Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Nabs $465M Government Loan To Build Model S
SignalFreq writes "Tesla Motors, based in San Carlos, California, was approved yesterday for $465M in loans from the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Tesla plans to use $365M of the money to finance a manufacturing facility for the Model S (review, Letterman video) and $100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area. 'Tesla will use the ATVM loan precisely the way that Congress intended — as the capital needed to build sustainable transport,' said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk. Tesla expects the Model S to ship in late 2011 and the base cost to be $57,400 ($49,900 after a federal tax credit). Ford received $5.9B and Nissan received $1.6B under the same program."
courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
should have been a 25K car cost cap.
That way most people could only barely not afford it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The S is for socialism.
In other words the taxpayers just had half a billion stolen from them and given to some idiot Californicators to waste on building overpriced cars that will only sell if they are subsidized with yet more taxpayer dollars.
Seriously, if these cars were such a great moneymaking venture I don't think California is lacking in venture capitalists even in a recession. You only go to the government with hat in hand if you know it is a losing idea but can be made politically appealing anyway. These days you just have to say "green!" to crack open the piggy bank.
Democrat delenda est
Imagine your willy being smacked by j.delanoy until it cums in oragemikes mouth.
I'm anti-subsidy for luxury car manufacturers. Starting at $49,900 -- bah! How about spending a fraction of this to rip out the engine of a Chevy Aveo and put in an electric motor? How about an electric car people can actually buy? Innovation not required!
Tesla will be out of business ( a.k.a. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy) by Jan. 1, 2012 along with Chrysler and General Motors.
Go China.
Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout
Anyone left wondering why our tax dollars are funding a loan for Nissan while U.S. auto companies are struggling?
Good grief. This is awesome. What's wrong with you people?
Why are you such knee-jerk ideologues? A government spending money is socialism? Are you that stupid?
This is an honest-to-goodness American technology company building some very cool 21st century vehicles.
I'm really ashamed of America sometimes.
Yet... trust me, they will be bankrupt within 3 to 4 months with the current depressed state of new car sales in America.
Ford got in trouble before the depression started, and sold off their assets while they still had value. That was dumb luck, not foresight.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Seems silly to dump such a large sum into a company that is in fact making luxury cars. Sustainable? Sure, if you're upper-class white America. What about those of us who want a reliable, energy efficient car without sacrificing our children's education to get it? Tesla is doing good work, but I don't think they should be getting taxpayer dollars for something that ultimately I won't be able to afford anytime in the foreseeable future.
"Oh, Florida. Just think, somewhere in this state, right now, Jeb Bush is eating a live puppy."
Now, if eeStor's ultracapacitors can ramp up, we might actually have a private transportation sector in 10 years.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Go crawl back under the fucking rock you came from wacko.
No one gives a shit about your fucking loony ideology.
I've been watching Tesla since day one. The make cars the way they should be made. You place an order for your car, then the car is built. It was privately financed until this infusion of funds. For what the model S is and does the price isn't to high. I looked at buying a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and it clocked in at $42,000, while I was shopping I noticed that entry level BMW's and Audi's were also at the $40,000 mark. So I saved $22,000 and bought a 2009 Corolla. My next car will be a Tesla as soon as they start selling them on the east coast. The Model S is as nice a car as an Audi or BMW, without the need to change the oil or pay at the pump. It makes the Chevy volt look like a joke and puts all the hybrids to shame, it is the ultimate commuter car.
What... all that money and no solar panels?
"...Nissan received $1.6B under the same program."
Nissan? Why is the United States government giving money to Nissan? Shouldn't the Japanese government do that and not the U. S. taxpayer?
I know that I'm going to catch hell for this and probably get modded a troll. So be it. However, as a currently unemployed U. S. citizen who has had a job and paying into the system since I was twelve, I have to wonder where the hell is my federal government bailout money? State unemployment doesn't pay hardly anything. The U. S. government gave over a billion dollars to a foreign company, but a hard working citizen like myself, who really wants to work, gets next to nothing.
I apologize for the rant.
If anybody is looking for a systems/network administrator, who has over twenty years of solid experience, in the NE Ohio area, let me know.
SiO2
It's not a handout. It's a loan. You know like the loans you can get for small businesses from the feds and state governments.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-B-51905%7C2009-B-69390&semesterid=2009-B/
Lecture 1 - 46 mins in Richard Muller talks about the cost vs pay of an electric vehicle.
