Tesla Motors Getting $10 Million From California For Model X Production

The California Energy Commission has awarded a $10 million grant to Tesla Motors for the company to buy equipment necessary for the production of its Model X electric SUV. Tesla will have to match the funds with $50 million of its own money. From the article: "It was something of a love fest for Tesla at the energy commission meeting in Sacramento as commissioners and other regulators praised Tesla as an innovator that has brought automotive manufacturing back to California while creating clean cars and more than 1,500 jobs. 'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board. ... 'Tesla’s Gen 3 vehicle could ultimately be a game changer for electric vehicles and air quality and public health in California,' added McCarthy, referring to Tesla’s plans to build an electric car in the $30,000 range. Its latest car, the Model S sedan, sells between $50,000 and $100,000 and the Model X, which is based on the Model S platform, is expected to sell in that price range."

Comments

Cool.

[dtmancom]

Nice to see California is flush with cash.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

Re:Cool.

[houstonbofh]

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

We are way beyond "going into debt." We are spending like a drunken frat boy at a bachelor party with a new Amex Gold card. (New card because all the old ones are full.)

Re:Cool.

[LordLimecat]

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity.

If someone had $500,000 in debt and told you that they were considering using the deed to their car to secure a $30,000 loan to try to start a new business from the ground up, would you say they were:
A) A savvy businessman
or
B) Out of their mind?

Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

We are way beyond "going into debt." We are spending like a drunken frat boy at a bachelor party with a new Amex Gold card. (New card because all the old ones are full.)

All the while complaining he can't afford tuition or textbooks ...

Re:Cool.

[Vinegar Joe]

"All the while complaining he can't afford tuition or textbooks ..."

No problem......he can always get an education grant from the government.....

Re:Cool.

[hendridm]

Except that most people don't want an electric vehicle. Expensive (especially Tesla!), batteries that need (expensive) replacement, can't tow anything, can't drive long distances.

My VW Jetta TDI is cheaper, doesn't run on batteries, gets great mileage, and can drive anywhere. It can't tow stuff, though, but could you imagine an electric truck? You'd be lucky if the thing had enough to power itself, much less haul anything.

Families need an economic distance vehicle with great mileage for commutes and trips, and a working vehicle that can tow/move things. Electric vehicles are lousy at all of this: they're expensive to buy and maintain, can't do distance runs, and can't haul anything. You'd think the green people would have a problem with throwing away all those batteries, too.

Re:Cool.

[aaarrrgggh]

Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.

The risks are ever diminishing as you get deeper into debt below your net worth. Taking measured risks is ok, but the extra components are knowing what the potential reward is, and understanding any second and third order risks (such as the losing your car and not being able to get any other work).

California is spending money to keep jobs in-state. They will recover half the money they spend through sales tax revenue from the equipment purchase. The remaining $3,400 per employee will hopefully be recovered in income taxes, at least over a 2-3 year period. If there happens to be any economic ripple effect then the payback will be much faster.

Selling a kidney for money to start a business from the ground up on the other hand...

Re:Cool.

[jkflying]

It's almost like the government is only willing to fund the things which might be of long term benefit... wow.

Re:Cool.

[Artifice_Eternity]

Constantly analogizing the financial position of a government to that of an individual or a household is of limited value. Macroeconomics is not like household economics. On the personal scale, reaching zero debt is a nice goal. For a government, which is immortal, achieving zero debt is unnecessary and actually unwise. Yes, it's best to keep debt down to a low percentage of GDP, but the reality of economic cycles is such that in a down economy, debt will -- and should -- go up, in order to ensure economic continuity, protect society, and lay the foundation for future growth.

That doesn't mean that all debt is good, but in an extraordinary crisis like the one we've just been thru -- the kind of thing that happens maybe twice in a century -- a lot of deficit spending by government will be needed. Sometimes previous administrations have foolishly run up unnecessary debts even before the crisis hits. That still doesn't mean that government austerity is the right answer.

The real question is: How will a high level of deficit spending right now affect you, positively and negatively? The doomsayers have trouble explaining what the precise problem is. They yell "Greece!" But we are not even remotely close to being in the kind of trouble that Greece is in. High debt is bothersome and can be a drag on GDP. But we are not going to get into a Greece-like situation as long as we control our own currency. And we are not going to default, as long as stupid politicians do not intentionally choose to do so.

Another thing: Contrary to the way it's often described, no one is going to present your child or grandchild with a personal bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal debts to be repaid. Our debt is rolling; people are constantly buying newly issued Treasury bills, and the government is continually paying old ones off as they come due. Yet another thing: contra Mitt Romney, most of it is NOT "borrowed from China". Only about 8% of federal debt is held by China. Most of it is held by -- guess who? -- Americans. Yes, mostly the federal debt is money we owe to ourselves.

And right now, Treasury bills are considered by the market to be one of the safest and most favored investment vehicles on the planet. Even with incredibly low rates of return, people are pouring money into US debt. Given inflation, long-term US bonds right now are actually a money-losing proposition -- and yet they are still a wildly popular investment. People are literally paying us for the privilege of buying our debt.

So relax... the sky is not falling. The mistake would be to choke off credit and plunge ourselves into self-inflicted austerity. That's the true danger, and it's playing out right now in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Constantly analogizing the financial position of a government to that of an individual or a household is of limited value. Macroeconomics is not like household economics. On the personal scale, reaching zero debt is a nice goal. For a government, which is immortal, achieving zero debt is unnecessary and actually unwise. Yes, it's best to keep debt down to a low percentage of GDP, but the reality of economic cycles is such that in a down economy, debt will -- and should -- go up, in order to ensure economic continuity, protect society, and lay the foundation for future growth.

That doesn't mean that all debt is good, but in an extraordinary crisis like the one we've just been thru -- the kind of thing that happens maybe twice in a century -- a lot of deficit spending by government will be needed. Sometimes previous administrations have foolishly run up unnecessary debts even before the crisis hits. That still doesn't mean that government austerity is the right answer.

The real question is: How will a high level of deficit spending right now affect you, positively and negatively? The doomsayers have trouble explaining what the precise problem is. They yell "Greece!" But we are not even remotely close to being in the kind of trouble that Greece is in. High debt is bothersome and can be a drag on GDP. But we are not going to get into a Greece-like situation as long as we control our own currency. And we are not going to default, as long as stupid politicians do not intentionally choose to do so.

Another thing: Contrary to the way it's often described, no one is going to present your child or grandchild with a personal bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal debts to be repaid. Our debt is rolling; people are constantly buying newly issued Treasury bills, and the government is continually paying old ones off as they come due. Yet another thing: contra Mitt Romney, most of it is NOT "borrowed from China". Only about 8% of federal debt is held by China. Most of it is held by -- guess who? -- Americans. Yes, mostly the federal debt is money we owe to ourselves.

And right now, Treasury bills are considered by the market to be one of the safest and most favored investment vehicles on the planet. Even with incredibly low rates of return, people are pouring money into US debt. Given inflation, long-term US bonds right now are actually a money-losing proposition -- and yet they are still a wildly popular investment. People are literally paying us for the privilege of buying our debt.

So relax... the sky is not falling. The mistake would be to choke off credit and plunge ourselves into self-inflicted austerity. That's the true danger, and it's playing out right now in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

Why do we need to pay taxes then if the government can borrow or print money forever?

Re:Cool.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Nice to see California is flush with cash.

Californians ARE flush with cash. The State of California just needs to get it from 'em. Recent events have shown that Californians will pay any price for a gallon of gas. So the State should just add $1 of Tesla Tax to every gallon of gas. The State can use the money to buy Teslas for the poor any needy. Since everyone will be poor and needy after paying that tax, that will make Tesla high volume producer and the costs of the Teslas will fall. Yep. That should work as well as other government alternative energy plans. Probably.

Another untapped potential tax revenue in California is the income of dead people. Michael Jackson makes more money now that he is dead, than he did while he was alive. Raise the tax rates of dead people. Even if they don't like the taxes, they can't vote politicians out of office. Because they are dead. If California STILL is short of tax income, even after taxing all the dead people, they could maybe "encourage" some Stars to end their "careers" early. Like, Justin Bieber, for example.

Re:Cool.

[Luckyo]

Indeed, how do those huge, mining transportation trucks ever power themselves. Or trains. Surely not with electric motors?

