Slashdot Mirror


$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."

58 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Hybrid car by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hybrid car by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)

    2. Re:Hybrid car by sadness203 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not every nation rely on oil to provide electricity.

      Nuclear, hydroelectricity, wind, solar, etc...

    3. Re:Hybrid car by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    4. Re:Hybrid car by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Funny

      But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.

    5. Re:Hybrid car by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "All they will do is reduce the polution output"

      Well yeah, that's kinda the whole point, right?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Hybrid car by Alef · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Furthermore, even if the power comes from fossil fuel plants, emissions can be controlled to a much higher degree at a central location compared to thousands of car engines scattered everywhere and moving around. For instance, technology is currently being developed to capture carbon dioxide from the combustion and pump it back into the ground.

      Another advantage is that excess heat may be used to heat buildings (i.e. a CHP-plant).

    7. Re:Hybrid car by TroyM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hawaii is the only place in the US that uses oil for a significant amount of electricity. On the mainland it's coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, plus some wind and solar. I doubt oil is used to produce even 1% of electricity in the mainland US.

    8. Re:Hybrid car by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah but intel, etc didn't beg the government for a handout to do it...

      Uh, yeah they fucking did!

      Intel has received hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks -- that's flat-out gift money, by the way -- to build their fabs in Oregon as opposed to someplace else. And they've done this multiple times. The total subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives they've received in their life time is huge.

      But a loan is suddenly "begging the government for a handout" and something no other brand new technology had to do? Please! Let's say they never pay back a single dime -- then they're only equal to hundreds of other businesses.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Hybrid car by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hydro is all used up; we're not building any more big dams. Same goes with nukes (there's one still in the process of being built, but I wouldn't hold my breath). So anything which results in increased demand for electricity is going to mostly end up increasing burning of coal.

      Ahem... Also...

      However you are right, we are only going to be increasing our coal consumption dramatically as we change our energy demands to electrical. Hopefully people do not ignore the long term environmental effects of electricity generation. At any rate the coal companies do have a point... centralized generation of any kind is bound to be less polluting then having millions of tiny little gas engines spreading the pollution all over the world.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:Hybrid car by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ABS was developed first for airplanes.

    11. Re:Hybrid car by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Hybrid car by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.

      Don't be daft.

      You have to build the hydroelectric dams into boats.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Hybrid car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - none of these loans the government has made to boost the economy will be repaid.

      You're either lying or an idiot.

      No economist has *ever* said that, nor would they.

      What they *actually* agree upon is that some fraction of them will default, but nobody is saying they all will.

      So please, if you were a lying troll: apologize. If you thought you were being honest: kill yourself for the good of society.

    14. Re:Hybrid car by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Informative

      water (hydro electric via damning rivers) is not green. It destroys the ecosystem in any river it is implemented in. Migratory river fish such as salmon are rapidly going extinct due to damning of rivers.

    15. Re:Hybrid car by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.

      I was listening to the radio a couple days ago, and I literally heard someone, in all seriousness, call in and ask the guy:

      "Why don't we just make one big windmill, and have it blow at the little windmills so they're always turning? Wouldn't that give us free electricity?"

      The state of science in our country is sooooooooo goddamn appalling...
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    16. Re:Hybrid car by Facegarden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we were going to use them, we would have done so already while oil was cheap. Now it is not and won't be again. Solar/Wind/Tidal are just tools built from oil for increasing the EROEI of the invested oil. They are fundamentally not a replacement for oil.

      WTF? I can't possibly see what you mean... When oil was cheap, we used oil... Makes sense to me. Now oil is not cheap, so we look for alternatives. Put enough money into research, and we'll figure this whole solar thing out. Same with tidal - there is massive energy there and a LOT of coastline in the world.

      I seriously don't understand your argument that if we were going to use it, we would have used it already, it really doesn't make any sense.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    17. Re:Hybrid car by WCLPeter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 :)

      It is, that's why people are getting pissed off about it. Up here in Canada the government recently bailed out.... um, loaned, GM a shit tonne of money. They kept calling it a loan but no-one is under any illusion that GM is ever going to pay it back. Hell, I'm pretty sure that if the government tries it'll be all, "Oh my, we're barely on our feet as it is! But you're right a loan is a loan and you should be paid back, here, let's close our company and liquidate our assets to pay you back. Of course the economic damage is going to play hell with your re-election campaign, but hey if you gave us another 10 Billion to play with you'll look good for saving jobs!"

      Then they'll get another bail out, umm, I mean loan.

    18. Re:Hybrid car by strong_epoxy · · Score: 3, Informative

      A tax break is NOT 'flat-out gift money.' It's keeping the money you've earned.

      You should get a job and earn some money. You'll quickly understand the difference.