Hopefully Fisker can get the same deal from the feds to make the Karma !!! Which would really help me because I am loaded up on QTWW stock ;)
At $50,000 the Model S is more likely to be used as a fleet car then something you use at home. For those who say this is a waste of money I'd like to point three things out: 1. GM spend 1.2 BILLION to build a PROTOTYPE electric car, which they didn't put into productions. This is money to build a factory that will actually um make cars. 2. Tesla is going to use this money to build electric vehicle components in the US for other companies. Having that kind of production is the US is BIG DEAL for our balance ot trade. 3. Tesla is more likely to pay
That thing looks hot.
My only concern is battery replacement. Replacing a UPS battery is roughly half the cost of the UPS. If cars like these get the same battery economy that would mean $25k every 5-7 years according to their FAQ. (I'm just guessing here based on battery life; they made no mention of battery replacement costs)
Their FAQ claims the car is a great lasting investment due to lack of complexity and moving parts, but having to drop $25k every 6 years for a new battery would be a deal breaker.
I do wish them luck though, it's way past time we stopped supporting extremists in the middle east. Not to mention that fact that a complete 300 mile recharge would cost about $4.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Do everyone a favor and just shut the fuck up.
k?
Slightly less socialist than the Socialist Workers Party or Europe.
Noted.
If they are on "S" now, then the next model in line is "T". The potential confusion cannot be good for marketing. Reminds me of the door company that made a "Commodoor-64".
Table-ized A.I.
Gaycart. Wankermobile. Teabagtrolley.
Before anyone even opened up this article you knew there were going to be idiots who:
1. Didn't bother to read the fucking article
2. Saw a Japanese company name
3. Immediately posted an idiotic 'US loan going to Japanese company? WTF???' post
Disturbing. If you
How dare we invest in technology!
The private corporate environment has given us similar investments in really useful things, like erectile dysfunction cures, flavored cigarettes, ringtones, and the iPhone. Truly world changing technologies!
If the internet had been a sure fire moneymaker, it could have had private funding. Just like computers. We know what those stupid government investments have wrought.
Or maybe large energy players like Shell and Exxon actively seek out to destroy any competition to their products and have warped the market place due to their anti-competitive business practices... nah! Sounds like hippy speak to me!
$100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area
How on earth can that be the cheapest place to manufacture something?
I suspect the factory location is more political than practical ("I've love to help you get that loan, but you know, it'd sure be nice if you located that factory in my state").
Advice: on VPS providers
IIRC the DeLorean company got almost as much cash from the Brits to build a factory in Northern Ireland.
Turned out with all the lack of infrastructure and suppliers, it would have been cheaper to build the factory in Beverly Hills.
Looks like Tesla is going one step further and actually building the factory right away in a high-cost area. .... And aren't there dozens of GM car factories just sitting idle?
The ideal and proper method for government grants, funding, etc. should never be paid out for those promising a return, but instead to those who deliver an actually return. Think of the X prize or the Android Developer Challenges where money is paid upon completion of successful projects/objectives.
The reasons are clear:
Respect the Constitution
Like everything else, you get what you pay for. If Americans want to continue buying cut-throat cheap goods from third world manufacturing plants, they are going to find out in the next 5-10 years that they themselves have become a third world state. I don't think protectionism is good, but America is the only country that is nailed to the wall for these policies. Say nothing of China limiting exports of coke, iron, zinc and other materials needed to make steel (thereby increasing the cost to steel factories worldwide), or devaluing their Yuan to give their manufacturers a foot up on the world..
"Roads are specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Pass"
the federal highways is specifically mentioned? wow!
However the poster was pointing out that is was a major government program that was done very well, and saved people money.
"A Navy is specifically mentioned. The Marines are a sub unit of the Navy. Pass"
Still missing the point. The Marine are run quit well, like the Air Force. Good luck finding that in the constitution.
"Postal service is permitted. Pass. But note that most packages use private carriers these days, the postal service is mostly for bills and junk mail."
Irrelevant, it's a government program that can get a piece of paper from your house, across the country and to someone elses house in a few days.
The fact that there are less letters is a product of modern communications, not a failure on the government.
