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."
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways, the US Marine Corps, the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee, and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Um, as far as I know, Ford hasn't taken any of the bailout money, nor is Ford bankrupt, unlike Chrysler and GM.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Obama socialist?
People who claim that Obama or the American Democratic party for that matter is socialist needs to take a trip around the globe. In many European countries the Democrats would be considered a right wing party.
> I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways
Roads are specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Pass
> the US Marine Corps
A Navy is specifically mentioned. The Marines are a sub unit of the Navy. Pass
> the US Postal Service that'll deliver
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.
> and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department
Those services are not provided by the US government. Federal money for those purposes are unconstitutional. Good luck getting enough literate Supremes to be able to figure that out any time soon.
US Taxpayer money to a private automaker? Fail. Unless you can point me to the clause I missed that specifically grants the US government that power the 10th Amendment forbids it. Again, good luck finding five Supremes who can read.
Democrat delenda est
Tesla is the only company in the world selling production electric cars that are fully street-legal. They started with a $100K car, and now they're doing a $50K car. They have a $30K car planned for after that.
Basically, you need economies of scale to get the cost of these cars down. Tesla's riding that curve, and plans to eventually have cheaper cars than Ford. This is a potentially great place to invest in American innovation, not to mention the environmental benefits or jobs.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
The kind of people who claim that Obama is socialist aren't the kind of people that travel around the globe. Well OK, Gov. Sanford does, but the REST of them...
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
The technology does not exist yet to make a $25k electric car that can succeed in the American market. Tesla is right to start with the high-price, high-profit end of the market and work their way down to the high-volume mainstream as the technology matures and the supply chain scales up. Trying to start out by making a capable electric car for the mainstream American market is a much riskier move, and requires much more up-front money - hence the much larger handouts that have gone to the more established automakers. Tesla, on the other hand, has already established their electric vehicle business as profitable, and can use their profits and experience from the Roadster to help subsidize the development of the Model S.
just a guess, but it could be because of the 3 manufacturing plants and 1100 dealerships Nissan has in the US.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Cars are cheap because nearly everybody in this country needs a car. You need a car to get to work, you need it to get to school and you need it for recreation. Sure, if you happen to live in a major city there is also mass transit, but for a large percentage of the population a car is a necessary reality.
Now, with that being said - what happens when something is produced in such great numbers? Economies of scale - the price is driven down due to mass production. Vehicles that cost $13,000 USD are a reality and they're not half bad either. A pretty decent car can be purchased for $20,000, and a really good car for $30,000. Luxury vehicles are nearly anything $40,000 and above.
What about electric cars? They aren't mass produced in any great number just yet, because so far everyone is content with dropping $13,000 on a car that's just "good enough" for their needs. Why do I need an electric vehicle? What benefit does it give me _right now_? Fuel costs decrease significantly, yes - but enough to offset the price of the car? Probably not, even over the lifetime of the vehicle. Therein lies the problem.
Electric vehicles - especially from a non-big 3 startup - are something I believe the government should assist. Your tax dollars are helping fund the future, because while you may not be able to afford this vehicle at $50,000, you might be able to afford the next car they produce using the profits of the Model S.
When the world is filled with "good enough" and people who like "good enough" - how do you convince people to switch to something better?
everyday is another shooter.
Wrong in so many ways.
1) It's not a grant. It's a loan.
2) The Model S is right in the price range of high-end luxury sedans (which is what they're making).
3) Tesla got the overwhelming majority of their Roadsters when there was no EV tax credit. Sure, it'll increase their Model S sales volume, but they'd still sell a ton without it.
4) The whole world is lacking in venture capital right now. It's called a financial crisis. About the only entity that investors trust to loan money to these days are major world governments. Hence, that makes them effectively the only entity able to give loans worth half a billion dollars to all but the most established large businesses.
5) If you have such a problem with half a billion dollar loan, I'd hate to see how you'd react to the $5.9 billion loan Ford just got from the same program.
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
should have been a 25K car cost cap.
In the electric car industry, that's simply too big a jump to make all at once. If your ultimate goal is to produce 200,000 $25k cars a year, and the current state of the art is 2,000 $100k cars a year (the Tesla Roadster), then it's only reasonable to expect to produce 20,000 $50k cars (the Tesla Model S) as a stepping-stone. The market is there, and those early adopters will facilitate the eventual availability of the $25k mass-market car you're talking about. If you do the math, the "rich" purchasers of the Model S will be kicking in about one billion dollars a year towards this goal, double the government loan amount. So think before you knock 'em.
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
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.
Who built the Interstates?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
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
> If you have such a problem with half a billion dollar loan, I'd hate to see how
> you'd react to the $5.9 billion loan Ford just got from the same program.