    19. Re:Hybrid car by Tweenk · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's more about the silt being help up by dams, the fish can manage just fine with fish ladders.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  2. Typical by token_username · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Typical by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Typical by lapsed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Typical by wellingj · · Score: 3, Informative

      So let the rich people fund it with their own money, not force everyone through government coercion.

    4. Re:Typical by spearway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why is the sacrifice good? Except for some extreme religious folks, most people would rather enjoy life. Presenting environment consciousness as a sacrifice may be a good way to start the environment religion but I would be surprised if this message ever gain mainstream acceptance. Finding sustainable solution that enables us to maintain our way of life is probably a better message.From everything I have read there maintaining a good and easy life while keeping the planet cool are not incompatible goals. I don't see what the "sacrifice" has to do with good engineering.

    5. Re:Typical by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then we'd have very little innovation. Believe it or not, a lot of companies in a very vast array of different fields have received government money in some fashion along their point in time. Besides, the rich do fund the initial startup costs. These loans are to help build new facilities to ramp up production.

    6. Re:Typical by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try living here and saying that.

      Signed, almost all of America.

    7. Re:Typical by selven · · Score: 2, Informative

      The stats disagree with you.

    8. Re:Typical by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
  3. US technology by nickovs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:US technology by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:US technology by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Unless the big profits just happen to be made by an offshore sub-contractor which just happens to be owned by the people behind Fisker ;-)
      Seriously, giving money to multinational corporations is just asking for that kind of scam. And when it happens, it will probably use a loophole in the laws so these guys do not even risk jail time.

      Besides, hybrid technology is not that new anymore. I have my doubts if it should be reason enough for governments to fund a new car maker. A better use of tax money would be battery research that is released under Open Access, with the patents going to the public domain.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    3. Re:US technology by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      The US is large, and the elite and uniquely gifted will continue to innovate.

      The herd (often given more respect than it deserves, which is...none) will remain as it wants to be, ignorant, superstitious, and vile. The herd resents education, so instead of angering the beasts we should seek an "educated counterculture" that can become powerful. Let the beasts have their reality shows and their Bible, their bread and circuses. The idea that the masses can ever be educated and ennobled is absurd because they hate the idea.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:US technology by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

    5. Re:US technology by Vellmont · · Score: 2

      I think his point is that dictators have often dehumanized the populace while raising the importance of a small minority. As soon as you start calling people "beasts" you can justify just about anything.

      The lines you draw between "the proles" and "the intelligent" simply are artificial ones. It's not "us" against "them". I do recognize the strange backlash that's developed against intelligence and knowledge, but I think it's another case of a vocal minority trying to overstate its position.

      You do far more damage to yourself and your group of "the intelligent" by taking the position and attitude you do. You're playing right into the hands of Fox News who paint anyone who disagrees with their politics as "elitist". Dividing the country along the lines you espouse can only lead to defeat for everyone.

      --
      AccountKiller
  4. Re:Vote for change! by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Behold your green government by jav1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!"

  6. Re:Fruits of a corrupt government by wellingj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Neither of them likes Capitalism anymore, that's for sure.

  7. Re:Professional Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    When Rupert Murdoch bought it?

  8. You're right. by tinrobot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Development of the $89,000 sports car is already complete. That car ships in a few months.

    The DOE loan is for a $39K family car that will be built here.

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fisker-39k-plug-in-hybrid-electric-car-2012-ray-lane.php

  9. Electric sports cars - a good plan by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the niche of electric sports cars, so far occupied by Tesla, has been an incredibly cunning strategy. Consider some strengths and weaknesses of an electric car:

    + Instant high acceleration; high torque available at any time, at any speed
    + Shiny and novel and impressive
    - Heavy and bulky batteries
    - Short range
    - Have to charge it a lot
    - Expensive

    And the requirements and constraints of a sports car:
    Need: Good speed and acceleration
    Need: Shiny and novel and impressive (i.e. expensive), so you can show off
    But: Drinks fuel faster, may have shorter range.
    But: You probably won't go very far in it, or very often.
    But: Often have lots of interior luxuries stripped out in the name of weight saving.

    Bingo! The requirements of a sports car are - to a reasonable extent - satisfied well by an electric motor. You get incredible acceleration, whenever you want. You get something impressive and futuristic-sounding and exotic. The constraints that lightweight sports cars have *already* do well to mask the disadvantages of an electric vehicle - with a sports car you probably expect reduced range, you don't want to use it all the time (so charging time not an issue, just keep it in the garage plugged in), you don't expect to carry groceries (bulk of the batteries doesn't matter), you don't expect lots of luxuries (so they can be stripped out to somewhat compensate for battery weight). And if you wanted a sports car you were already prepared to spend something expensive (and probably susceptible to image-based marketing - so the futuristic, green, responsible but exciting thing an electric sports car has will probably work on you!).

