$529M Gov't Loan To Develop $89,000 Hybrid Sports Car

theodp writes "The WSJ reports that a tiny car company backed by former VP Al Gore has just gotten a $529M US government loan to help build an $89,000 hybrid sports car in Finland. The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive follows an earlier $465M government loan to Tesla Motors, purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Fisker's other investors (PDF) include the Al Gharaffa Investment Co., a Cayman Islands corporation."

Comments

Hybrid car

[sopssa]

The article makes it sound like it would only be a car for the "elite", but I think the hybrid/electric car development also plays a big role in it. Considering how shitty hybrid car development is by far, its only good. And maybe now US can stop relying so much on oil too.

Re:Hybrid car

[sopssa]

You do understand theres other kinds of power plants than just oil? Water power is really green, and nuclear power aswell (and the worries about that aren't really adjusted; theres nuclear reactons everywhere)

Re:Hybrid car

[Shoten]

I agree; look at any commodity...in this case, let's say the home computer...and then look backwards in history. Early on, the progeny of such items were expensive, and there's a reason for that. It takes a hell of a lot of money to solve the early challenges, and only after they get solved do issues of producing something more cheaply get worked out. In addition to that, if you look at normal automotive development, you'll see that a lot of the R&D actually takes place in the F1 circuit. Talk about expensive, but it's what gave us a lot of the features we now have for ordinary cars, like ABS. But even then, it was only the most expensive cars that got those features first, before it became cheaper and cheaper. At this point, every Chevrolet made has ABS, and it's been like that for years.

Re:Hybrid car

[Chris Burke]

Every economist and expert they interviewed said the same thing-- none of these loans the government has made to boost the economy will be repaid.

I believe it, I just don't think that's such a terrible thing in this case. And it's 100% not new.

Loan is the new word for gift because the public has become touch about money.

You'd think in today's America that the word "loan" would automatically be associated with something that isn't going to be paid back :)

Typical

[token_username]

I'd say this is a typical example of an elite environmentalist. I pity the people who don't see they are merely using people and care only minimally for the environmment.

Re:Typical

[couchslug]

In the way that gamer early-adopters help fund computer components the rest of us later buy for dirt cheap, early-adopter rich folk can fund tech that will trickle down. Toys don't have to be built on the scale (and at the massive risk level) of mass market products.

We are in the infancy of alternative vehicle tech. Lots of companies won't survive (no problem) but we need them to pursue development that large automakers will not.

Re:Typical

[lapsed]

I think it's the other way around. People make largely symbolic choices -- driving a marginally more fuel efficient car that costs five times more to build, for example -- rather than making real sacrifices for the environment. Go to a typical supermarket this morning and look at the choices people make. People buy produce flown in from Argentina, beef raised using unsustainable practices and products whose packaging is unnecessarily elaborate. The number of people living in suburbs (accessible only by car and inefficient in so many other ways), the paucity of clotheslines in those suburbs and the size of cars in people's driveways all point to how little people are willing to sacrifice for the environment. Then along comes Fisker, offering very expensive scapegoats for secular yuppies, on which their collective sins can be heaped and because of which they can spend the rest of the weekend grilling tuna steaks while feeling good. Fisker's customers are *using* the product as a means of feeling better about themselves and as a way of taking action on something they think they care about without really changing their lifestyles. For its part, Fisker is going to push hybrid technology forward and (hopefully) accelerate the diffusion of more fuel efficient cars. They're not to blame here if only because they're working to satisfy a demand that comes from people choosing to buy a clean conscience in the same way that they buy Cheerios. Living without a car -- that would be a sacrifice.

Re:Typical

[Garrett Fox]

Do you claim to have a moral right to take my stuff because society can use it effectively to develop new tech?

US technology

[nickovs]

Much is being made of the US Govt is funding these cars that are to be built outside the US, but the fact is that the technology is going to be owned by a US company. Fisker is essentially outsourcing every aspect of their development but the resulting technology, and the profits, will accrue to the US business and be taxed in the US. It seems perfectly reasonable for the US govt to underwrite creation of valuable technology that will benefit the US in the long term. People need to get over the fact that the US is now a post-industrial nation who's future lies in innovation rather than manufacturing.

Re:US technology

[russotto]

People need to get over the fact that the US is now a post-industrial nation who's future lies in innovation rather than manufacturing.

Now try to square that statement with the state of the US primary and secondary educational systems...

Re:US technology

[c6gunner]

Man, you would make an AWESOME dictator! You're like the bastard love-child of Caesar and Stalin. Please, please, PLEASE get involved in politics!

Re:Vote for change!