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.

The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.

Re:Cool.

[hendridm]

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.

The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.

So which EVs do you recommend a person like me purchase that needs one vehicle for mileage (I generally would want to make a 200 mile trip without stopping to plug it in) and one work vehicle (capable of pulling a boat, trailer full of stuff, or maybe a piece of furniture that I've impulsively purchased)? I'd rather not be limited in what I can do by the capabilities of my vehicles.

Re:Cool.

[Luckyo]

The problem of energy storage is not yet solved, as stated in the last paragraph of the post you quoted. Therefore, none.

Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is they aren't going into debt with their money, they are going into debt with the citizen's money. How about I take out a loan against your future earnings in order to start a new business from the ground up that may fail? If it does fail, I'm not responsible for anything, but you are required to cover all the losses.

That is how this is going. The possible outcomes: 1) is works and Tesla makes tons of money, the DNC declares a win. 2) It fails and they lose all their investment with no return, the DNC declares that the now higher CA debt is because the GOP refuses to let them raise taxes. The DNC has been doing this to such a level and the people are the ones losing out every time.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet taxes are at historic and worldwide lows while property rights entitlements skyrocket...

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't borrow or print money forever.

You're committing two common slashdot fallacies:

1. Assuming that the base-case default operation of a good business or government is expenses exactly matching income.
2. Linear extrapolation of the deviance from default.

The second is especially galling since he initially said during a down economy. Still, I'll go further and say there's even a place for deficits in an up economy under some conditions, just not to the same degree (and if you dip too far down, the up economy should do deficit reduction).

The trick is that your government revenue, which is to say your taxes, should be increasing faster than your debt increases in an up economy. If that's true, then your debt is decreasing relatively, even if in absolute constant-dollar terms it is increasing. So if deficit spending has an ROI that aids government revenue (compare the net present value of the debt to the investment), you're still good.

(by contrast, if government revenue declines, then you have to amp up your debt paying or it'll consume all revenues).

Re:Cool.

[rgbrenner]

That logic works for the federal government, because not many people are willing to leave the country. It does not work with states.. people will simply leave the state if the taxes are too high.

And if you aren't willing to leave the state when the tax bill comes due... then you're obviously benefiting from it, and maybe you should pay for it.

Re:Cool.

[Artifice_Eternity]

Thank you.

I was making the case for prudent use of debt, not total reliance on debt. And I was explaining why our situation is not nearly as bad as the deficit doomsayers claim.

Re:Cool.

[cheesybagel]

Tesla sells cars with 300 miles of range. If that isn't enough what is? I doubt it can't pull things given that electric motors usually have a lot of torque. The only issue IMO is that these cars are still too expensive. The price of batteries needs to go down further.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what your point was and why you responded to the post you did.

I don't live in CA because of crap like that. But as you say the Federal government, look at Obama's stimiuls. Complete failure, people still have to pay for it, and now the debt is because the GOP wont let them raise taxes. Never mind if current taxes were doubled there would STILL be a deficit, but we aren't really interested in the truth anymore in this country.

Re:Cool.

[hendridm]

Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.

Wait, I'm really confused (probably due to my short attention span)...

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines.

(emphasis mine)

The problem of energy storage is not yet solved, as stated in the last paragraph of the post you quoted. Therefore, none.

So do I want an EV, or should I stick with my fuel-efficient diesel?

Re:Cool.

[hendridm]

Tesla sells cars with 300 miles of range. If that isn't enough what is?

To answer your question, Mr. Bourgeois:

The only issue IMO is that these cars are still too expensive.

I'm not made of money. I wish I was. :(

Re:Cool.

[clarkkent09]

California is spending money to keep jobs in-state.
 
They can keep jobs in state by relaxing ridiculous regulation. California is number one in the nation in term of losing jobs and productive people in the last few years and the main cause is the overbearing business regulation and taxes. A 10 million grant to a specific hand picked oh so green and wonderful company isn't going to make a slightest bit of difference. In any case, as soon as Tesla becomes a mature auto maker instead of a novelty company they will move their manufacturing where its cheaper. How else will they compete with Toyota, Nissan etc, not to mention the incoming horde of Chinese car companies?

Re:Cool.

[amorsen]

Why do we need to pay taxes then if the government can borrow or print money forever?

Because the distributive effects of borrowing or printing money forever are nasty. The poor and the young end up paying.

Neither debt, money-printing, nor taxation directly change the amount of actual goods available. They just change who gets how much of which goods. However, that distribution of goods can certainly influence the amount of goods which will be produced in the future. Generally, society at the same time wants to maximize future productions of goods and also make sure that few people get so little that they cannot live a decent life, for various definitions of a decent life. Right now the Western world is doing a relatively crappy job at both, which is a shame, especially because it was doing quite well until recently.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk is got to be the biggest cocksucker since George Michael.
Who else can fellate Big Oil whipped legislators into coughing up $10 million. The same Big Oil that bullied Toyota out of the electric vehicle business.
Who would have thought a gay South African would be able to go where Toyota fear to tread.

Re:Cool.

[dyfortune]

Well the Tesla does just under 300 Lb/Ft instantly. All we need is that battery capacity and a tow ball.

Re:Cool.

[Smidge204]

So do I want an EV, or should I stick with my fuel-efficient diesel?

You can split the difference and get a hybrid. They do make hybrid SUVs and pickup trucks for your towing needs, and something like the plug-in Toyota Prius might be a good fit for your long commute vehicle - if they need to be separate vehicles. In terms of fuel efficiency you're quite near the edge where the Prius outperforms the Chevy Volt, which has a longer all-electric range but slightly worse fuel economy so for longer trips the Prius wins out.
=Smidge=

Re:Cool.

[Smidge204]

Justin Bieber owns a Fisker Karma, not a Tesla. :P

=Smidge=

Re:Cool.

[drinkypoo]

Because the distributive effects of borrowing or printing money forever are nasty. The poor and the young end up paying.

If you print money and give it to the poor and the young, the rich end up paying.

Re:Cool.

[Locutus]

as one of the comments on TFA site states, 700 jobs at even $50K each and just over 9% State tax is $3.5 million annually. So the State makes their money back just in direct employment taxes in about 3 years. Add to it the sales tax on the vehicles and all the money moving around by building them in CA and it seems like a no brainer considering Tesla has proven they can build good cars already.

LoB

Re:Cool.

[haruchai]

Dear AC, truth died long before Obama entered Harvard and the GOP should not only allow the White House to raise taxes, but they should insist that it be higher than what the Dems are asking because, as the party of fiscal conservatism, they should do everything in their power to reverse the damage caused by 8 years of Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars, one of which was started for demonstrably wrong-headed reasons.

Then, perhaps, truth can live again.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say the same thing. Then it occurred to me. Suppose the following were true:

1. The $50 million Tesla produces does not come primarily from Californians.

2. The $50 million Tesla produces would not have been spent in California without the state's $10 million incentive. Maybe Tesla moves elsewhere. Maybe they never produce the line at all. Who knows.

If these are the case then maybe Californians actually come out ahead in the bargain. (*)

(*) If we ignore the race to the bottom that's developing as states and municipalities one-up each other in order to attract business.

Re:Cool.

[khallow]

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.

Here's the thing the anti-austerity people tend to ignore. The private world is a hell of a lot more effective at investing than the public world. All that cutting is putting money back in the pockets of the people who actually know how to invest it. So of course, cutting ill-directed public spending (which I might add frequently has no connection to any sort of Keynesian strategy, even a "Pay people to dig ditches and fill them up" approach) means economic growth.

One only needs to look at today's world to see that anti-austerity just doesn't work. Where's Japan's economy now? They've been down this path for two decades and they haven't gone anywhere. They went from the peril that scared the US to ignominy in a couple of short years and their spendthrift "investments" have kept them there.

We also need to keep in mind that there was a decade of easy credit and government spending throughout the developed world. That didn't prevent the latest financial crisis, instead it gave it the fuel it needed to be a crisis.

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

Whoa. You're ignoring finance and economics 101. What's the cost of doing this versus the benefits? What are the various choices? One is do nothing. No home improvement nor any attempt to lower heating. Or you could cut back on heating. Or you could upgrade the insulation of the home. Or possibly some mix of the three.

