. Simply recharnging most conventional battery chemistries is just out of the question. Most take hours. Apparently some exotic ones can take 10 mins, but I'm not sure what the tradeoffs are.

      Wrong. Recharging most batteries in *common consumer devices* takes hours, but that's not due to a limitation of the chemistry. It's due to two things: one, most consumer devices are very high-C in discharge, which means they have to their batteries during charge to increase longevity; and two, there's simply no space or budget for the kind of cooling and charge balancing systems used in electric vehicle packs that enable such fast charges. NiMHs can be charged in 20-30 minutes (see the Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Program, which has been doing this for a decade), lead acid in 15-20 minutes (see fast-charge forklifts), etc.

      There are three leading contenders for electric vehicle battery packs (not counting Tesla's near-unique approach of using laptop cells): titanates, phosphates, and manganese spinels. Phosphates are generally limited to about 15 minutes. Spinels are similar, 10 to 20 minutes. The titanate packs can be charged pretty much as fast as you can cool them -- most go for 10 minutes or less. There are two main disadvantages of titanates over phosphates and spinels, though: they hold less energy per kilogram and they cost about four times as much. Two examples of their usage are Phoenix, whose SUT uses them in order to qualify for the top tier of California's ZEV credits, which they sell; and the Lightning GT, a fast-charge sports car.

      This is current, on-the-market tech. However, there are about two dozen in-the-lab techs that offer some pretty astounding increases in density *and* charge times. The odds of every last one of them failing are near zero percent.

      It's kind of funny, and not what you'd expect, but do you know the prime impediments right now to manufacturers including fast-charge battery packs? 1) A lack of standardized hookups for high-power charging (unlike charging at up to 19kW, which is standardized at the SAE J1772 Yazaki connector), and 2) the need to have sufficient cooling for the battery pack. The latter is an extra expense that is hard to justify given the former. It has little to do with the cells themselves at this point.

      2. There are things like supercapacitors which do solve the recharging problem, but those are a very new technology and I suspect there are downsides.

      Huge downsides: they have horrible energy density. They're still struggling to merely try to get up to the energy density of lead-acid.

      3. Any technology based on actually putting electricity into the battery has to contend with very high power draws. A "gas station" might need 300kV supply lines and look more like an electrical substation.

      Not true. First off, instead of "gas stations", most chargers thusfar have just been at random local businesses, especially places who want EV customers to spend time there (grocery stores, restaurants, etc). But just ignoring that, any large charging centers, as well as very high power rapid chargers, will share a common battery bank that is trickle charged from the grid.

      I agree with you about swapping, mind you.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
  8. Ah, very affordable... by The+Hooloovoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep, no longer do you have to be "very wealthy" to afford a Tesla automobile. They're charitably reaching out to the under-served "rather wealthy" with their $50,000 Model S. Why, that's only about 5 years' rent for me -- a perfect starter car for the less-fortunate members of your country club.

  9. Re:Rich peoples' toys by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So... in your view, products should never be researched and manufactured until your average bear can afford them?

    That would be really upsetting news to people who made the first... oh, computers... televisions... CD players... PMPs... DSLRs... video cameras... multichannel stereos... general coverage receivers... GPS units... satellite television receivers...

    You know. Things that come under the heading of "stuff that we've never had before because it requires high technology."

    So I have a question. If these things aren't initially developed for people with deeper pockets, then where is the money to develop them supposed to come from? Over to you.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. Re:Rich peoples' toys by jaymzter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A small nitpick here, but these cars aren't targeted at the very wealthy. Rather, they're targeted at hyper-consumers. In the majority of cases the two are not synonymous. The same could be applied to your comment about rich people. Nobody gets rich writing checks.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  11. Capitalism would work if you let it. by alta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone complains about how capitalism is the downfall of our society and look at all the millions the CEOs are making, and all the money the Automakers are getting. Guess what folks. THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM.

    Capitalism would let ALL of these companies fail. If you can't make a product that people want or need at an affordable price, then it's a product that should NOT BE MADE. If you are stupid enough to give a $300k loan to someone who makes $15/hour you should not be bailed out. If the goverment "TELLS YOU TO DO IT" then sorry, maybe you got the short end of the stick, but it's still no longer capitalism.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    1. Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. by ADRA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their replacements would do the same thing over and over ad-infinitum, so what are you really advocating? I've worked in industry long enough to know that people don't change unless their forced to.