I'm pissed off about that too. I'm pissed off at the money we are pissing away on the auto bailouts in general. We spent all that money.... and they went bankrupt anyway. But since they cheated and didn't let them do a proper bankruptcy it's going to be f&%king Groundhog Day in Detroit for the next 3 1/2 years as they keep going bankrupt over and over again and the US taxpayer keeps stuffing money down the UAW rathole and relaunching the zombie automakers.
Democrat delenda est
You remind me of my Dad in 1975 when new cars were required to have catalytic converters and could no longer use leaded gas.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Exactly. Tesla's approach is perfectly cogent. Starting a car company is a *huge* expense. Look at what Coda is having to go through to bring a new car to the US -- they mentioned that they still need to crash another *30 to 40 cars* to get certified. And that's just the half of it. There are no volume parts producers for EV components. Look at the Roadster transmission fiasco -- there literally was no multi-gear transmission in the world that would work with their motor, and when they spent a fortune trying to get a company to engineer one for them, what they ended up with couldn't take the stress.
The logical approach, then, is to piggyback as much work as you can onto that of an existing manufacturer (in this case, Lotus), focus only on what's different, and start at the high end so that you can absorb the capital costs into the vehicle price without creating sticker shock. People expect a carbon fiber car that does 0-60 in 4 seconds to be expensive. The fact that low-volume EV drivetrain components are super-expensive doesn't matter there, because so are the low-volume ICE components that they compete against.
This is the next logical step: an independently developed, not-piggybacked, luxury sedan. This means building a large-volume factory, with a chassis developed from scratch that's designed for your EV needs. Of course, this is incredibly expensive. Hence the need to raise a ton of capital. In the middle of a financial crisis. :P
Once they've retired that risk, even higher volumes/lower prices become realistic. Which is their plan with the Bluestar.
That seems to be the same approach being taken by Fisker. I think a reasonable alternative approach is that being taken by Aptera. Three wheels to skirt the federal requirements, but put a heavy *independent* focus on safety, with a vehicle that's so uber-streamlined and lightweight that it simply doesn't need a powerful drivetrain or large battery pack to perform well. Hence they can start at near the bottom of the market, where there is a lot less competition. Once they're rolling off the lines, you can expect to see from them what Tesla is doing now -- raising large amounts of money to build a factory for a more mainstream, higher volume sedan (although they'll almost certainly keep their extreme-efficiency focus).
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
Why is the United States government giving money to Nissan? Shouldn't the Japanese government do that and not the U. S. taxpayer?
They are getting money because they are trying to produce a car that might help the US reduce its dependence on dangerous, foreign, terror-funding oil.
They are getting money because they might employ you, and many other US citizens.
They are in a better position to employ you and others than 2 of the 3 major American car manufacturers because they are not shite.
Surely you don't think they are taking the money back to Tokyo to spend on kimonos?
People, with machines.
Ask Apple — that is, once they recover from the devastating choices of entering the saturated mp3 player and smartphone markets.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Well, at least they're having more luck squeezing money out of people than real Nikola Tesla...
Despite having sold his AC electricity patents, Tesla was destitute and died with significant debts. Later that year the US Supreme Court upheld Tesla's patent number, in effect recognizing him as the inventor of radio.
Immediately after Tesla's death became known, the government's Alien Property Custodian office took possession of his papers and property, despite his US citizenship. His safe at the hotel was also opened.
Tesla's family and the Yugoslav embassy struggled with the American authorities to gain these items after his death due to the potential significance of some of his research.
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!
There is a bit more to the Tesla cars than just ripping out the ICE and putting in a regular electric motor. There is very advanced liquid-cooled Lithium Ion battery technology, a next-gen 3-phase/4 pole motor, etc. It performs at par or better than other cars in its price point, and is also practical (can carry 5 passengers and their luggage comfortably). It is easily 200 to 300 percent more energy efficient than a typical hybrid as well. Luxury or not, getting such a vehicle to market is very worthwhile. Remember the Prius was the favourite toy of green-wannabe celebrities and rich folk in its early adoption phase, and this is a much better alternative.
Given the nature of the technology this is the ONLY way to bring it forward. I think GM's approach (with bringing out a less exotic Chevy Volt) or yours (an even more austere Aveo) is backwards. Say it costs $5000 to $10000 to implement the advanced battery and drivetrain at this point in development. This means the cost of an electric Aveo would be 50+ percent higher than for a gas one, which is "cheap enough" to run in the first place. NOBODY who is willing to be an "early adopter" would buy an electric aveo at a profitable price point, because green and innovative as the drivetrain would be, the rest of the car is actually rather crappy.
OTOH, The Tesla S is probably no more tha 10 or 20% more expensive than a comparable car that runs on petroleum fuel. Early adopters tend to be more affluent as well, and when you get to that less-than-20% premium for something cool and new. This car has a realistic chance of making a profit, or at least paying back its loans. The Volt or an electric Aveo would be a guaranteed money loser.