And these also depend on your finances. What's the debt you already owe on the home? If you're deeply underwater (owe more on the home than the home is worth), you might not even bother keeping the home. If you don't owe any debt, then it's not such a big deal to pick up a modest amount for a good home improvement thing.

And it depends on the climate. If there aren't many cold days, then you might just not care enough to do anything about the problem.

That's the complexity of real financial decisions. They're very dependent on initial conditions. This simplistic "spend money on good things" (where "good things" are whatever the politicians think they can get away with, such as bailing out banks or throwing money to their cronies and backers) is what got us into the mess in the first place.

So what are the initial conditions? A big one is that most of the world, developed world or not is heavily in debt and spending money very poorly. So that sounds to me like a throw good money after bad situation, especially when one considers that we have no exit strategy for this spending. It's basically permanent and cumulative.

When will the economy get well enough that someone will drop spending? Especially, when they think the economy would dip as a result? I think this strategy is a trap, a trip on a slowing speeding up treadmill.

Re:Cool.

[amorsen]

There are plenty of ways to shield your wealth from money printing, assuming you have some wealth to shield. If you print money and give it to the poor and the young, you will achieve pretty much no redistribution of actual wealth. You may manage a little bit of redistribution if you do the printing as a great surprise to everybody, but that is difficult to achieve and even then, most of the time wealthy people don't hold most of their wealth in cash, bank accounts, or bonds in the currency of the country they live in.

Re:Cool.

[Luckyo]

Is fuel tank a part of ICE?

Is a battery part of EE?

Our problem at the moment is how to supply electricity needed to run the engine. In ICE, we have a whole bunch of dangerous, highly flammable and explosive fluid sitting in the back of the car.

In a EE we have an extremely heavy chemical battery that doesn't have nearly as much energy density as liquid combustible fuel at the moment. Heavy duty solutions are either wired access to central grid or running ICE on stable best efficiency RPM to rotate generator which will supply electricity to EE. These are not great options for a personal transportation. Essentially we have a vastly superior engine technology limited by inferior energy storage. If/when energy storage issue is even partially solved, the vast superiority of engine technology will eventually take over.

Asking for it RIGHT NOW is kind of like asking for something better then a horse back in early automotive days when fuel efficiency was horrible and fuelling stations weren't yet widespread. "But my horse can be fed at the stables which are everywhere, and won't strand me in the middle of nowhere like that terrible contraption of yours". We've been there, we've done it, and we've seen where it ends. At certain point, the technology becomes good enough to displace older methods. In our case, there is an additional factor of pollution and supply chain risks effecting the fuel supply for ICE which do not exist in near the same magnitude for EE.

Re:Cool.

[drinkypoo]

You may manage a little bit of redistribution if you do the printing as a great surprise to everybody, but that is difficult to achieve and even then, most of the time wealthy people don't hold most of their wealth in cash, bank accounts, or bonds in the currency of the country they live in.

It's only difficult to achieve as a great surprise to everybody because of who's running the currency. And right now there's massive cash reserves here and there. They could be devalued. I don't propose to do it since it would cause other problems, just saying.

Re:Cool.

[AmiMoJo]

National debt is not like individual debt. You analogy is unnecessary.

An individual has a basically fixed income. They get paid the same wage every month. If they spend more than they earn they go into debt, if they spend less then they start to build up savings.

A government's income is from taxation and so depends entirely on how well the economy is doing. If there is less spending there is less VAT/sales tax. If there are fewer companies there is lower income from business taxes. If people are out of work they don't pay income tax, and in fact cost the government more as it has to pay them welfare. So in a recession the government can't just cut back its outgoings because that will cause its income to fall and actually put some upwards pressure on some of its budgets. The only way out is to build up the economy so more money comes in, then when times are good again reduce its debt.

Japan learned that the hard way. The UK didn't learn from them so is now having to learn the same lesson itself. The US had some big stimulus packages that really averted the worst of it.

Re:Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is more like when you quit your job to go to grad school for a better future.
Let see how many jobs we make production people engineers parts suppliers let see the buy pizza the buy cars refrigerators who then buy pizza cars refrigerators
Pretty so the refrigerator guy is working over time who buys a house who employs a realtor.
See how it fucking works.

Re:Cool.

[amorsen]

Yes right now massive money printing has fewer downsides and more upsides than usual. We are in a highly unusual situation right now though, even if it is exactly the same situation Japan has been stuck in for 20 years. Ben Bernanke did a really insightful paper on Japan's economy back in 1999, with emphasis on what the Japanese central bank was (and still is, sadly) doing wrong. So far the Western world seems eager to follow the same path.

Re:Cool.

[robsku]

Glad to see some voice of reason...

Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't California in debt?

Maybe I misread the summary, but increasing emission standards is only good for automakers who can go above and beyond. That's a bad thing if you oppose oligopolies.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up?

realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not lower a trade barrier? Protectionism causes higher prices. But to the original point, where will California get the money?

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[houstonbofh]

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up?

realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

We do not import any cars from china.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, the US "Big Three" are well behind the Asian auto-makers.

As far as experience with EVs and hybrids in the major auto-makers, Toyota is in the lead.

So, yeah, this is both expansive, and bad for US companies, that are not Tesla.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[nonsensical]

Maybe they are, but this looks to be a very good investment on their part. If Tesla becomes another big car company, it will quickly pay for itself in new tax revenue for the state. Not to mention the benefits of less emissions for the state in terms of reduced healthcare costs.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[mcgrew]

Isn't California in debt?

Woosh! They're in as bad a shape as Illinois. In short, terrible debt.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[houstonbofh]

Not to mention the benefits of less emissions for the state in terms of reduced healthcare costs.

That electricity comes from somewhere...

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[LordLimecat]

Theyre too big to fail. Dont worry, they know full well that "someone" will bail them out if defaulting is on the table.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way protectionism causes higher prices is when your industry cannot match the demand. The US has gotten out of the manufacturing business so having trade barriers is not practical.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate this. yes. The electric car likely gets it's electricity from a coal powered plant. That coal powered plant likely has a better exhaust system than a muffler..... hence, the electric car likely has better emissions. While we're at it, the electric car is possible to power from cleaner sources, greatly enhancing it's emissions. A regular car cannot do that.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Smidge204]

That electricity comes from somewhere...

And that gasoline comes from somewhere too. Funny how people who drag out this dead horse of an argument so easily overlook that.

But whatever. For California the electricity source breakdown looks something like this:

46% Natural Gas
18% Coal
14% Nuclear
11% Hydro
11% other renewable (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, etc)

Probably newer data out there but I'm fairly confident it's close enough for our purposes. So if we weigh emissions by source type and assume a miles-per-gallon and miles-per-kWh for ICE and Electric vehicles, we can get an approximation for how the two compare emissions-wise.

Natural Gas = 0.46 * 443 = 203.78
Coal = 0.18 * 1050 = 189 (being pessimistic here)
Nuclear = 0.14 * 66 = 9.24
Hydro = 0.11 * 10 = 1.1
Other = 0.11 * 30 = 3.3 (also pessimistic)

Total: 406.42 (Say 407) grams of CO2 per kWh generated. We'll bump that up a bit to account for transmission losses (90%) to 452 g/Kwh. Gasoline gives about 8,200 grams of CO2 per gallon. That's just basic a chemistry.

We'll be again generous and say 30MPG for gasoline and again pessimistic and say 3 mi/kWh for Electric - really stacking the odds against EVs here.

Gasoline vehicle @ 30MPG = 8200 g/mi / 30MPG = 273 grams CO2 per mile.
Electric vehicle @ 3 mi/kWh = 452 g/kWh / 3 mi/kWh = 151 grams CO2 per mile.

So even being pessimistic we see that driving electric vehicles, with their electricity coming from "somewhere", releases nearly half the CO2 as their gasoline counterpart. More importantly - and the brunt of what the OP was saying - is that the local in-city pollution is reduced to zero. Not only are you producing less pollution, you are producing that pollution away from population centers where it does the most harm.
=Smidge=

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is still the largest manufacturer in the world, to the contrary.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[mdfst13]

The only way protectionism causes higher prices is when your industry cannot match the demand.