      Even if every one of these companies did crash and burn, the executives still walk away filthy rich with the middle and lower tiers completely fucked. I fail to see how this encourages good business practices for those sitting in these positions of power.

      PS: Capitalism may be an ideal that people aspire to, but I can't think of anywhere more than tiny island nations (embezzlement) that practice laissez faire capitalism. If anything, its been propped up by cold war paranoia as the bastion of human accomplishment. Too bad there wasn't a cheesy 70's exaggeration movie to exemplify the possible problems. Oh wait, there's rollerball...

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. by brkello · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, duh, we all know the government bailing out companies isn't capitalism. Capitalism is selling homes to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Then taking those sub-prime mortgages, making them in to little pieces, mixing them up with good loans, give them a high rating, and insuring them. With everyone buying houses, prices sky-rocket, so that even if the people can't afford the house, you reclaim it and sell it for even more money.

      Oh wait, that's what got us in this mess. Capitalism has a lot of wonderful qualities. But it needs to be regulated. Not too much, not too little...but simply screaming capitalism and how it is the solution to everything is naive at best...complete and utterly stupid given the current situation at worst.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    3. Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. by copponex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right. And would you like to provide an example of a purely capitalist society that has survived without subsidies and regulations?

      Like it or not, you have to have rules to keep greed in check. This basic principle has been understood since people have been able to communicate. You have to have government spending to soften the natural cycles of the market, or else you end up in a boom and bust period that will end in catastrophe. You have to socialize or heavily regulate infrastructure or you will end up with companies that wield too much power, or costs that start denying a majority of citizens basic needs, which leads to revolutions or totalitarian dictatorships.

      No amount of shouting will fix this reality. And if you want some more information, READ the Wealth of Nations. You'll discover that he supported regulation, taxing the wealthy, tariffs, protectionism, and laws against high interest rates. I know this would conflict with your ideology, but that's the problem with ideology. It's based on anecdotal evidence and similar nonsense.

    4. Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, no.

      Capitalism is requiring 20% down and good credit and mortgage insurance to buy a home because the lending agency assumes the risk and has its head on the block. Government interference is setting up a couple of tax-supported agencies to facilitate "universal home ownership" (see "Community Reinvestment Act") and forcing banks to issue more and more sub-prime loans. Government interference is being warned that their mandated programs are going to blow up and Democrats saying everything is just fine.

      Capitalism did NOT get us into this mess. Government fiddling in the economy did.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  12. Re:$50,000? Affordable by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm sorry, but a $50,000 car is STILL just for the wealthy.

    While I agree that only the wealthy can afford a Model S, Tesla is the only company that has demonstrated a viable business plan for producing electric cars. As they continue to produce them, they expect the price to come down.

    they would still need a different vehicle for taking the kids to soccer games, camping, etc. where more passenger and cargo space are needed.

    Actually, they wouldn't. The Model S seats 7, believe it or not. The electric drive train provides more space for storage. There is room for cargo under the hood (bonnet) because that space isn't needed for an engine.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  13. Re:$50k *after* subsidies by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With government monies, does that mean we will get some openness into their car's technology or other aspects such as cost of goods sold, cost of manufacturing and other details in the breakdown? Is it possible that the car actually costs nearly $50k? What about other factors of production that could later lead to lower-cost production cars? If they sell the first models for higher prices, doesn't that then allow them to build larger facilities and cheaper cars by volume? Furthermore, since the parts used in creating the cars will likely be sourced from outside the company, there will likely be parts that could be used by other makers of the same or similar technologies that will compete with Tesla and therefore also serve to drive costs down.

    I think the beginnings of new things are ALWAYS ridiculously high priced. Does anyone recall the first microwave ovens? Not only were they crappy, but they were QUITE expensive.

    I say let the electric car get made and see where things go. If we never try, it will never happen.