[markdavis]

Actually, I am a realistic and moderate Libertarian. I don't believe the state should tell people what to do with their bodies, I don't believe in so much government (and taxes). I believe in more personal freedom *AND* responsibility that goes with it (including the ability to fail and suffer). But I understand the need for regulation and fair markets plus inclusion in the world economy and affairs (...to a point).

Extreme Libertarianism doesn't work any more than extreme anything.

But one thing is for sure, without REAL competition in the party system, there can be no real change. Even if people are not "for" any of the so-called "third parties", they should still support the idea of it being POSSIBLE for "third parties" to really participate and put real pressure on the "two parties". Choice is good. It is good for people, it is good for business, it is good for government. The way the system is setup now, there is no real choice... your vote only really works for the Republicrats or the Democans.

Behold your green government

[jav1231]

This simply proves there's money to be made in green. It isn't earned money like the way real businesses operate. It's confiscatory profit from you and me. This is why the global warming debate is so damn tainted. People want to make it out like you're a freak if your skeptical about causation or about what can really be done. I'm skeptical when people are getting "loans" like this from people like you and me under the guise of going green. It's going green, alright. Isn't envy and greed said to be "green?" I know American cash is "green!"

Re:Professional Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

When did the WSJ sink to the level of Fox news?

When Rupert Murdoch bought it?

Re:The summary reeks of an agenda

[jcnnghm]

The majority of the people working at Financial Institutions aren't Republicans, just take a look at their campaign contributions.

WTF!!

[DaMattster]

I am all for developement of greener alternatives! But why the fuck are we giving loans and grants to companies to build these cars outside the US? These loans were designed to stimulate the economy. The only thing we are doing is stimulating the UK and Finland while we have 10% fucking unemployment. Our current president is no better than Bush. This angers me to no end. We are still giving money away with No Strings Attached that we will never see again. More wealthcare! I, for one, am just puke sick and tired of it. Anyone else?

Re:WTF!!

[Kneo24]

Well, I don't know about you, but I did read the fucking article. This money is to produce the 40k variant, not the 89k variant. While I imagine some of that loan will go towards the more expensive model, most of it will go towards the cheaper model.

Greenwash

[Conspicuous Coward]

The consumerist faux environmentalism backed by mainstream politicians like Gore is little more than fraud intended to enrich them personally.

The last thing a sports car, any sports car, can be is green. Sports cars are toys for the rich that consume massive amounts of energy both in their production and their use. Whether that energy is elecric or fossil fuel is almost secondary at this point. As a species we need to both make massive cuts in our energy use and change the way we generate that energy if we are to have any hope of survival.

If you take environmentalism seriously it means no more cars full stop. At least for the forseeable future. Putting a 50-100kg person inside a ton of steel is simply not an energy efficient method of transportation.

If you think AGW is some kind of fraud, why build electic cars at all? if you take the predictions of climate scientists remotely seriously you need to realise that the infinite growth demanded by consumerism is an insane pipe dream that will desroy us.

Typical WSJ Demagoguery

[catchblue22]

To quote the definition of demagogue (Oxford English Dictionary):

a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Note first the prominent placement of "Al Gore" in the article. Immediately the prejudices against Gore are brought out in the reader, as much work has been done to demonize him. Then the "luxury car" moniker, implying that this isn't for the good of the "common people", but only for rich elites. Finally comes the "rights of the taxpayer" meme, where firmly instilled prejudices against government taxation and spending are brought out.

Nowhere in the article is any real perspective given about the development cycle of high tech products, and about how new tech often first appears in luxury goods before percolating down to the mass market. Nowhere is it mentioned that government has often helped nurture other high tech companies in the past (Boeing for example via military spending). The article is much like the bell for Pavlov's dog, where certain words such as "Gore" and "taxation" elicit a conditioned response in indoctrinated readers. The Wall Street Journal has become the Pravda of the right.

Slashdot - the Murdoch way?

[nokiator]

This way this article is quoted on the Slashdot is nothing but politically motivated propaganda and is full of non-facts. Of course, not many will bother to do a minimal amount of research which would reveal that most ($359.36 million portion) of this loan will be directed to Fisker's Project Nina, an effort by the automaker to develop a lower-cost, higher-volume plug-in hybrid car by late 2012.

Also, many adults are not able to understand the difference between "million" and "billions". The total amount of the government loan (not handout) of given to these two innovative automakers add up to less than a billion dollars. Compared that to nearly a trillion dollars that has been spent over the last year to rescue banks and investment bankers. It is very likely that a lot more than a billion dollars of the government handout to the banks was used to paid "guaranteed bonuses" for the executives who were (ir)responsible for bringing their financial institutions to the brink of bankruptcy. And the "Citizens Against Government Waste" somewhat did not bother to make any comments regarding the $1 Trillion handout to Wall Street...