Protectionism works by increasing the prices of foreign products to match or exceed prices of domestic products. If domestic prices were already as cheap as foreign prices, you wouldn't need protectionism. You would just compete.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Smidge204]

CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas. These are two different things entirely. Needless to say actual pollutants like soot, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides are all zero at the local level with EVs which means improved air quality and improved health for the citizens.

The greenhouse effect is based on high school level physics. CO2's ability to absorb infrared in certain wavelength has been known since the 1950s or so. This is established fact. If you want "observed emirical" (sic) evidence, talk to the air force about heat seeking missiles since the development for those is what the original research into how CO2 (and other atmospheric gasses) interact with infrared light.

And since I know it's going to come up eventually if this thread continues, yes water vapor also absorbs infrared light and contributes to the greenhouse effect. However there are two important reasons why that's a non-starter for arguing against CO2 emissions reduction: 1) The amount of water in the atmosphere is limited since it precipitates out when it gets too high, and 2) Water and CO2 absorb different wavelengths of infrared light.

No bullshit. Basic physics.
=Smidge=

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed a very important losses for batteries. They are not 100% efficient not even close on charging, discharging and storage. It's basic chemestry that nothing no chemical reaction can be 100% efficient. I have seen figures of 26% losses for charging alone used when discussing a Telsa. So I'll use 75% efficiency. 452g/KW goes to about 565g/KW. so 565 / 3 188 grams CO2 a mile. Now, if you were considering an electric car we would probably want a gas car that got at least 40mpg if not better, so 273 grams co2 per mile. But where it get interesting is if we buy a 50 mpg car what happens??? One could easily do that for the price of a Telsa by using lighter materials and construction, We could get even better MPG actually a gas powered roadster should be getting around 60mpg. Back to the 50MPG yielding us164 grams co2 a mile beat my electric car efficiency guesstimate. Also by swapping the fuel source out for ether natural gas or diesel we could get more BTU based efficiency out of the car.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[rolfwind]

Tesla is not a very good model of low resource usage. Aptera would have been...

But SUVs, really?

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[TClevenger]

It takes 6 kWh of energy just to REFINE one gallon of gasoline from oil. A reasonably efficient EV can go 15 to 20 miles on that amount of electricity alone. And that's before you ship the gasoline to the station, pump it into the car and burn it.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[haruchai]

The claimed wall_outlet-to-wheel efficiency is 86% so Tesla's numbers are much better than you calculate. But you're pulling a bait-and-switch by comparing to a hypothetical 40-50-60 mpg car to a Tesla and claiming you could do better for the same money?!?!?!?

The cost of the Tesla is not strictly because of its "fuel" efficiency - it's a fucking SPORTS car.

A Corvette ZR1 is a match for the Tesla's performance at roughly the same price but is rated at 14/21 mpg city/hwy.

Are you telling me you can tweak the ZR1 to 40 / 50 / 60 mpg without seriously diminishing its ass-kicking performance?

I don't know what country you live in but if it's the US, what are these high-mpg models and how well do they sell?

NEMA design B electric motors are 80 - 93% efficient from 1 - 125 HP at 1200 - 3600 RPM - what automotive engine presently in use in a passenger or sports car can match that?

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please keep in mind that much of that gasoline travels thousands of miles via freight which outputs significant CO2 and other pollutants compared to the supply chain of those other energy sources for electricity.

Its a far greater reduction in pollution than many, even on /., might think of.

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[Smidge204]

The 3 kWh per mile is "from the wall" and already includes all the charging and drive train inefficiencies.

=Smidge=

Re:Isn't California in debt?

[robsku]

Isn't USA in debt?

Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Cars?

[Aero77]

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board. ... Color me surprised...

Disgraceful

[Anonymous Coward]

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board

Gee, maybe because it gives Tesla competitive advantage? California is paying this company to exist and then manipulating the market so consumers will buy their vehicles.

Re:Disgraceful

[houstonbofh]

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board

Gee, maybe because it gives Tesla competitive advantage? California is paying this company to exist and then manipulating the market so consumers will buy their vehicles.

Hmm... I have seen this somewhere before... Change California to Federal Government, and Their Vehicles to Chevy Volt. That worked out so well for everyone...

Re:Disgraceful

[Anonymous Coward]

And even with all that they still haven't turned a profit.

Wake up time, granola boys!

[phrackwulf]

The Tesla design is still too expensive, the future of electric powered LUV's (light utility vehicles) will be decided by John Deere and Harley Davidson with the able assistance of the Argonne Laboratory vehicle group and the price point will be $15,000. Stick that in your Silicon Valley you tofu eating, suckers! HOOAH!

-Outrider-6 out

Re:Wake up time, granola boys!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if history is any guide, the future of electric LUVs will be decided by Japanese, Chinese, and Korean companies, while John Deere and Harley Davidson crank out greatly inferior products at a higher price that Americans are still willing to buy because they don't realize that their country's manufacturing sector is at least a decade behind the rest of the world and slipping further back.

Saved money by buying foreign ...

[perpenso]

Nice to see California is flush with cash.

Well California "saved" money by buying bridge components (cables, towers, deck, etc) for the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge from foreign sources. That "frees" up money for other pet projects.

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ...

[MightyYar]

The Golden Gate Bridge was built in Pennsylvania. Not a foreign country, but the money was not exactly kept in the local economy.

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ...

[Randle_Revar]

>>new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
>The Golden Gate Bridge

uh, and what does the the later have to do with the former?

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ...

[MightyYar]

I assumed that the post was a sarcastic critique of the decision to buy foreign-made parts for the new bridge. I was just pointing out that the most famous bridge in CA was also built outside of the local economy.

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ...

[aaarrrgggh]

That was an asinine decision in retrospect. But, at the time, the construction industry was flush with cash and likely thought they could charge a little extra.

At least the technology isn't there yet to build a five-mile long bridge in China, test it, and float it over to the US, set it in place, and be done. At that point, it won't be loss of $200MM to the local economy, it will be $7B.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[hsmith]

Yeah, because the energy used to charge the Tesla vehicles just comes from a magical source. Of course - not a source that pollutes...

Good way to drive up costs for your competition, but totally ignore the fact Tesla vehicles generate emissions, just at a power plant.

Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Gordonjcp]

I can't think of a single instance where I'd need to accelerate from a dead stop to 60mph, as quickly as possible. Every time I take my car out, though, I drive a couple of hundred miles at least.

Once electric cars have comparable performance in both speed *and* range to conventional vehicles, they'll be a much easier sell. Until now, I'll stick with diesel.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[SylvesterTheCat]

Here, here.

Small diesels are a much better alternative to gasoline / ethanol through the near future (10-20 years). VW, Jeep (diesel Liberty 2005-06), and others have shown this already.

They are well understood and have an existing fuel distribution infrastructure.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[GodfatherofSoul]

They use it because it's about the only thing competitive with a combustion car.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I take my car out, though, I drive a couple of hundred miles at least.

You are an outlier

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[ArsonSmith]

I can't think of a single reason I'd want to drive a couple hundred miles. Every time I go on my delivery route I need to stop and go very quickly.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Gordonjcp]

I live in Scotland. We drive a hell of a lot more than people in the US.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Gordonjcp]

Right, but you don't need to accelerate from 0 to 60mph at absolute wide open throttle. Well, unless all your deliveries are at the far end of the drag strip?

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Confusador]

I do actually accelerate hard on a regular basis - highway entrance ramps are very similar to drag strips, except that you stop accelerating once you get to the speed of traffic (70-80 mph). One of the things to remember is that the current market for these cars is not people in rural areas; they simply don't have the range and charging speed yet. In town I'll get on the highway for my 6 mile trip to work, or if I want to go to a specialty store. And since they're targetting people in places like California especially, quick acceleration is a nice feature (though not essential, past a certain point).

Sidenote: the other place acceleration is useful is when passing on 2-lane roads, but as roads have gotten wider that's hardly a consideration anymore.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Gordonjcp]

Right, but in both cases 0-60 acceleration is irrelevant. The time to accelerate from 40 to 70 is far more important there. Think about it - how fast are you going when you start to overtake someone on a single-carriageway road? Usually, about 40mph. How quickly are you travelling on the on-ramp? If you're doing it right, maybe 20-30mph below the speed of cars on the motorway - so about 40-50mph. Unless of course the whole thing is very congested, in which case the motorway is probably going slowly too. If you come to a total stop on the on-ramp when traffic is flowing normally, you're going to cause an accident. Don't do that.