  14. Re:Not to mention... by RingDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uhh, the Roadster is built on a Lotus Elise body and frame. If you are looking at a $50+k road hugging high performance vehicle full of win and awesome, the Lotus Esprit screams it at 8000 RPMs. It is a sexy looking beast that will bruise your kidneys with it's exceptionally stiff and race worthy suspension. To call it an ugly car is purely delusional. It is functional. Exceptionally so. To the extent that the pureness of it's function becomes its beauty.

    I'm pretty sure that of the entire market of vehicles on the market today, only a tiny portion of them can be viewed as at all resembling the vehicles from Lotus.

    And the new sedan is much more in line with upper market full sized sedan styling. If you don't like it either, wait another 5 years, Tesla will either be unveiling more lines with more traditional appearances, or they will get bought out by a larger manufacturer that will rebuild the modern sedan using their technology.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  15. Re:$50k *after* subsidies by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, the charger issue is fixed by trickle-charging not just your car overnight, but also a high-current, high-capacity battery pack in the garage (li-poly? NiMH? Lithium-iron-phosphate? Lithium-magnesium phosphate? Silver-zinc? Lead-acid? Anything but lithium-cobalt, basically) that can deliver the thick, chewy amps needed to fast-charge the car battery.

    So once you add that to the cost, this '$50,000 car' will be an even worse deal than it currently appears.

  16. Re:Rich peoples' toys by kabocox · · Score: 2, Funny

    Geez, for some reason....there seems to be an almost inherit distaste for anyone with any type of wealth in this country these days. You almost seem to feel some level of vitriol anytime someone mentions people who make over $100K/yr and can afford something slightly 'nicer' than the people living in the projects.

    Are we at the beginning of a race to the bottom...where no one can have an advantage no matter how hard they try?

    Nah, that's just us folks on slashdot. Those really rich folks have their own private facebook like place where they go and have to pay like $50 a month fee just to keep us off it. It all works out. We like to be snobbish on how they waste money when they could get some of those things for free/cheaper, and they look down on us for wasting all that time doing something ourselves rather than just paying someone else to do it for you. Everyone is happy as long as they can have someone else to frown upon.

  17. Real Economic Recovery? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people want a real economic recovery, then the government should reduce the risk of investing in new businesses, which create and sustain economic growth.

    Of course all the progressives will say that "favors the rich" etc and so on to any suggestion that makes businesses succeed. Which means that success is punished, and failure is rewarded, as it is currently in this country.

    Here is my plan.

    1) Capital Gains taxes on long term investments will be 0%. Long term investment = 5 years or longer. No taxes on dividends on any investment property (real or stock or otherwise) held over 5 years.

    2) Simplfy tax codes to a flat and progressive personal income tax of 10 and 20%, with a generous personal exemption, say first 15,000 of income. However, everyone pays a minimum tax $100(or whatever). Everyone has to send a tax into the government. The reason is people who don't pay any taxes don't care what it is spent on; "it isn't my money".

    3) Lawsuit reform. People can sue for real damages (pain suffering etc) still, but limits will be placed so that it no longer a "get rich quick" scheme. Additionally, punitive damages do not go to the vicim, but rather to the state (victims fund), and there is a Lawyer cap fee of 5% on those.

    4) Patent Reform which includes peer review process for patent applications. Reforms would require not only abstract but a working (fully funtional) form of the invention. Software, mathmatical and other such "process" applications are void.

    Breaking the stranglehold of government interference into earning a livelyhood is paramount to fixing the systemic problems we have now.

    However, I'm sure that there is someone somewhere that would protest these very simple and sure solutions because it is "unfair" to someone somewhere. Well guess what? NOT having these rules are unfair to those that want the government to get out of the way so we can actually get stuff done.

    There is something wrong when the government makes more on everything than the businesses providing the services and products being taxed (NewYork I'm looking at you!!!).

    Four very simple things to do that would free up businesses to make products and services without having to look over their shoulder every two seconds to see some government or lawyer coming at them for something.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  18. Re:Not to mention... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
    "Uhh, the Roadster is built on a Lotus Elise body and frame. If you are looking at a $50+k road hugging high performance vehicle full of win and awesome, the Lotus Esprit screams it at 8000 RPMs. It is a sexy looking beast that will bruise your kidneys with it's exceptionally stiff and race worthy suspension. To call it an ugly car is purely delusional. It is functional. Exceptionally so. To the extent that the pureness of it's function becomes its beauty."

