Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Motors Repays $465M Government Loan 9 Years Early

Tesla Motors announced today it has completely repaid the $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy the company received in 2010. The funds were generated by Tesla through a recent sale of their stock, worth close to a billion dollars. The stock price had risen sharply after the company reported its first profitable quarter (and the stock still sits roughly 50% higher than before their earnings release). Today's payment of $451.8 million finished off both the loan's principal and its interest, nine years before the final payment was due. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, 'I would like to thank the Department of Energy and the members of Congress and their staffs that worked hard to create the ATVM program, and particularly the American taxpayer from whom these funds originate. I hope we did you proud.'

3 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nice. by dublin · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.

    No, but the reality is that way too many of them do.

    I work in the green energy industry now (and used to work in the oil industry). The "green" industry is far, far slimier (more corrupt)... Maybe this is because the oil industry evolved from the same people who ran the cattle industry, where a man's word was his bond and multi-million dollar deals were made on a handshake. Integrity was everything, and if you lost that, you simply weren't in the business anymore.

    Government (and "free governemtn money") corrupts pretty much everything absolutely...

    --
    "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  2. Re:Congratulations! by larry+bagina · · Score: -1, Troll

    It helps if you're a minority like Elon Musk (African-American).

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. Re: Congratulations! by AK+Marc · · Score: -1, Troll

    The problem is redundancy isn't sufficiently punished. "I can't afford to drive it" vs "I can't afford it" Why say the first, when you mean the second. The inclusion of the redundant statement puts the stress on the wrong part. It's not splitting hairs when it was sloppy language that caused the issue in the first place. If he hadn't added emphasis on the cost "to drive", then there wouldn't have been an issue.