Every country in the world outside the US seems to be able to cope with less than 400bhp in a shopping car. Ever considered you might be doing it wrong?

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure I could count a dozen or so (too) short cloverleaf on-ramps in the Chicago area where something like a Peterbuilt semi doing 75+ while coming at you would easily beg to differ with that opinion.

Maybe you live where the interstate highways don't suck, but if you do, having accelleration makes all the difference in being able to merge successfully. Then again, maybe you like risking your luck while holding up traffic approaching the on-ramp or riding on the shoulder before finding an opening and taking chances with possible road-side debris.

Also outside of the highway or dragstrip, ability to accelerate is also a good thing to have if you're in a city where speed limit enforcement is severely lacking. The better you can scoot, the more options you have to enter traffic when idiots often drive 55 in a 30MPH zone. It lessens the time spent waiting for a break you can successfully enter, particularly if you're on a schedule or otherwise consider your own time valuable.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Confusador]

When I get onto a ramp, I'm usually going very close to 0 since I've just stopped at the traffic signal and made a turn. I'm not disagreeing with you about whether it's necessary to have high acceleration, only whether it's desirable. 0-60 is a useful proxy for acceleration overall when comparing vehicles, and there are a large number of people who are in the demographic these cars are aimed at who will make a decision in part based on it.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Gordonjcp]

Why have you got a traffic light on your onramp? That's pretty fundamentally on drugs. You need to fix your roads.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range

[Smidge204]

Around here there are spots where the "on ramp" is roughly 20 feet or so, and the turn before it is so tight you're not likely to be going much faster than 15-20mph (traffic usually around 60-70). Robert Moses was a dick, basically.

But at least there's no trucks...
=Smidge=

Election year fairy tale ...

[perpenso]

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up? realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

Its a myth that China only does low end low tech manufacturing. They are working very hard at moving to more advanced products. Its likely that advanced car designs will also be sold in China, and likely be manufactured there. The necessary technology and manufacturing expertise will most likely be transferred.

The idea that the US will move to high tech manufacturing while the rest of the world does the low tech manufacturing is an election year fairy tale.

Re:Election year fairy tale ...

[dyfortune]

Regardless China will always cut costs where it can then lie through their teeth about it. Chinese cars recalled over asbestos concerns

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[houstonbofh]

This is because by some magical logic, pollution from power plants is not pollution. In California, they get their power from magical electricity fairies.

We're broke, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proves Uncle Jerry has all the money he needs, just not as much as he wants. Would the sheeple raise taxes for a bullet train both to and from nowhere? doubtful. Would they raise taxes to give bureaucrats a raise? Hell no. How about to give a private company millions of dollars? No effin way.

So he spends his money where he wants, starves education, then claims that if we don't raise taxes education will be decimated.

Did I mention that after "cutting the budget to the bone", the state is spending 5.4% more this year than last year?

People of CA are idiots. Soon as my parents die (in their 80s) I'm outta here.

Re:We're broke, huh?

[brusewitz]

Soon as my parents die (in their 80s) I'm outta here.

Why wait? Did they lock the basement door?

zero emissions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric vehicle skeptics have long argued that EVs cannot truly be considered “zero emissions” because they use coal-generated electricity, which in itself produces harmful emissions.

Now, a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists seems to lend credence to that view. In a report to be published Monday, according to The New York Times, the advocacy group compares the emissions of a baseline electric vehicle, the Nissan Leaf, in different parts of the country.

The report, titled “State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel Cost Savings Across the United States,” found that given similar driving conditions and distances, a hypothetical Nissan Leaf in Denver would generate significantly more emissions than the same hypothetical car in Los Angeles.

California uses clean energy for much of its electricity. As a result, the Leaf in the Los Angeles part of the comparison would emit greenhouse gases at around the same level as a gasoline-powered car that got 79 miles per gallon. In Denver, where electricity is coal-dependent, the same car would produce the same level of greenhouse gas as a gasoline-powered Mazda 3, which gets only 33 miles per gallon.

In regions where renewable energies are used to generate electricity, the study shows, electric vehicles can reduce emissions significantly. “But where generators are powered by burning a high percentage of coal,” said The New York Times, “electric cars may not be even as good as the latest gasoline models — and far short of the thriftiest hybrids.”

Re:zero emissions?

[houstonbofh]

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, that power comes from the ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So the marginal cost of the additional power from converting to electric uses the dirtiest power available.

Re:zero emissions?

[jkflying]

Unless the increased demand and rising oil prices make alternative electricity sources more economically viable. Sure, electric cars will have a short term marginal cost purely of the dirty power, but once the supply system adapts (and it will) the new power is likely to come in a large portion from renewables.

Re:zero emissions?

[cheesybagel]

Even in Denver the coal power plant isn't in the middle of the city where most of the air quality problems are an issue.

Re:zero emissions?

[TClevenger]

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Most EVs charge at night, when renewables are overproducing, and fossil fuel base power plants are having to idle turbines, wasting fuel. Besides, I can put solar panels on my roof at any time. I can't produce more gasoline.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that there are power plants which are not powered by coal or oil, yes?

Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Animats]

In Bob Lutz's "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters", Lutz writes that it was the Tesla roadster that woke up GM. Tesla made the first electric that could really zoom. That shook up the car guys; they thought electrics would be wimpy forever. GM was wary after the EV-1, where they lost money on every car. Lutz describes the session where the Chevy Volt was sketched out on a napkin.

Tesla is making rapid progress on price - a $100K car, a $50K car, a $30K car... That's very Silicon Valley. At last, batteries are good enough. Now they just cost too much.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk has a history of making piece of shit vehicles then suing people that point out that they are pieces of shit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/24/tesla-libel-suit-against-top-gear-fails-again/
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110802-spacex-agrees-drop-lawsuit.html
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20044697/u-s-court-dismisses-space-x-lawsuit-against-boeing-lockheed-martin

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even watch that top gear episode? I did.They totally staged the battery just suddenly running out of juice. They drove the car around the track and said, "gee the car died". Then they went on to claim the vehicle wasn't any good because of that. Seems like libel to me.

Honestly, you are a dumb cunt.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, you are a dumb cunt.

The courts don't agree. Your opinion is meaning less. The courts opinion is law.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

The top gear incident was staged. You could tell by watching it (and Jeremy Clarkson even commented on it later in a cubs interview on a behind the scenes of top gear)

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you read your second link, you'd see someone claimed something happened to spacex's ship that both spacex denies as does nasa (who had video proof what the person claimed was false and never happened).
The person later also stated what they said was wrong and never occurred.

Now tell me why spacex shouldn't have sued as this could seriously impact their business?

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

The batteries are good enough to make the drive to and from work in the Bay Area. How will they perform in North Dakota?

Who cares? 8 million people in the Bay Area can use them to commute to work, and the 600,000 people in ND can do whatever they want.

In the long run, either batteries will continue to improve to serve people who drive hundreds of miles a day in places like ND, those people will pay whatever gasoline costs no matter how high to maintain their lifestyle, or they will adapt to rising gasoline prices by changing their lifestyle or moving. All of that is irrelevant to the success of Tesla.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[drinkypoo]

GM was wary after the EV-1, where they lost money on every car.

GM could have sold the EV-1s for essentially any price. But they didn't even try to recoup their costs by selling the cars. Granted, they'd have had to support them. If they didn't use mostly off the shelf components for the parts they're obligated to replace, that's their own fault.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[WindBourne]

Tesla is NOT RESPONSIBLE for GM developing it. Lutz says that he was able to start an 'electric' car line in response to it. However, it is lutz that was responsible for the start of it, and sadly, it was the financial idiots that gutted the volt and turned it into the nightmare that it is.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt

[TClevenger]

That's an ugly story. GM wanted to source known good parts for the EV1 from Siemens, Panasonic and others. But Delco and Delphi, GM's part suppliers and sister companies, insisted on being able to supply the parts, so GM spent millions of dollars designing and custom-building motors, controllers and batteries through its subsidiaries instead of using off-the-shelf components.