    I think you mis-read me. I think the Tesla looks GREAT...compared to other alternate energy cars out there, to me the Prius is about as fugly as they get.

    No, I love the Lotus and the Tesla. I considered the Lotus for a bit, but, where I live, I couldn't well find any place to service it close by (New Orleans)...this was especially true in the couple years post Katrina (although I saw a couple of them around town here).

    If they ever got the Tesla down to near Vette prices ($50-$60K range), AND I could get it serviced reasonably locally...I'd be very interested in one.

    But, no, my comment was that the Tesla was about the first decent looking, sporty alternate energy car I've seen so far...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  19. Re:$50,000? Affordable by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're not asking to be bailed out. If you didn't count the money they're spending on developing the Model S, Telsa would be profitable today -- and they're still scaling up Roadster production. They're asking for loans to speed up the creation of *new models* that are more affordable to a mass market. They don't need any sort of subsidy to keep on doing what they're already doing in making Roadsters.

    --
    I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
  20. Re:Rich peoples' toys by thrillseeker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got a drive in a (rich) friend's Tesla this weekend when it was delivered and have a test report.

    Executive summary: Oh. My. God.

    Items missing: Three point harness. Leg restraints. Sufficient handholds for passenger. AI software to maintain directional control during GLOC. Erica Lane's voice saying "pull up, pull up."

  21. Re:$50k *after* subsidies by winwar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Electric cars just can't charge fast enough to be as practical as regular cars, due to limitations of the grid, and this has nothing to do with Tesla's engineering."

    Why do you need fast charging for local trips? If most or all of your trips are local, who cares?

    Most people like unlimited range (with quick fueling) for its potential rather than actual need-hence cars like the Volt.

  22. Re:Difference? by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, if we help out Tesla we might actually get an innovative product to buy in the end

    What's so innovative about a $50,000 electric car? The Volt seems far more useful in the real world and that's looking at a price around $40,000 even with GM's enormous benefits costs folded into the costs.

  23. WE should end free trade. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Problems of GM should be viewed in light of the failed public policies of the US government. The question is not that GM should have been allowed to go belly up, but, how did GM last so long to begin with, in the face of such governing incompetence on both sides of the aisle.

    Front and center is this policy of free trade. The idea of American competition is a total sham. We have been hearing for 50 years that opening our markets to the world would improve our standard of living, and induce the world to do the same, and neither has happened. Instead, the world is more protectionist than ever, makes every excuse to avoid reciprocating imports.

    Saying that free trade makes a sick industry better is like telling a chemo patient to take a jog. Friendly competition between industries in different nations is only beneficial if it were friendly. They are not.

    Keep in mind that over the last 40 years GM has been paying for the health care of a MILLION of its retirees, and in doing so, basically subsidizes the health care of everyone else in the country.

    One could make the argument that until the USA does have some sort of nationalized medicine and protectionist policy, every manufacturing center in the USA will fail.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:WE should end free trade. by bwalling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have been hearing for 50 years that opening our markets to the world would improve our standard of living, and induce the world to do the same, and neither has happened

      We're miles better than before. It's inarguable. Pick any measure you want - real GDP per capita, etc - we are better off. My Google Fu is failing at the moment, but there are several economic studies that have shown the differences between countries that have free trade and those that don't. The group with free trade shows much higher growth over any period you look at than does the group without free trade. I wish I had a link at the moment, but there are peer reviewed journal articles with this data.

      the world is more protectionist than ever

      Please provide evidence to support this statement. The WTO is aware of 421 regional trade agreements, over 90% of which are free trade agreements. These include NAFTA, CAFTA, EU, EFTU, MERCOSUR, AFTA, COMESA, etc. On top of that, many countries have free trade agreements with countries outside of their regional area.

      One could make the argument that until the USA does have some sort of nationalized medicine and protectionist policy, every manufacturing center in the USA will fail.