Remember, that Tesla got its loans specifically because it has committed to re-investing profits from early, more exotic/expensive models into more practical, affordable models. Even in its early stages on the market it has established a track record: It followed up an exotic, very expensive roadster with a luxury sedan that is actually very practical and within the price range of upper-middle class households (the ones who buy Escalades, BMW 5 or 7 series, etc). Ensuring the success of the S means the much more likely possibility of an under $30K vehicle that competes right in the mainstream sedan market.
If the US is going to get all socialist on us, I'm glad it isn't following the tired old thinking that to support innovation it must have this fixation on immediately addressing the needs of the "masses" or "working poor" or that crap, when it isn't realistic from a business perspective. Certainly better than taking a controlling interest in a loser bankrupt GM or gifting Chrysler to the unions--doing both with massive loans backing the moves (if taxpayers weren't forced to accept such nonsense, thay'd never in their right mind invest in such shaky enterprises). GM in particular has been the ABSOLUTE LEAST INNOVATIVE auto company on the entire planet for decades--even its best products are dependable but very boring and un-innovative, and they've invested the least into new technologies in their plants out of EVERY SINGLE company that builds cars in N America.
If my gov't is going to throw boatloads of cash around on speculative enterprises, I'd MUCH rather it go do something bold, new, exciting and innovative like Tesla than something tired, old and nothing to show for in terms of innovation than words and vague plans crafted for the purpose of begging for alms from the gov't. as GM and Chrysler have done in the last year.
This is pretty stupid. He assumes that the Tesla batteries will last as long as laptop batteries do. Three years. Read up on all that Tesla does to lengthen their battery lifetimes. Tesla says you will still have 70% capacity after 5 years and 50,000 miles.
Because the money is going to a Nissan plant in TN that is being retrofitted to develop, manufacture, and test cutting edge batteries. Would you rather that the DOE does not provided to money on some idiotic jingoistic grounds only so that a future industry in and that portion of the economy is cornered in Japan?
$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
Loans to people/companies who can actually pay them back yield a lot of money. Average return on a 15 year mortgage, for example, is about double. It's also frontloaded, so they make most of the profit by year 10 and all that is left is the principal that needs to be paid back.
Corporate loans work similarly, so if Company X pays back a 1 billion dollar loan in 10 years, the loaner has made a profit of probably around 50-75%.
That's a whole lot different than a grant, in which case the money is free so long as it is used for the specific purpose it was granted for.
Loans are a good thing as long as there is a good reassurance that the loan will be paid back. I don't mind a loan to Nissan, since they have a number of US factories and have a very solid business. That means more jobs and money for the US.
Loans should NOT be given to US companies that look like they might fail. That's what got the mortgage industry into trouble and helped cause this crisis in the first place. Propping up a failing business is bad practice, but helping a viable business become more viable and more profitable is good practice, especially when you can get a good return on your investment. All we should care about when granting these loans are two things: Will it create more lasting jobs in the US, and will we get are money back and then some. If we start fudging the second one just because it is a US based company, then we'll be headed for more heartache.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
One question. If the 'general welfare' clause were intended to be as open ended as you guys believe it to be, why did they feel a need to carefully enumerate the powers and limitations in the lines directly under that header?
So we have two competing theories:
1. The 'general welfare' clause, along with the other all purpose commerce clause, grant unlimited powers to the Federal government making the 9th and 10th Amendments (passed as Amendments btw which can override the original document) null and void.
2. The words 'general welfare' appear in the section heading describing the general flavor of the more specific defined powers granted in the section which taken together define the limits of Congress's powers to 'provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'
But since you posted as an AC it is doubtful you will man up and even try to answer.
Democrat delenda est
BYD F3DM is a hybrid, and only sold in China to the government and corporations.
The Mitsubishi MiEV is still in research phase, and I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a US version
The Subaru Stella EV is still only a concept car, though it may be sold soon in Japan. Again, good luck getting one here.
AC Propulsion E-Box? Seriously? It's a $55K conversion kit, not a car, and it converts a crummy $15K car into a crummy $70K car.
Subaru Stella is not yet in production, and it'll be a long time before we get to buy them.
So long as we're talking about cool future technologies, I'd include the Volt and Aptera. I hope all these companies make it, but high-volume production is key. Tesla has the lead in this area, and they're further along at developing the technology than any other company.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Henry Ford had no idea that using fossil fuels could lead to dire consequences of worldwide magnitude.
In all honesty, we should have made these serious changes over a decade ago.
I've been to Europe, so, yes, I have seen and used the public transportation system. (Props to the Netherlands and Germany!) The U.S. just needs to take a look at its infrastructure and wonder whether all of that stimulus might be spent on other endeavors that have a greater impact on the greatest amount of people. We should not be so concerned with keeping the car companies alive for the short term. Let us thing in the long term.
SiO2
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."