Even then, the cost to develop the EV1, including the design of the car and all of its custom components, as well as the advanced assembly line make to produce it, cost about $1 billion. That is less than the Ford Explorer facelift cost in 2002.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, this is the same organization that hired a scientist to develop California's diesel emission standards. Expect the guy faked his resume and was not a scientist. The problem is the courts have said his work is still valid and most of the media ignored the scandal.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/18/gov-knew-carb-scandal-dec-19-2008/?print&page=all

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[the_humeister]

Depends on the power plant. Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar (which California has varying degrees of) don't really generate air pollution.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[houstonbofh]

You are aware that there are power plants which are not powered by coal or oil, yes?

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

More govt subsidy for private corps

[Anonymous Coward]

money goes straight to the bottom line

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[houstonbofh]

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Hey you free market nutjobs!

[Anonymous Coward]

How's Elon Musk's dick taste now?

Re:Hey you free market nutjobs!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that question a little "shocking"... wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[mcgrew]

Nuke plants don't pollute. Natural gas pollutes less than gasoline, so if the electricity is generated by gas, it would pollute less.

A Tesla in Clinton, IL wouldn't pollute at all. A Tesla in Springfield, IL would pollute more than an Escalade or a Hummer; its electricity is from coal and gas.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Zumbs]

The excess electricity produced by wind, hydro and geothermal energy during the night can be used to charge car batteries ;-)

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Randle_Revar]

Don't be ridiculous! That is just plain impossible!

Money from government

[udachny]

More money from government to private interests, because obviously the government is the best judge of how to spend other people's money. Solyndra? F22? Wars? Bridges to nowhere?

Re:Money from government

[Anonymous Coward]

National security and stability are some of the government's responsibilities, therefore efforts to reduce the USA dependence on oil also are.
Same for supporting local jobs and businesses, public health (air quality) etc... I'd much rather see money spent on this instead of blowing up dirt in Irak -- plus it's like 100'000x cheaper.

Re:Money from government

[fermion]

You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is. But when government spends money on trying to increase our independence and ability to choose for ourselves without having to consult the United Nations, everyone cry's foul. And if you think there is no link between federal spending and Ca spending, get a clue. Ca, along with New York, is one of the few states that has a net outflow of taxes to the fed. That means that when the US spends money not on anything other than sending it back to the state, Ca is one of the few states where that money is coming from. Not places like Texas where most of the money is given back t the state. Or places like Arizona and Alaska where money is given to the state. Therefore Ca has a great interest in developing technologies that wil make the US less dependent and thus reduce the expenditures.

Re:Money from government

[Anonymous Coward]

Goverments, including CA don't earn one decent dime themselves. All they have is taken by force from people. Taking this money and giving it away to any business is just an extortion racket.
People know best what they need. Goverments know best how to waste money. Goverment that support a technological development means that no private investor will touch it.

Re:Money from government

[khallow]

You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is.

Why don't you give an example?

Re:Money from government

[Anonymous Coward]

Keystone XL.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to your dark cave of a world and stay there. Status quo for vehicles has passed...it is time for a change, and if you think the pollution from the power plants (the ones that actually produce it) outweighs the pollution produced from millions of little ones all over the road every day, you just need to go back to riding your bicycle. Grown up transportation and thoughts aren't for you.

Why not hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Californian, I'm sick and tired of these electric car initiatives. They go nowhere and the public has a lot of doubts about electric cars, with issues like needing charging stations, charge time, etc.

That said, why aren't we just pushing hybrid cars? It's a much easier jump from traditional cars to hybrid, and the public seems has much less fear of them. Plus it keeps the oil industry happy as they still have a product to sell, though maybe not as much.

Are electric cars the future? Yes. Is it time for the future right now? I don't think so. Shouldn't we ease everyone into the next step instead of making the tremendous leap from regular cars to electric cars?

Re:Why not hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are too many charging stations in california already! It is time they put it to use.

Re:Why not hybrid?

[c9brown]

10 million dollars is peanuts. Besides, why hold back progress, especially when that progress is actually innovative and tries to make things better for everyone?
North America was built on invention, innovation and beating everyone else to the punch. Without that drive, the economy sags and other parts of the world start to dominate (i.e. like right now).

Re:Why not hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hybrids have been around for over a decade, and were "pushed" with multiple incentives (cash, rebates, carpool lane access) when they were introduced.
Now, not surprinsingly, the same is done with plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles.

You agree that EVs are the future -- so isn't it wise to invest in it, just a tiny bit, especially when it so directly supports the local economy?

Re:Why not hybrid?

[WindBourne]

Is there really just one or two AC running around on this page spouting off all this crap? To be honest, it appears that way. I rarely see an intelligent posting by you.

Tesla Model S Range is 300 miles

[DaKong]

It's right there on their site:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models

At a supercharging station it takes 30 minutes to recharge. On long road trips most people stop that long to eat, stretch their legs, etc.

Tesla is also building a network of supercharging stations, already having built quite a few in California. They say any Tesla car can recharge at them for free. And the best part is the electricity is supplied by solar panels on the stations.

It seems like they have definitively answered your range anxiety.

Re:Tesla Model S Range is 300 miles

[Anonymous Coward]

The model S range is not 300 miles. It's only that if you buy the model costing $100,000

Re:Tesla Model S Range is 300 miles

[WindBourne]

Actually, no. It only costs 80K. However, adding a number of other options CAN take it up to 100K. And lets be honest here, if you are buying an 80K car then chance are very high that you are also buying every single other option. IOW, there will be few Model S's getting 300 miles and costing 80K.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

And why can't we increase capacity of clean power?

Solar Panels

[DaKong]

Sorry to interrupt the FUD, but the Tesla supercharger stations supply the electricity from solar panels on their rooves. There is no emission shifting.

If you recharge the cars at your house or office, there may be some emission shifting, but we don't know for sure because we don't know where those facilities' electricity is sourced.

Re:Solar Panels

[Anonymous Coward]

We know exactly where it's sourced. It's delta; it comes from natural gas peaker plants.

So many inaccuracies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, somebody is thinking they can get some stories past us.

Your Jetta DOES run on an energy storage system, that's why you have to keep buying gasoline. Much of which is wasted in terms of heat. But don't pretend it's any different than a battery.

Most people drive short distances most of the time, they don't take long trips, they don't need to tow, they don't need to go a hundred miles at a time. And no, they don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of stuff. Sorry, but the reality is most people need a lot less car than you think.

As for maintenance, an electric motor IS a lot simpler than an internal combustion one. They're not expensive to maintain at all, and yes, the batteries can be recycled.

Unlike the pollutants spewing out the back-end of your Jetta. Those are just going to pollute the air.

And yes, there ARE electric trucks. And Tractors. Goodness me, don't you know anything?

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[hendridm]

Most people drive short distances most of the time, they don't take long trips, they don't need to tow, they don't need to go a hundred miles at a time. And no, they don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of stuff. Sorry, but the reality is most people need a lot less car than you think.

I'm curious, is this the Slashdot consensus? Anybody else want to chime in, because it certainly isn't true for me or really most of the people I know.

As for maintenance, an electric motor IS a lot simpler than an internal combustion one. They're not expensive to maintain at all

Oh, how much does it cost for a set of new batteries? (I'm genuinely curious as I have no clue)

And yes, there ARE electric trucks. And Tractors.

Indeed, but I'm concerned that it won't pull my boat. :/

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[hendridm]

Unlike the pollutants spewing out the back-end of your Jetta. Those are just going to pollute the air.

Oh, I forgot to ask - Does driving an electric vehicle (power largely by coal plants where I am) have a net benefit in terms of pollution? Again, I am genuinely curious.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[CrankyFool]

Hard to tell what "consensus" is, but I've got a pretty long commute -- it's about 45 miles in each direction. Counting for inefficiencies and the fact that MPGs lie, if I could buy a reasonably-priced 200 mile EV, I'd jump on it. That said, my family would probably keep at least one gas vehicle. Right now, we have 3 gas vehicle -- going to 2 EVs, 1 gas would be delightful.

Replacing Prius batteries is either a $1000 job if you want to do it yourself and get it from eBay or about $2300 for the new battery pack (plus some dealer work -- figure on a total of about $3000).

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[hendridm]

Hard to tell what "consensus" is, but I've got a pretty long commute -- it's about 45 miles in each direction.

