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.'
Except for the cars that I have stolen, I factor in purchase price with operating costs when I determine whether I can afford to drive that vehicle.
I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.
In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate. When you factor in the fact that these were all loans that the free-market was too risk averse to take on itself, that number is pretty fantastic. Most venture capital funds are lucky to have a 10% success rate.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This is exactly what the horse and buggy industry said when the first cars came on the road. "Ha! Petrol! Where do they think they will get it, once on the road?" and "People already have horses - who's going to want to buy an automobile when the buggy is so much cheaper??"
In Australia, we call it Tall Poppy Syndrome where someone that is doing outstanding work is seen as a threat, a target and something to be cut back down to size. Though in this case, I would say that there is a hint of Schadenfreude thrown into the mix as well.
Basically, it's just sad and pathetic.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The car did well enough through all the ugliness that I'm going to use it year round. The range did drop off dramatically on the days when it was about 0 (F). But my commute is only 7 miles, so there was really no problem with using it for getting to work. The other thing that helped was that the car could be warmed up while it was still plugged in. I was also going to get a stage 2 charger installed, but with my typical daily use, the car is fully charged off 110 after midnight. I don't think I'll get a stage 2 charger until I get a second electric.
In case anyone wants to read some of those "insightful comments" from 2010: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1947208/Tesla-Nabs-465M-Government-Loan-To-Build-Model-S
It's also very much political. Elon Musk's and Tesla's success under this loan program means that it was a Good Idea, and the Republicans don't want ANYTHING that President Obama or the Democrats have been involved in to be considered a success. They want all these loans to fail as proof that Keynesian economics is flawed, that the very idea of the government loaning money to renewable energy ventures (rather than their own buddies, Big Oil) is doomed to failure.
The GOP is so out of their minds with insane rage that they would do anything to ensure that no progress is made under a Democratic administration, even if it means Americans have to suffer a prolonged recovery. They want the sole credit. They also want to make everyone forget that it was their own policies of deregulation that caused the economy to tank in the first place, so that their buddies on Wall Street can make even more money without being held accountable. The only kind of capitalism that these assholes want is the kind that makes THEM richer. That means pumping more oil, for one.
Dealers are a huge lobby and major contributors in all states. This is a clear case of entrenched influence against the public interest, in opposition to individual rights.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If your mortgage has a early repayment penalty then you got screwed hard. The only time I have sever seen that is when someone had no idea at all what they were doing and said yes to everything the banker asked.
Let me guess you also paid "points" as well. Intrest rates have been so low that paying $1000 in points to lower it by 0.01% is worthless unless you are buying a 2.5million mansion.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Oddly enough the loan program was established under the Bush administration.
From wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors http://www.drivingtoday.com/news_this_week/2009-07-17-4337-driving/index.html#axzz2U4akRe2c
The low-interest loans are not related to the "bailout" funds that GM and Chrysler have received, nor are they related to the 2009 economic stimulus package. The Department of Energy loan program was created in 2007 during the George Bush administration in order to get more fuel-efficient vehicle options to U.S. consumers and to decrease the country's dependence on foreign oil.
Early repayment penalties are illegal in most of the US.
The benefit of this kind of loan program is not in the interest earned, but in the fact that you get a successful company that creates jobs and pays taxes, which used to be considered a good thing. Having an additional player in a heavy industry also creates competition in a fairly consolidated sector, which also used to be considered a good thing.
These kind of government loans to business in the US go back to the 18th century, and were considered a very good idea until recently, when one of the two political parties lost its mind.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Taken as a whole, government investments like have very rarely lost. Even in the contentious past 5 years, the government investment in emerging technologies have been very profitable, even with the poster boys like Solyndra which are used to argue that all government investment in technology is a bad idea. This argument is usually made on the Internet, which is more than a little bit ironic.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If local bookstores and video stores had the same amount of political clout as auto dealers then Amazon and NetFlix wouldn't be able to sell in those states either.
Anyone who wants to pay $30K for a car is not going to be too concerned about gas costs.
I am, and gas costs made me decide to pay $30K for my Nissan LEAF.
I analyzed TCO (excluding maintenance costs, which are much lower for electrics, but I couldn't quantify that so I just ignored it) for about 20 different vehicles, including EVs, hybrids and pure ICE vehicles,. My model assumed that the new vehicle was going to be an additional vehicle, and that the other (gas-burning) vehicle would be available for trips beyond the range of the EV. I assumed very conservative ranges for the EVs, for example I estimated the LEAF's range at 60 miles (it's really more like 80-120, depending on conditions). Finally, I created a statistical model of my driving habits and calculated the total cost over 8 years.
The result was that the three EVs I looked at had the top three spots... they were the cheapest to drive overall, in spite of being by far the most expensive up front. Even better, thanks to tax credits the break-even point was at 2-3 years. Without the tax credits it was about 6 years. The vehicle immediately behind the EVs was the 18K Honda Insight hybrid, then a mix of other hybrids and more-efficient gas vehicles and finally a long tail of gas vehicles trailing the pack.
Of course, your driving patterns may be different, your electricity costs may be higher or gas prices lower (oh, I assumed that gas prices would continue increasing at the same rate they've increased over the last 8 years), etc., etc, etc., but I've walked several other people through applying my model to their situations and in every single case the EVs have been extremely competitive -- and usually the very cheapest.
In practice, what I've found -- for me -- is that my model was very conservative. In fact, the LEAF is even cheaper than I expected. Partly that's because I was able to get a better deal on the car than I had assumed, and partly it's because I do most of my charging at work, so my actual energy costs are dramatically lower than my model had anticipated.
Oh, and it's a very nice car, not a "tin can" that can't keep me as warm or cool as I like. It's a 3000-pound vehicle that accelerates 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, will do 90+ mph and can easily keep the cab at 60 degrees or 90 degrees or anywhere in between, regardless of outside temperature. It also has power everything, a nice stereo, GPS navigation, XM radio, bluetooth, backup camera, and computer or smartphone-based remote control... it's loaded. Of course, stomping on the gas pedal, driving 90 mph and blasting the heat (the AC doesn't use so much, plus it doesn't have to work against the heat generated by an ICE) will drop my range from 120 miles down to about 70 -- but my model only assumed a 60 mile range. It's a compact, but the alternatives I compared it against were also compacts.
EVs are very real, and very practical, today. And it's only going to get better. If Tesla can produce a $30K car with a 200-mile range, it'll be a huge hit with cost-conscious people, because that's enough range that for most people it can be a primary car -- no need for another ICE vehicle except on the rare long-distance trips, and it's cost-effective to rent for those.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If electric cars take over the market, the demand for car maintenance will collapse. Thats a big chunk of the job market in some areas and there will have to be some adjustment.
We should all have such problems. Also if they find the cure for cancer, a lot of oncologists will be out of a job. It's still a big net win for society in either case.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.