    As a bonus, sports cars are usually expensive in terms of fuel, whilst an electric car is going to be cheap. Probably even in the US, even more so in other markets.

    Genius. Goes to show that all those companies trying to make practical, electric town cars might have been starting from the wrong place!

  10. Re:The summary reeks of an agenda by jcnnghm · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  11. WTF!! by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:WTF!! by Kneo24 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  12. Wow, There Goes the WSJ by Comatose51 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow, I don't recall the WSJ being this biased. Did this all happen after the Mrudoch purchase?

    Who cares if Fisker is backed by Gore? Why would that surprise anyone? Gore has money and is an environmentalist. Gore backing an electric car company is almost expected. Both Tesla and Fisker are American companies. Tesla is building a manufacturing plant in CA and it sounds like Fisker is going to be American built, at least for the mass produced version. Yes, Teslas are currently British built but that's for their supercar and first model.

    Seeding electric car startups is one way we're going to rebuild the American auto industry. Trying to reboot GM and Chrysler might very well be a lost cause, as some of us had suggested. If these two companies are successful, they will allow America to leapfrog the Japanese and Germans in the making of efficient cars. The Chinese are trying to do the same thing. An electric car is in many ways much simpler than a gasoline driven one. All the accumulated advantages and knowledge of traditional car companies go out the window because the electric motor has a lot less parts than a gasoline engine.

    If you disagree with government aid to companies, then it doesn't matter what kind of companies, venture, or backers a companies has. However, if you are OK with some government aid, then Tesla and Fisker are pretty good choices in my opinion. For once, instead of aiding old, antiquated corporations, the government is aiding nimble startups that can potential disrupt and jolt an entire industry.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  13. Greenwash by Conspicuous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Greenwash by Hazelfield · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I agree that public transportation is the way to go for the foreseeable future, I think you're way off in saying we need to cut our energy use. That may be true in the very short term, but eventually that won't be a solution - we have to come up with renewable means of producing energy.

      See, energy consumption has risen steadily and continues to rise, because consuming energy is part of raising living standards. Clean water requires energy (at least in most parts of the world). House heating requires energy. Computers, household appliances, lighting, industries. As you say, consumerism requries growth, but most of this growth is actually good. Advances in medical science, agriculture and infrastructure are all powered by this consumerism. It's not possible to raise the standard in developing countries without increasing energy usage.

      My point is that energy consumption is not bad per se, it is only bad if it's produced in ways that are harmful to the environment. The sun provides an excellent source of energy, beating down with 1300 W per square meter all over the Earth, and if we stick to the sun no harm will be done to the environment no matter how much we waste. THAT is where we should concentrate our efforts: on the transition from fossil to renewable energy production. Cutting energy consumption is good, but it will only get us so far. Completely eliminating fossil based fuels will get us all the way to an ecologically sustainable society.

      Once we have that, even a sports car can be green.

  14. What's that you say??? by Slugster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Al Gore, saviour of Gaia, is going to pocket huge amounts of money in a Us government-funded foreign-business deal to build a hybrid Camaro?

    Well, color me a retarded limp-dicked tofu-eating socialist.
    I never would have guessed this would happen...
    ~

  15. Re:Very misleading by Shark · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rupert Murdoch doesn't hate Al Gore, but he loves misinformed people bickering about half-truths on both sides of any issue.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  16. Re:Colin Powell backed company gets government gra by Shark · · Score: 2, Informative

    So why did the WSJ play up Gore's involvement, but not Powell's?

    Because they want to make sure people still think Republicans and Democrats aren't sleeping together and pushing the same agenda. Ventura said it best: Politics is a lot like pro wrestling... They fight for show, but off the ring, they're best buddies.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  17. DERP. by iroll · · Score: 5, Informative

    Tesla got a loan to develop a sedan (from the ground up) that they will produce in the US.

    They currently sell a Lotus Elise-based sports car, because (as a start up) they couldn't afford to develop both the drivetrain AND the rest of the car. It was more efficient for them to source the body/frame from Lotus.

    Not only that, but the current generation sports car that Tesla's selling is intended to bring down the cost of the drivetrain package through production volume, while subsidizing development for the sedan.

    THE MORE YOU KNOOOW~

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  18. Re:Fruits of a corrupt government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes the corporate bailout was welfare, yes the $200 a child for school supplies is welfare, yes the cash for clunkers was welfar...

    Conservatives were against it...some republicans weren't, you decide of republicans are still conservative.