Well, that's not too shabby, but there are times when I want to visit family or drive somewhere for a staycation.

Right now, we have 3 gas vehicle -- going to 2 EVs, 1 gas would be delightful. Replacing Prius batteries is either a $1000 job if you want to do it yourself and get it from eBay or about $2300 for the new battery pack (plus some dealer work -- figure on a total of about $3000).

That doesn't sound too fiscally friendly to me, but if you are a handy person and your main concern is the environment, I say kudos. Do you feel that the emissions on a higher-efficiency gas/diesel powered vehicle are lower than a vehicle charged by coal power plants (which is the primary source of power generation in my area, sadly)? I have no clue as I haven't read any studies.

Some people say ethanol is cleaner burning, too. Others would disagree when you take into account the emissions created in production.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does. See a coal power plant (which is hardly necessary) can be significantly more efficient than a gas combustion engine AND easier to deal with the pollution.

Check some of the coal industry's studies. They're quite insistent on the cleanness of their product.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[rgbrenner]

slashdot concensus? try Facts
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw615.html

average: 10 miles
average to work: 12.6 miles

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[hendridm]

Wow, I stand corrected. I'm amazed that the average trip length is only 10 miles. We folks in Wisconsin must be busy folks!

I drive more than 10 miles to get my mail. Do you people ever go anywhere? We road trip to the cities all the time.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[hendridm]

Ok, so we've established that coal power is more efficient/healthy per mile (according to the coal industry) than a combustion engine. I shall integrate that into my factors on whether to purchase an EV during my next vehicle purchase.

Thank you.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[sumdumass]

You are not really corrected. The definition of a trip is from one address to another. If you drove to the bank, then to the movies, perhaps dinner out, and a stop at the store on the way home, it would count as 5 trips. I would consider it as one trip. Using the average of 10 miles, it could be about 50 miles in reality.

Just yesterday, I drove to my brothers (12 miles), picked him up and drove to a business to pay a bill (9 miles) then we got lunch, (4 miles), went into town to see some politicians think out loud (8 miles), stopped at a store to look at something and purchase something else (6 miles) then I dropped my brother back off, (3 miles) and went home (12 miles). That's 54 miles in one round trip for me- Or according to the energy.gov site, 7 tips averaging 10 miles or less.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[amorsen]

Do you feel that the emissions on a higher-efficiency gas/diesel powered vehicle are lower than a vehicle charged by coal power plants

For one thing, an electric vehicle can just about run on the amount of electricity needed to refine the amount of petrol a petrol car uses to go the same distance... However you are unlikely to place a refinery where energy is expensive, so that is probably hydro power or similar.

But no, in most cases an electric car run on pure coal power loses out to a typical efficient less-than 100g CO2/km car. If you charge it at night you can win though, because it is likely that the power plants will still be idling, unable to shut down completely. That way you are using power which would otherwise have been thrown away, so your effective emissions are zero. The calculations can get very complicated.

Anyway, if you are in such an area, please lobby to have your grid connected somewhere with a better mix, preferably somewhere with hydro. It ought to be possible, unless you are in Australia. Most of the good coal (anthracite) is gone, the crap we burn nowadays makes a mess and just gets more and more expensive.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[rgbrenner]

You are correct.. but the average driver drives 29 miles per day:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey/daily_travel.html

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[Smidge204]

Wow, I stand corrected. I'm amazed that the average trip length is only 10 miles. We folks in Wisconsin must be busy folks!

I drive more than 10 miles to get my mail. Do you people ever go anywhere? We road trip to the cities all the time.

Here's the problem: Apparently you folks in Wisconsin live in the middle of fucking nowhere! Of course even the most basic of errands will require a full compliment of rations and an overnight stay. The majority of the country, however, lives in a neighborhood where most if not all of the things you need are within a few (under 10) miles at least. That includes most recreational needs.
=Smidge=

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[haruchai]

There will always be outliers and that's not a bad thing. I once went over 5 yrs without driving because I moved to a major city where work and shopping were within a 7 mile radius.

So there are probably as many people who won't buy an EV simply because they don't need any kind of car - if necessary, they can rent or car-share.
And then there are folks like you for whom an affordable EV is not practical, especially not as the lone or primary vehicle.

In-between, there are probably 30+ million for whom something like a Leaf is enough, or an acceptable 2nd auto. That's a sizable niche market.

But there are also fleets and taxis who could replace almost their entire stock of ICEs without impacting service and would be able to recoup the extra cost within a few years. No more oil changes and less maintenance adds up quickly for a busy commercial fleet.

I've always been of the opinion that EV adoption should start on the commercial front and work outwards to the average Joe. Commercial entities are in a much better position to see the benefits of rapid EV adoption and delivery vans and post trucks don't stray too far from home base so range anxiety is not a major concern and they would likely be easy to outfit with a high-amp quick-charger.

Re:So many inaccuracies.

[Whorhay]

It should be noted though that even if the power source which is energizing your EV is comparatively dirty, its waste is being produced at a single point. So it's waste can be controlled much more easily than thousands of individual polluting vehicles.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[olden]

The vast majority of EV charging occurs between midnight and 4am, when there is ample capacity, esp from wind, so EVs actually use the cleanest part of the grid.
Which in California is quite clean to start with: most of its electricity is coming from carbon-neutral sources (hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind...); only 7% was coal in 2010 and getting lower.

Another sobering thought: the energy spent refining gasoline alone (6kW*h / gallon) for a 20-some mpg vehicle would be enough to propel an EV the same distance.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Now include the energy spent towing an electric vehicle back home because the battery is dead.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[ArsonSmith]

You mean most of the energy they produce. Most of their energy comes from other states, of which is mostly coal.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Luckyo]

Would still pollute a whole lot less actually. Coal power plants, while very "dirty" by power plant standards, are exceptionally clean by automotive standards.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that you are completely unaware of the fact that even getting dirty power, net emissions would be less.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Smidge204]

Renewable power does not run at peak all the time. It's the old forms of power - coal especially - that runs flat out 24/7 because throttling those kinds of powerplants is incredibly costly, inefficient and slow to react. It's called "spinning reserve" because the only reasonably way to reduce the output of a coal powerplant is to de-energize the generators and let the turbines keep spinning. If they turn off the furnaces it would take hours to get running again. Throttling a coal powerplant means complete waste of money and resources.

Electrical generation capacity is critically underutilized at night. You need generating capacity to handle peak demand, but most of the time you are running nowhere near peak demand. The reason why many people in CA are eligible for Time-Of-use metering is because increasing off-peak use actually reduces costs. Many utility providers desperately want people to plug in electric cars at night to "fill the tub" and level out the 24-hour demand curve, allowing more efficient and less costly operation.

Also, there's that lie again. See my other post in reply to you. But even if that were the case and electric vehicles were actually "coal powered" like you want to believe it's still cleaner than the typical gasoline engine. There are no areas of the country where electric vehicles have higher global warming emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle. (PDF warning, quote from page 11)
=Smidge=

More Jerry Brown shenanigans

[CQDX]

Sacramento gives away money to a tiny company that makes expensive cars that nobody wants to "save or create" 1500 jobs. Meanwhile, Jerry Brown claims we are broke and that if we don't approve the tax increases this coming election, hundreds to thousands of teachers, police, and firemen will have to be let go...

Tax residency for dead people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly off topic, but now I'm trying to imagine an IRS rule for bona fide foreign gravesites with a foreign income exclusion, and how much more strict the CA FTB rules would be... maybe there will be special mausoleums in the Cayman Islands to help a 1%er out...

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Attila Dimedici]

But those emissions are not counted when the state tightens its emission rules on cars.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[houstonbofh]

Less, but not zero, which is what EV fans like to claim.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[houstonbofh]

While I do agree with most of your assessment, you are leaving out the production of the car, and specifically the batteries that use some very nasty chemicals, and toxic elements. And they have to be replaced. Not saying this is still not better, but it is not "free" or "zero" which is the popular claim. Everyone calls them "zero emission vehicles" when a better name might be "deferred emission vehicles" or "transfered emission vehicles."

Insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't PUBLIC tax payers' money be used for PUBLIC projects? What of the poorest tax payers who need a better education system but aren't able to afford or wouldn't buy a Tesla anyways? Or the people who prefer to use mass transit for commuting?