". Federal money for those purposes are unconstitutional. "
No, it's not. Do you even have a basis for your argument?
Here is the tenth:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The state do not have to take the money from the government, they chose to do so. I fact, they don't have to pay many of the taxes to the feds that they do, they choose to. Usually becasue there is something for them in the deal.
The people don't seem to mind either.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
for angst-ridden yuppies. *YAWN* Wake me up when the base price is $20k without a gov't subsidy (a.k.a. taxpayer robbery).
...yet.
Me, and many people like me, will never give another dollar to GM or Chrysler. You don't just seize a private company, screw the bond holders, and hand it over to your Union cronies without suffering any fallout.
thankyou for the pointers! You should get +1 informative, but I have no points.
I find it amusing that nobody even mentioned this? Do they really polute less - or are the emmissions just happening somewhere else? ;) (*Cough* Coal, Natural gas, etc.)
They have to get the price below $20,000 per car. The technology does in fact exist to do this.
These are the main groups that receive fantastic favors from the government. The rest of us just pay for it all.
You may think I'm full of shit, a conspiracy-theorizing lunatic, or just some slashdot crank. Maybe so. Check your data before you get too smug about it, though.
Welcome, Comrades!
Welcome to the Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics!
Are just a few of the pertinent questions that weren't even brought up in that lousy clip. Instead they showed us a bunch of people drinking (some of them seemed a bit tipsy on camera) and talking in vague generalizations.
That ad video was so bad, I can't help but wonder if it was done by IBM employees.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
However, a 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz[9] argued that the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. Twenty-seven people died in Pinto fires. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was no worse than typical for the time.
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
I know this is a tangential question, but I've been wondering about this for a while, and this seems like the best forum to get a decent answer from intelligent people:
Why is all the development on electric and electric-hybrid cars going into fancy new systems with lithium ion batteries or hydrogen fuel cells and (for hybrids) complicated switching between a conventional drive train and electric motors, instead of using and improving upon the time-tested diesel-electric technology which has efficiently powered many trains for quite some time now?
Build a simple all-electric car - just a body, steering rack, four wheels with a dynamo on each (there's your propulsion and your regenerative brakes), some circuity to control them all, and a small battery that holds just enough charge to get you up to speed, maybe twice that for a safety margin. Then stick the most efficient diesel or gas generator you've got in it to provide electricity to keep the battery charged. You lose a bunch of weight and mechanical complexity by ditching most of the drive train and transmission system for some simple wiring between the generator and the dynamos; the alternator and the standard car battery become redundant with the generator and main battery; heck you could even replace the radiator with a small steam engine for still increased efficiency, turning that excess heat into electricity instead of just disposing of it to the air.
Yes, it still uses some fossil fuels, but in the end most of our electricity comes from coal anyway (even for a wall-charged all-electric vehicle like the Model S here, which I am very excited about). This just seems like it would have been far cheaper, more efficient (in terms of both money and thermodynamics), and simpler a solution than the complicated hybrids they've been building for a while now; plus the technology has already existed in widespread use on trains for decades!
So why isn't anybody doing it in cars? Is there a good technical or economic reason?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Alan Mulally is turning the ship of Ford Motor Co much more quickly than I ever thought possible. He has cleaned up the bureaucratic mess in Dearborn. The Fusion/Milan is moving up the charts. I drove the Fusion Hybrid the other day and it is fantastic. The new Taurus is getting very good press. The 20+ city MPG Transit Connect is going to be a no-brainer for delivery vehicles.
Toyota Yaris 14,000 base price give or take
Model S 49,000
That is a price difference 35 grand at three bucks a gallon for gas that is about 11 years worth or more, wow I cannot wait to stand in line to buy
one of these bad boys. It is certainly going to be amusing watching the auto industry fail yet again because they are letting the govt push
them down the whole green energy road. The are getting ready to produce vehicles again that nobody is going to buy.
Got Code?
Only thing you need is electricity (which with most utilities you can get a time of use nighttime rate which is extremely cheap),
Most utilities in CA maybe but not in the US. CA is the only state I know that has different rates for different tymes of the day.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Irrelevant. Ford had identified a problem. It was a fixable problem. They elected to not issue a recall. They expected to kill some people, and did. They expected to get sued and lose. They did. They didn't guess the lawsuit cost right (partially because the fact they discussed the future suit was revealed in court). But that doesn't change the fact that they put a price on life and decided to unethically and illegally cover up a known defect to save money (the price on life was coincidentally not far from the federal government's price on life, so if they had revealed it to the NHSTA and requested it be voluntary, it would have probably been approved and been much cheaper than a full recall and have not been willfull killing of people).