      Protectionist policies are part of what has hurt the US automakers. They were protected for too long and they weren't forced to be competitive. If we're unable to make cars and be competitive, then we shouldn't do it - it's economically inefficient. Why pay more to do it ourselves than we could pay someone else to do it? That's just bad business. Protectionist policies are failures - protecting an industry causes higher prices and inferior quality. Competition improves quality and lowers prices.

      Additionally, there is a strong ethical argument against protectionism. "Buy American" is essentially a racist statement. You're implying that the value of an American is higher than that of someone from another country by saying that it's better to protect industries in this country to protect the jobs. At some point, we've got to start calling out "Buy American" for the racist statement that it is.

    2. Re:WE should end free trade. by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Additionally, there is a strong ethical argument against protectionism. "Buy American" is essentially a racist statement. You're implying that the value of an American is higher than that of someone from another country by saying that it's better to protect industries in this country to protect the jobs. At some point, we've got to start calling out "Buy American" for the racist statement that it is.

      I guess that depends on what you mean by "Buy American." Honda and Toyota have manufacturing plants in America. Is it "buying American" when you purchase a car manufactured at one of these plants? I'd argue that it is. All other things being equal, I see nothing wrong with "Buy American." It isn't really that much different than the "Buy Local" movement that is popular across the country, especially here in Vermont.

      Buying products that are made/grown in closer proximity to you has many advantages:
      * Lower transportation costs & less pollution
      * Keeps the money you're spending in the local economy
      * Helps to secure employment for local people
      * Encourages cohesion in the local community

      Obviously, the scale of "local" depends on the situation, but I don't see why at least some of the benefits don't scale up to the national level. What is wrong with wanting to improve the economic situation in the neighborhood/town/city/state/country where you live? You do, after all, live there. You need to have a job. A steady income. Services like fresh water, sewer, police, hospitals, etc.

    3. Re:WE should end free trade. by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Additionally, there is a strong ethical argument against protectionism. "Buy American" is essentially a racist statement. You're implying that the value of an American is higher than that of someone from another country by saying that it's better to protect industries in this country to protect the jobs. At some point, we've got to start calling out "Buy American" for the racist statement that it is.

      I couldn't agree more. Remember all those grandstanding congressmen grilling the auto makers but making sure to get their soundbites in about how they all drive American cars? If I were up there I'd be saying "I drive a Mitsubishi Eclipse because the cars you guys make all suck! Now get your asses in gear and make cars that people want to buy for a change!"

      It reminds me of the talk about protecting 'American' jobs, all the anti-visa and anti-immigration groups calling for protectionism of American workers. Feck that sh1t! Let the best man for the job get the job whether he happens by an accident of birth to hail from Belfast, Belgrade, Bangalore or Boston.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    4. Re:WE should end free trade. by Touvan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with those growth studies, is that it always seems that the "growth" is always concentrated to the upper end of the economic scales. I don't live their and don't care about their prosperity - and I suspect a growing number of other working Americans are starting to notice the same thing. So the "growth" proponents are really going to have to come up with something new to sell.

      I do agree that traditional "trickle down" bailout programs that propped up these auto makers in the 80s have propped them up in a position that does not help them become competitive, and the proof is in the pudding - if these American car companies want me to buy American, they had better make a better car than I can get for the money from an American built Japanese car company.

      --
      http://www.unfocus.com/
    5. Re:WE should end free trade. by bwalling · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I agree that there's an appealing aspect to "Buy Local", but the reality is that it's economically inefficient. I think you'd be surprised by the aggregate effect of this on the economy if everyone were to do it. Surely you agree that specialization can improve efficiency, right? Why do you buy carrots from a local farmer when you could do the same in your own yard and not have to drive to his market?

      You're from Vermont, have you read McKibben's book? I read it, and while I like certain aspects of it, I'm just not sure it's realistic.

      What is wrong with wanting to improve the economic situation in the neighborhood/town/city/state/country where you live?

      Why do you want to limit economic improvement to certain people?

    6. Re:WE should end free trade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that US car companies *are* building cars many want to buy... regulations prevent them from selling them here...

      There's a turbo diesel PT Crusier that get 65+ mpg... I'd buy one in a heartbeat... can't get one here...