  19. Typical WSJ Demagoguery by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  20. you left a very important point out by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Large dams and hydroelectric facilities there are only one half the benefit, we also store water for drought times, and this is critically important and we just slap need those dammed up reservoirs now. In fact, we need more of them, not less.

    Yes, there are environmental negatives to them, same as anything else, but we simply *need* the water storage facilities, there is no replacement for them with any other practical tech out there at this time, and as long as we need that, might as well get some electricity from it at the same time.. For example, where I live in Georgia, we are coming off a near three year drought with plenty of rain this year, like right now in fact, but we got to within a few weeks of no water but emergency supplies only for millions of people in the Atlanta region last year, and that is *with* large reservoirs. If they didn't exist and got torn down, well....it would fall into the maximum suckage area. Same with any number of other places around the US and the world. We have little choice. Dams/reservoirs and better usage and conservation are our only options, desalination is just way way way too expensive to do it for billions of people,even nuke powered. It's just better to store up rain when it is plentiful.

    As to that "salmon" bugaboo, we have the tech to mitigate that, it's called fingerlings and tanker trucks. They don't do it a lot but *they could* for wild salmon. They can get moved around the dams without major loss. It doesn't take many adults to get thousands and thousands of fingerlings either, they could net some adults when migrating up the river to go spawn, or they use what are called "fish ladders", move em around the dam, then re capture the fingerlings later and put them back in the river downstream of the dam, or do it in long concrete runway tanks that are already old and used tech. Using tanker trucks is the main way they move around and stock trout now for instance.

    As to the methane, that's what natural gas is, methane with some scent added to it so people can smell it. If we can eliminate the need to burn natural gas in generating plants by using hydropower and windchargers and so on, that's the tradeoff for the dammed up areas releasing some methane. It's not perfect, but we get a lot more benefits from the hydropower and reservoirs than not. *Everything* we humans do is a tradeoff with "nature", so the best is to look where we can be cleaner and more efficient. And that's it.

  21. Slashdot - the Murdoch way? by nokiator · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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...

  22. Re:The summary reeks of an agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Giving money to the winner does not a Democrat make.

  23. Another unelected bureaucrat blowing our money by dirkdodgers · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why does an unelected government bureaucrat get to spend the money of hard-working individuals and legitimate companies on this risky, politically connected startup?

    Do we really think that an unelected bureaucrat, who won't be accountable for the success or failure of his decisions in the span of his tenure, will make better investment decisions that the people who earned the money in the first place? Even if by some chance it beats the odds and is successful, does that make it right?

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss, except with a different set of special interests suckin' at the taxpayer teat.

  24. well, that's true.. by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..that's why I wrote this "Dams/reservoirs and better usage and conservation are our only options, ..".they should just go to desert styled landscaping. I for sure don't want tens of millions of people to just leave the desert areas where they are now and go move to other places where they take productive farmland out of the picture. We already lose too much farmland to development as it is. More water we can store up and move where required, we can't just store up and move good farmland. And even irrigated farmland we have now would benefit, look at California's central valley this year with tons of farms put out of production because they just can't get enough water. This is our number one winter vegetable area. It's wiping them out, whole communities going bust now, unemployment just through the roof, plus loss of all that food. And we need replacements for the other ag areas that are pumping fossil water for irrigation. The farm land is good, it is developed and in production already, they just need an alternative water source. We have excess water yearly in several areas, just oceans of it, if we can capture and use just a small fraction of that, it's a big win all around.

    I've supported a plan to create many more national strategic reservoirs all over (just like we have a strategic petroleum reserve and like we *should* have with basic foodstuffs, they ended that program unfortunately) and capture excess water,(like all the flashfloods we got yesterday here in north Georgia, billions and billions of gallons, just a huge amount, our bottom fields flooded out so bad it has smashed a lot of fences, it was medium awesome to see it) then a system of interconnected pipelines to move the water around on demand based on real needs, perhaps with concurrently developed windchargers along the routes with more hydropower at some of the reservoirs if practical. Sort of a national highway system, that scale of a project, but with water. Something like the Pickens plan idea, but on a hugemongous scale and using reservoirs instead of underground sources. More electricity, more water available where required, and better management thereof, a lot more useful productive jobs, better national physical and economic security. Fund it with seriously large and multi year, perhaps even multi decade, tax credits. The benefits would more than outweigh the costs on a large enough construction and time scale.

    I lived several years with zero modern conveniences people take for granted, including running water or electricity. I tell you, and I have thought about this a lot and lived it, clean potable water on demand is *the* dividing line between stoneage raw existence and civilization. I don't care *what* other tech advances you have, if you have no water, or way too much water, all the rest is useless. As such, I think it should be our number one national scale priority and emphasis in this century. People just don't care about it much until it is *too late* to do much about it when a disaster strikes.