Learn to love Alaska
My complaint is that this is being done for a company *that is competing with U.S. owned companies* in a sector where we're struggling.
I could buy Nissan ADRs, American Depositary Receipts, on NASDAQ if I had the money. American Depositary Receipts are a method Americans can invest in foreign owned corporations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
...whenever it benefits us. For example, we're perfectly willing to distort the market for transportation by paying for freeways with regressive sales taxes. We also like to force property owners to provide off-street parking spaces in the name of "free" parking.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You should be able to find a perfectly reliable, reasonably safe used car for just a few grand. It may not be pretty, but it will do fine.
When you buy a used car you're buying someone else's problems more than likely. Now I've bought 5 used cars, and one new car I still have after 9 years. Of those I have had to work on 4, one I had to rebuild one engine. Myself, the only think I could not do was bore out the cylinders so I took the engine block to a machine shop. Others I had to repair and replace the transmissions, starters and alternators, replace brakes and other things. Which was fine with me, I could only afford to buy cheap cars I could fix.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
False dichotomy. I don't need a car to get to work, and the mass transit here sucks. I take the most efficient form of transportation available, which also happens to be one of the cheapest: a bicycle. My hilly 10-mile commute takes 40-45 minutes each way.
For groceries and other cargo (such as children), there's the bakfiets (and clones), xtracycle and bike trailers. People even bike in the rain and snow.
The auto manufacturers have done an impressive job making us believe that "everybody in this country needs a car".
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
do you think that the people that like to buy $50-60k cars try to eke 200,000 miles out of them, or do they tend to be people that like to have a new car every few years?
If I could afford to buy new cars every few years, I'd still keep a car as long as I could. The only reason I'd buy a new one to replace the old one was because it was costing too much to keep. Instead of spending money on new toys, I'd rather invest the money. Or donate it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Looks like the gov't is a AT v M...
f cars like these get the same battery economy that would mean $25k every 5-7 years according to their FAQ.
After 5 year their batteries are supposed to hold 70% of their new charge capacity, so they really don't need to be replaced, unless the owner needs the range.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Government was already fund Detroit. While I don't like government subsidies whereas 2 of the Detroit big 3 are bankrupt, Tesla looks to be profitable.
The ideal and proper method for government grants
These are loans not grants and have to be repaid.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
TARP may of been needed but if so then strings should have been placed on the funds, such as requiring banks to lend money instead of using it to buy competitors and hoarding the money. Money was given to banks because they were too big to fail, well now they're massive and when they crash again the government won't be able to bail them out.
The bailout also gave bad banks advantages over banks that were properly run and didn't make bad loans. Good banks and borrowers were made to pay for those who made bad loans and those who took out bad loans. In other words the government was choosing winners and losers instead of letting the markets do it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
imho, elon musk is doing what billionaires should be doing. taking risks that their fortune enables only them to make, with companies like tesla motors, and spacex.
The Tesla site says, "Seats 7". Given the photos there, I don't see how.
It would appear that Tesla seems to be able to do what Detroit has not been able to do. Personally, I have never been convinced of the arguments that Detroit has ever put out. I figure that the greed of the few outweighed the needs of the many; go figure. I wish every success to Tesla Motors. I would also suggest to Tesla that they re-watch, "Tucker: The Man and His Dream," the movie. Detroit didn't get to be a big as it is by being less "Aged, Cunning, and Deceitful" as its rivals.
The Polywell project could've used just some of that money.
If you want electric cars to be delivered next year you just have to do one thing -- increase the price of fuel dramatically. Until that happens none of this matters and no efforts short of that to move to electric cars will work.
A Net Zero Fuel Tax has been proposed that would do that. Tax on fuel would be raised while people would get a cut in their income tax. If the average person's fuel cost increased $20 people would get a $20 income tax cut. This would encourage people to demand and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"socialist" is pretty much anyone who's to the left of Reagan
Reagan was pretty socialist, for big businesses, the military, and law enforcement, but not for others. He was also friendly to the fossil fuel industries.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
relative. However, socialism is an economy type, like capitalism. It's not relative.