      If the US gov would move the sulfur emissions regulations to the fuel side (require sale of only sulfur free diesel) rather than the cars, we'd have more fuel efficient cars than we'd know what to do with ...

      Sadly, we've had decades where the petro industry has been lining the pockets of our representatives better than the auto industry has been able to do. So we're stuck with car companies that aren't *allowed* to sell us what we want.

      This is *not* an Union workers issue... This is not an incompetent auto industry issue... this is yet another corrupt government issue...

      It's time to deal in reality, rather than the propaganda we're being fed.

    7. Re:WE should end free trade. by superdave80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Buy American" is essentially a racist statement.

      Eh, last I checked, "American" isn't a race...

    8. Re:WE should end free trade. by rtechie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Front and center is this policy of free trade. The idea of American competition is a total sham. We have been hearing for 50 years that opening our markets to the world would improve our standard of living, and induce the world to do the same, and neither has happened. Instead, the world is more protectionist than ever, makes every excuse to avoid reciprocating imports.

      Please mod this up.

      Any "conservative" or "libertarian" promotic so-called "free trade" is a liar and a fraud. They simply DO NOT WANT FREE TRADE. What they want is to have trade barriers altered to favor THEIR PRODUCTS. Not the American economy as a whole. Not the taxpayer. But themselves and their campaign donors. The same "free traders" that decry subsidized health care don't say one word about the MASSIVE US agricultural and energy subsidies, because they're making money in those industries. They're making money in the insurance companies as well which is why they fight tooth and nail to cut costs there. Insurance, basically ALL insurance in ALL forms, is a fraudulently used to abuse consumers.

      As I've said numerous times before the #1 problem in America, far beyond "terrorists", the "drug war", etc. is CORPORATE fraud. Corporate fraud is the cause of the financial crisis. Corporate fraud eats up about 50% of every American's paycheck. I believe the problem has gotten so bad that LLCs have to cease to exist for fraud claims. The only solution at this point is to hold officers and major shareholders personally and individually criminally responsible for corporate fraud. We need a dedicated federal agency staffed by hundreds of agents doing NOTHING by corporate fraud prosecutions. Such an agency would cost $0. It would more than pay for itself in fines.

    9. Re:WE should end free trade. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Racist". You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

    10. Re:WE should end free trade. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess that depends on what you mean by "Buy American."

      Buying products that are made/grown in closer proximity to you has many advantages

      Well, I agree with buying local anywhere in the world is the best way to go. I think the nation state is a good as boundary as any but I can see smaller nations wanting to buddy up.

      What is wrong with wanting to improve the economic situation in the neighborhood/town/city/state/country where you live?

      Agreed. It's like, people think, hey, nothing will happen when they buy a bunch of Chinese stuff and half the factories close down, and then suddenly wonder why property taxes are going up. In fact, taxes are going up everywhere partially because the stock and real estate booms hid the magnitude of the destruction of the tax base because of free trade.

      --
      This is my sig.
    11. Re:WE should end free trade. by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The new Chevy Malibu is almost universally regarded as the best car in it's class. Sticker is cheaper than it's peers (Altima, Accord, Camry) except the Camry, and after incentives it's the lowest price of the bunch. Their sales are up 50% from last year (and it's not all just rental companies), so plenty of folks are deciding that GM is doing something right.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  24. Re:$50,000? Affordable by s73v3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last I heard, they weren't looking for a straight up bailout, but a loan, which would have been authorized under a government program set up a while back, to provide business loans for development of alternative fuel cars.

  25. Re:Rich peoples' toys by End+Program · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Geez, for some reason....there seems to be an almost inherit distaste for anyone with any type of wealth in this country these days. You almost seem to feel some level of vitriol anytime someone mentions people who make over $100K/yr and can afford something slightly 'nicer' than the people living in the projects.

    The problem started when some people stopped believing that hard work, dedication, and pride in one's work are the way to get ahead in life. In other words, you earned your riches. Now what seems to be important is that you make as much money as quickly as possible with no regard to ethics, morals, or who you screw over.

    I believe this is the reason people are so up in arms and rightfully so.

