Posted on 11/29/2008 9:00:18 PM PST by reaganaut1
THE Tesla Roadster is an electric car that goes fast, looks sensational and excites envy. The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive. If enough billionaires step forward to inject additional capital to keep the doors of its manufacturer, Tesla Motors, open, I’m happy for all parties.
If investors pass up the opportunity, however, why should taxpayers fork over the capital that Tesla needs? The Roadster is not much more than a functioning concept car that sells for $109,000. The company is requesting $400 million in low-interest federal loans as part of the $25 billion loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year.
The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
of course we shouldn’t forget. It is not a coincidence that SUV’s were a big hit in the 90’s when oil was really low (even with Al Gore running around) and the Prius took off when oil prices went up.
We should give a bigger tax credit to the companies that sell the most energy efficient cars.
But to have the govt bet on Tesla? Very ill advised because we don’t know if this company is a dud or not.
I’m all for a good electric car, but a million Chevy Volts recharching every night are bound to drive up everyone’s electricity rates... that whole supply and demand thingy.
Why the hell is the question even being asked? If the damn thing cannot make it in the market, screw it.
Good for you, technology has made this country. I remember well the statement, “who in the hell needs a personal computer”?? now man up!!!
I think it’s more complicated than that.
The real big problem is, not only are people who hate us enriched by our addiction to oil.
So also, are people who influence our government, and our industry.
That’s the real problem. So much money is at stake, policy is influenced by ... people whose fortunes are dependent on America continuing, to make bad choices.
Well said.
yeah a prize for the battery and a bigger tax credit for the companies that sell (and not just produce) the most cars that are efficient.
My dad actually wants one of those for trips from his house to the store, but given the roads from his house to store (only 1 mile, but State Highway) it would be illegal so he drives his F-150 instead.
So, the question should be, if Tesla was given 400 million, could they use it to drive down the price of their cars down the early adopter curve to make a viable electric car for the average commuter?
My Dad is in the same position! He lives on a lake and lots of people have golf carts for putting around, but the nearest store requires hwy access.
The viability of any electric vehicle is highly questionable. Most criticism involves the additional power generation, an important criticism. The battery technology is an even larger weakness. Tesla uses lithium-ion batteries to achieve high performance. Lithium supplies are limited much more than petroleum. The Tesla roadster needs a new battery after 5 years or 100,000 miles. The cost of the vehicle does not include this considerable operating expense. The technology is fantastic but it does not seem viable.
Little if any of the Tesla car is manufactured in the USA. If they want US tax dollar backing, that would need to change.
Energy is required to live in our modern age. There are many forms of energy production, Coal, Oil, Nuclear, Wind, Geothermal, Solar, Natural Gas, even Ocean Currents.
Singling out Oil, which will be in abundant supply FROM DOMESTIC PRODUCTION for hundreds of years, is Liberal feel good Environut talk.
Consumers make choices based on want, need and their ability to pay, that is Capitalism. When the Government decides how big my house can be, what kind of car I can drive and rations how much energy I am allowed to use, that is Communism.
I don't do Communism. The free market, just like water, finds its level. All that is required is for the Government to get out of the way.
Agreed 100%.
While we’re getting government out of the way, let’s get them out of the business of forcing American drivers to buy big cars (crash standards), out of the business of interfering with diesel auto choices, and out of the business of enforcing a gasoline monopoly (strict restrictions on alcohol as fuel production)
The market isn’t free. That’s the problem.
Too many of our options, have been removed from the table.
They are building a manufacturing plant in San Jose, CA
If it is ok for the Amish to drive horses on the shoulder of the road, why not golf carts??? I think is more a matter of the government collecting tax than anything.
If the product is any good, that pattern will repeat itself and without need of the taxpayer's patronage of the technology. Bad technology won't get sufficient patronage to spur mass production at "affordable" prices. Let the market decide. Keep the damn politicians and the "free" money out of the equation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.