The government should only act as a lender of last resort, and only for projects or programs that benefit the whole society.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Smidge204]

Goalposts moved!

Alrighty then. This report conducts an analysis that includes manufacturing the vehicle itself. I've givem my opinion of the report and the overall conclusion is EVs are still a winning proposition.

specifically the batteries that use some very nasty chemicals, and toxic elements

More nonsense. All production EVs available now use some form of lithium chemistry. Lithium "mining" is comparatively benign with most of the lithium supply coming from salt flats where the brine is pumped to the surface and allowed to evaporate until the salt you want starts to precipitate out. The electrodes are usually carbon and/or aluminum and the electrolyte - while not something I'd want to be drinking - is typically a volatile organic compound and poses virtually no long-term environmental risk. You must be thinking of nickel batteries. No production EVs I'm aware of use Nickel batteries.

And they have to be replaced

So do engines and transmissions, or at least they need a major overhaul. And like traditional automotive parts, batteries are extremely recyclable.

Least you think you'd need to replace the battery every year or whatever, the standard warranty is equivalent to any other drive train warranty. Even the most pessimistic estimates place the estimated service life of an EV battery at 8+ years (level of abuse notwithstanding). So the issue of cost is moot. Battery packs are also serviceable, in that being highly modular you can replace individual cell sets if that's all that's wrong with it.

Not saying this is still not better

That's pretty much what you were implying, though, wasn't it?

Everyone calls them "zero emission vehicles"

The vehicle itself produces no emissions. "Zero emissions" is actually a legal definition. I seriously doubt any EV owners, much less EV advocates is there are any non-advocate owners, are under any delusion that their vehicle has zero cradle-to-grave environmental impact. Owners of gasoline powered vehicles, however, seem completely unaware - sometimes deliberately so - of the true environmental costs of their chosen mode of transport.
=Smidge=

Not in California

[SuperKendall]

That electricity comes from somewhere...

Not necessarily, California has rolling brownouts and gets a lot of electricity from other states so it's not like you are polluting California!

I imagine they envision you will generally be using your Telsa to drive into Nevada to charge. What is fired in Nevada, stays in Nevada as the saying goes...

Re:Not in California

[sumdumass]

California also has a unique situation where it is blocked to the east by a mountain range that causes a lot of the smog and pollution to linger around and become more concentrated and more noticeable. If shifting pollution to the other side of the mountains by generating electricity there for use within the state eliminates a portion of this pollution for transportation, then it can have a positive impact on the health and well being of inhabitants without transferring the same degree of negative health effect out because it isn't as concentrated.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[sumdumass]

Actually, it would probably be more efficient to use those sources to pump air or create hydrogen peroxide to store the energy and be used as demand sources also.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Zumbs]

That may be a better way of storing energy, but it will not solve the problem of making cars independent of oil and coal. It does have a certain elegance to it that the excess nightly production from renewable sources are used to power cars.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Zumbs]

It's the old forms of power - coal especially - that runs flat out 24/7 because throttling those kinds of powerplants is incredibly costly, inefficient and slow to react.

I didn't know that. Is oil as bad? And how do power companies deal with the 24 hour demand curve?

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[houstonbofh]

The vehicle itself produces no emissions. "Zero emissions" is actually a legal definition. I seriously doubt any EV owners, much less EV advocates is there are any non-advocate owners, are under any delusion that their vehicle has zero cradle-to-grave environmental impact. Owners of gasoline powered vehicles, however, seem completely unaware - sometimes deliberately so - of the true environmental costs of their chosen mode of transport. =Smidge=

Completely aware and reminded constantly. Just sick and tired of being compared against free. Sick and tired of people calculating only part of the cost in the comparison. And sick and tired of the huge government spending on something that is just half a solution. The range problem is STILL not addressed.

Gasoline powered cars may not be perfect, but they are still the best we have at this time.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[olden]

No, those numbers represent electricity sold in California, hence the significant fraction of hydro (probably mostly from WA).

Seiously?

[Waveguide04]

Calif is already 617 BILLION dollars in debt, but they have the cash to drop 10M on Tesla? Maybe its some different form of economics than I grew up with, but I am calling BS on this. not that there are not many things in Calif that warrant calling BS on.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[loshwomp]

The range problem is STILL not addressed.

What range problem? The cars go hundreds of miles per charge and can charge at a rate of 60 miles' range per hour. US average commute: 24 miles. Average daily driving: 30 miles.

The data confirm--over and over again--that, despite most people's fantasies to the contrary, long distance road trips and boat-towing are outliers in our collective driving habits.

If you absolutely must drive long distances regularly and you only have one car, then that's too bad for you. Shut up and go drive something else. It's a false premise that electrics must be a 100% solution for everyone. If that was an actual requirement for vehicles, we'd never have Hummers, motorcycles, or concrete mixer trucks.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[TClevenger]

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Most EVs charge at night, when renewables are overproducing, and fossil fuel base power plants are having to idle turbines, wasting fuel.

Shocking!

[tompaulco]

So, the only car manufacturer that stands to gain if California increases targets for electric vehicles also happens to be the only one asking California to increase those standards? I'm shocked!

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Smidge204]

The range problem is STILL not addressed.

Goalposts moved yet again! You're like an adorable encyclopedia of cliché anti-EV talking points. loshwomp covered this one good enough for me, though.
=Smidge=

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Smidge204]

Oil is pretty much as bad. Both oil and coal use massive steam boilers with lots of thermal mass that takes time to heat up and cool down. For maximum efficiency the boilers operate at a set point pretty much constantly except for maintenance periods and the plant is throttled by essentially pissing away the excess energy as waste. Power stations lose tons of money when this happens, so they would rather sell that electricity even at a loss than have it all go up the chimney - that's why many places have lower nighttime rates.

Now just imagine if every house had maybe 5kWh of battery storage in it. Recharge at night, use to shave peak demand. The sine-wave looking demand curve flattens right out and everyone wins.

In recent months there have been dozens of coal powerplants closed in favor of natural gas. Natural gas can be burned directly in an internal combustion turbine, skipping the boiler, which increases efficiency and gives much better throttling capabilities. It also helps that all the reserve tapping has caused the price of natural gas to plummet... at least natural gas is cleaner and produces marginally less CO2 per kWh.
=Smidge=

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[psycho12345]

During peak, to compensate for spikes in demand, they use natural gas (or is diesal), but those are expensive. For offpeak, I believe they sell it to be used elsewhere.

Transfer of wealth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great...

there goes more of my middle-class taxpayer cash...

so rich people can have "green" cars and then rub their environmentalist superiority in my face...

and use their over-price, subsidized cars to "prove" that they are economically viable...

But society cannot afford to subsidize everybody... if we could afford this nonsense then nobody would need subsidies in the first place (duh)

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that magical practical approach of shifting power generation off the street, where it creates a blanket of pollution to centralized polluters that can be replaced without touching a single of the millions of cars and centralized, as well as decentralized, pre-pollution (let's not forget manufacturing, else our practical approach that doesn't express everything every time, least it be called magical) sources.

Once upon a time horses were the best we had.

[Brannon]

Technology moves on in fits and starts--you don't get everything all at once and not everything is monotonically improved. In many ways horses were (and still are) superior to automobiles; there was a significant phase in history in which the two overlapped for this reason. And back then, some jackass like you was preaching about how we shouldn't use automobiles at all until they were uniformly better than horses at everything.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca

[raxx7]

It actually depends on the plant type, not the fuel.

All traditional thermal power plants suffer of the problem, independently of what they use: coal, oil, gas or nuclear.
As Smidge wrote, they use massive steam boilers which take lots of time to heat up and cool down.

Combined cycle power plants are much better, as the gas turbine can be throttled quickly and the steam system is much smaller and hence also reacts quicker. But the gas turbines can't burn coal, unless it goes through a complicated (expensive) process to convert into a synthesis gas.

So, in practice all coal power plants are traditional thermal plants.
There are old thermal power plants burning oil and gas, but most of the new ones are combined cycle --cheaper and more efficient.

AFAIK, oil is getting less and less used to produce electricity as it's just too expensive compared to coal and natural gas.

Ten million bucks, 1500 jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

10,000,000 divided by 1,500 = 6666.666666