  26. Re:Rich peoples' toys by Rei · · Score: 2

    Elise: The Roadster shares fewer parts with the Elise than your average Lamborghini shares with your average Audi.

    ACP: Tesla licenses the patents on the ACP drivetrain (AC-150), but they've extensively modified it in the process of creating even their first version, let alone Powertrain 1.5. Race an E-Box against a Roadster if you doubt it and think they're the same thing.

    Li-ion 18650s: Tesla didn't invent the batteries, of course, but virtually no EV manufacturers do, either. They did, however, do some pretty impressive work with pack design and construction, which is something that a number of EV companies outsource. The fact that they're able to get by on traditional 18650s speaks volumes as to their cell regulation and pack construction.

    --
    I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
  27. Re:Not to mention... by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is, of course, completely false. The Roadster is as much a conversion car as Nancy Pelosi is an evangelical. The percent of parts the Roadster shares with the Elise, by count or by mass, is in the single digits. It's the same basic layout and styling, and the body is built in the same factory, but it's a completely different car. It has to be, not only to extend performance, but also to deal with the radically different weight and volume distribution. And if anything, developing the battery pack is probably the most difficult aspect. You think it's easy to individually isolate thousands of laptop cells against fire or failure and to get them to last over half a decade? Not that pouring 200-ish kilowatts into an inverter and motor is a walk in the park either. Powertrain 1.5 took some serious work to make happen, and this was on top of their previous work of improving over the base AC-150 design. And need we even mention the whole transmission issue, in that there wasn't a *single* extant transmission on the market that could handle their engine, and the company that they hired to try and build one failed (the motor ripped the transmission to pieces in short order)? Major, major engineering challenges.

    --
    I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
  28. Re: GM Pension by _Hiro_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Buy and bailout GM just to protect the pensioner?

    I know for a fact (being the grandson of a pensioner) that Goodrich has enough money in their pension fund that none of their current pensioners have a single worry were Goodrich/Michelin go bankrupt. It's already set aside. In fact, they sent out a letter to the pensioners saying that they put aside TOO MUCH and were being required by the IRS to take some back. (Capital-to-pensioner ratio was too high.)

    Why did GM not put the money aside into an interest-bearing escrow account all along? It is tax-deductible, and we all know how much corporations like deductions. That should've been set aside long ago as a portion of each paycheck everyone's parents and grandparents earned.

    I don't think that we should feel obligated to buy a GM car now because they didn't manage their pension money properly yesterday. It would be cheaper just to top off the pension fund and provide some new start-ups with low-interest loans to get themselves on their feet and managing their money more wisely.

    --
    -Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
  29. Re:GDP is simply a measure of inflation. by bwalling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Real GDP is not a measure of inflation as it is adjusted for prices. The GDP deflator can be used as a measure of inflation, but it marks the difference between nominal and real GDP and is a measure of the change in prices. So, no, when I said "real GDP per capita", that cannot be really read as a measure of inflation. So, the correlation between the financial statistic and reality is that adjusted for prices, the GDP has actually increased, which means that output increased.

  30. Anti-Politics by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.

    No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation. If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided. If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem.

    But this isn't surprising, it's based on simple market principle. Capital investments flooded into financial markets because there are no rules against high interest rates, and the return for building a factory is nothing compared to that of selling a mortgage to an unqualified lender, and then selling that debt to someone else. No one is building anything real because they are addicted to 5-10% yearly returns after the first year they invested. World financial markets might as well be a trillion dollar casino.

    A lack of a accountability is the real problem. Accountability only comes into play when there are easy to understand rules, and consistent punishment for breaking them. So, I agree with you on the simplification of tax code, and patent reform.

    As for a lack of Capital gains taxes, I'm not so sure. I'd get on board with a carrot and stick program (must exist entirely in the US, must have a certain amount of company benefits, etc), but I doubt it could be written without any loopholes.

    Lawyer reform - this one is a bit trickier. I think the "loser pays" option is a good idea, with one exception: a person can apply for exemption to this rule by a jury, with the provision that any punitive damages will not go to the prosecution. This would allow justice to be served to larger corporations who have legal fees that could drown a small country.