And liberal is an economic as well as political type and is not relative. Specifically Liberalism and the Liberals that stand for it stand for free markets, liberty, and small government. Ah, but I see you say you're a small government liberal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And they are still praised to this day for what they have done for this country.
Not everyone, even economists, praise FDR for what he did. Many economists blame him for making the Great Depression last as long as it did. While Teddy Roosevelt was known as a great Trust Buster FDR made trusts more powerful and allowed industries to collaborate to keep competition out.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Smith Electric Vehicles in the UK has been making electric vehicles for 70 something years straight, the current range runs from "sub compact car/van" size right up to articulated good vehicles. One of the better sellers is based on the Ford Transit, a 3500 Kg GVW van, which has a running cost of only 2p per mile and a purchase cost far far far far cheaper than a tesla, and it will earn you a living.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
These EVs are never going to work in parts of the USA that get COLD in the winter. Not to mention the lack of passenger compartment heating, these batteries are going to be seriously degraded in the freezing cold.
I read the title to the article as "to build a Model T". Back in time we go!
Why does Ford get such a big help? Because they've been such a leader, and shown such promise in the world of alternative transportation?
Jesus, they were still making almost nothing but giant, dick-substitute trucks until like 2007. Fuck them, they're stupid and shortsighted, let them flounder and fail.
Porquoi?
Funny how when you compare the loan they got to others, how it shows very little the importance on finding new energy.
The big companies (that should be standing on their own feet..thank you ford for putting us into the ground)...seem to get a bigger piece with no real realization of this promise towards different energy...while a company like this one which is pure 100% electric only,
gets no real support....I mean 5billion, they could buy a car for each family in the us with that,.....how is this help...and tesla gets a few million...at least give them 1 billion, see what they make out of it!!!
Yes I do. I have not committed hari kari, sepaku, or another ritualized form of suicide mostly because a belief I formerly had. Though I no longer do I used to believe in reincarnation and whenever I'd think of ending my life I'd think that if reincarnation were true then I'd have to come back and go through what I've been through again. Two other reasons are that I hate giving up, and I am stubborn. Which may be a problem there, some of the doctors and therapists I've seen said that if I weren't stubborn I would not have survived. Actually I just got home from an appointment at my doc's clinic where I told two therapists I met the same thing.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Arizona does as well.
Okay, that makes two states, out of 50. Even if there are 10 states that have variable electrical rates that's only 1 in 5.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Oh but I do.
I believe that taxes have one single purpose. To fund the government. Therefore I believe it is immoral and wrong to tax things differently in an attempt to alter an individual's behavior.
In general I feel the same but I also believe it's the responsibility of government to protect people, and that includes from pollution. If a business or person pollutes they should be held accountable. But I guess you didn't even look at the link I provided. The net zero tax proposal was from the neoconservative publication "Weekly Standard".
I also believe a tax or user fee should cover the cost of what it is for. In the case of fuel tax it should cover the cost of building and maintaining roads, but they don't. Money has to be taken out of general revenue to pay for roads.
Taxes should not be used as a subversive method to influence free choices.
So polluters shouldn't have to pay for their pollution?
Furthermore, your argument suggests if you tax something, you get less of it, or rather people buy/use less of it. Which is true, so why are we taxing income and savings?
Again you say it's my proposal or argument, can you show me where I claimed it was?
Also if you go back in my posting history you should see I oppose personal income taxes. I have repeatedly advocated reducing the size of government, getting rid of the ABCs of agencies and authorities, bureaus, departments, offices, and others the Constitution of the USA does not mention. If there is an exception I make it is the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Personally I don't think it's an exception though others may. That's because pollution does not respect man made lines on a map. Because of heavy use of fertilizers on farms in the Midwest, which gets washed down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico, a large and growing Dead Zone forms in the Gulf every year. Among those who have to pay are all the fishermen who don't catch much if any fish because all the fish are dead.
Your suggestion to tax gasoline to change human behavior is in conflict with a free society. In a free society, you don't need to worry about what other people do.
So polluters get a free ride. You do have to worry, because what others put out may cause you to lose your property or kill you, but I guess as long as someone make money that's alright.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?