    But, as one of those "progressives" I don't think removing taxes works, because we've tried that already. How about removing incentives for ripping people off, and implementing tested and successful financial regulations that create a better atmosphere for long term investment? Take a look at the Canadian banking system. Proof that regulations work, and the market isn't always right.

  31. Re:Tesla Business Plan - worth it! by BcNexus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You claim their goal is not worth pursuing, but it is.

    This is just plain stupid. Look, Tesla wants to be "alternative" but in reality it's just a sportscar with an electrical motors and a shitload of batteries. That's their vision. What the hell is innovative about that? You use the similar amount of energy as any car, but now in electrical form.

    The goal is to fuel with electricity, which is obtainable in many environmentally friendly, renewable or "endlessly-available" sources, as opposed to fueling a car with less environmentally, less renewable sources.

    Tesla/Electric fuel sources:
    windmills :-)
    hydroelectric :-)
    solar :-)
    geo-thermal :-)
    nuclear :-) to :-|
    combustion :-) to :-(

    GM/hybrid/Internal combustion energy sources:
    petroleum - very :-(
    ethanol :-) to :-|

  32. Why not a Ouija Board? by mrmike37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have such a strange system of government because people like you just guess at the right answer instead of putting in the time and effort of carefully figuring out the patent and latent effects.

    1) Why 5 years? Why not 4 years, or 6 years? Why have any time limit whatsoever? Why have any income taxes at all: maybe just property taxes, or something else?

    2) Why progressive? Why not regressive, or a head tax? Why not a flat tax? Again, why do we tax income? Are you aware that a large personal exemption would opperate as a progressive tax? Could we raise enough money with your system? If not, what spending would we cut?

    3) Almost everyone wants a judicial system where a plaintiff only gets their "fair" share. But what is fair? Also, what mechanisms are we going to use to make sure people don't abuse the system? Who decides what is abuse? Sometimes a hard-and-fast rule may classify someone as an abuser of the system, and they aren't, and vice-versa. The punitive damage system was already tried in California (and other places). Plaintiff's and Defendant's settled the lawsuits and re-labeled the punitive damages as compensatory in their settlements. There were other negative effects, too.

    4) How does this affect the incentive to invent? Are software patents really all bad? Are some types of software worth saving? If it forseeably takes 100s of hours to find out a mathematical property, is it really in societies best interest to deny the "inventor" any protection.

    There is no such thing as right and wrong. If you kill everyone on the planet, whose left to tell you what you did is right or wrong? There are only physical limits.

    By the way, I agree with you generally, but I think you are using overly simplistic logic. Study this stuff if you are really passionate about it.

    --
    Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
  33. re: Tesla and loans by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fine, but my issue with this is: It's NOT government's job to issue business loans!

    We've gotten into that mentality with all the "exceptions" created like Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae, but look where those have gotten us? Skyrocketing costs for college tuition and the housing crisis!

    If Tesla Motors wants a loan, they should pursue normal channels of venture capital or a bank loan. If the current economy makes those too difficult? I'm sorry about that -- but that's no excuse for trying to bypass the current system we have in place. I needed to buy a new car and got stuck paying way too high of an interest rate myself, thanks to banks being exceptionally "tight" with lending right now. I wasn't able to just run to the federal government and receive a more favorable loan. Why should a business like Tesla Motors get special treatment either?

  34. Great by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay can we finally dispense with calling any of this stimulus money? Tesla is a small company making electric cars for rich people. Great, nothing wrong with rich people or Tesla. However, giving such a small company "stimulus money" is disingenuous and certainly out of the realm of what this money was supposed to do. You can argue the good that will come and how "eventually" they will start making affordable cars. Give the market and Tesla incentives, not cash that supposed to "stimulate" the economy. I don't know how many employees they have but I seriously doubt its enough to jumpstart the local economy around the Tesla plant.

  35. Please Don't Bring Up the CRA Again by weston · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someone needs to write a bot to post a response every time someone blames the financial crisis on the CRA or in some other way largely on the GSE's.

    "Federal Reserve Board data shows that:

    * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
    * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
    * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

    - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

    Here's a few other links:

    http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
    http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
    http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

    There is also a summary at Wikipedia.

    --
    Tweet, tweet.