American? Your Expected to Be Driving Electric Cars

[SteveAJones]

Now that President Obama has taken over the U.S. auto industry, let's follow the money

trail:

Tesla CEO admits his carmaker's running out of cash

By Owen Thomas, 12:00 PM on Fri Oct 31 2008

Tesla Motors, the automaker which is Silicon Valley's best hope to build an electric-car industry, will run out of cash in three months if it does not raise new financing. CEO Elon Musk has confirmed Valleywag's report that it has spent most of its customers' deposits and is running low on cash. In an interview with Reuters, CEO Elon Musk conceded that the company only has $9 million in the bank, as a concerned Tesla employee told us yesterday. Tesla's contract with customers specifies that deposits can be used for "working capital" — but last I checked, "working capital" means liquidity available to a company. It does not mean "money that has gone out the door." So Tesla may arguably be in breach of contract with the 1,200 customers who have put between $5,000 and $60,000 down for its Tesla Roadster. Tesla has only delivered 50 cars.

Musk has previously said that Tesla will be able to turn cash-flow positive in nine months, if it receives new investment. He now says he's seeking an additional $20 million from Tesla's current investors, and expects to get it next week.

Do the math: If Tesla has $9 million in the bank, and requires another $20 million to get to positive cash flow over the next nine months, then it is burning at least $3 million a month. And that's after it laid off 24 percent of its workforce and announced plans to shutter its Detroit office.

Commentary: California wants to raid Big 3 bailout cash for green cars

Taxpayers should be wary of bailing out unviable electric carmaker

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Henry Payne

Think the $25 billion is to help save the Big Three automakers and preserve manufacturing facilities essential to national security? Think again.

Detroit automakers' best hope for Washington aid is a bipartisan plan to speed the release of $25 billion in already-approved loans under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). But long-simmering hostilities between the California and Michigan delegations on auto issues threaten the deal. California legislators want that money to subsidize their own Silicon Valley-based auto industry, which they argue is the future of American transportation.

The Detroit Three automakers have driven the perception that the $25 billion package to help pay for "retooling" factories to make more fuel-efficient cars under increased gas mileage standards and a possible additional $25 billion bridge loan are rescue packages meant for Detroit alone. But a letter from U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thanksgiving Eve makes clear what few taxpayers know: The billions in auto loans are a giant honey pot intended for any auto manufacturer in the nation.

In fact, Tesla Motors, a struggling San Jose start-up manufacturer of electric cars in Feinstein's back yard, has already applied for $400 million in EISA loans to build a new plant for making a luxury $60,000, battery-powered family sedan.

So while some members of Congress tut-tut Detroit executives for wasting money on private jets, Washington is entertaining taxpayer-financed loans for an automaker that caters to Silicon Valley millionaires.

Once synonymous with Detroit, the "American auto industry" now depends on your geographical perspective. To Southerners, it's foreign transplants like BMW and Hyundai. To Midwesterners, it's General Motors, Ford and Chrysler but also Honda and Toyota. And to the West Coast, it's alternate-fuel startups like Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive.

That is why Feinstein wrote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "I do not support disadvantaging the next generation of American automobile companies in an effort to save the first generation."

Feinstein's letter comes in response to a Senate plan crafted by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin -- backed by the Bush administration and a bipartisan group of senators -- to use existing funds to help Detroit's automakers almost exclusively. In speeding his plan, the Senate veteran added a provision stipulating that the federal government "shall make loans (to carmakers) that have operated a manufacturing facility throughout the 20-year period ending on the date of enactment of this act." In other words, only Detroit automakers (and Honda's Marysville, Ohio facility) need apply.

Powerful Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Feinstein beg to differ. Their state's political and business class speaks contemptuously of Detroit's "dinosaurs." They believe Silicon Valley-produced alternatives are the answer, and they demand equal access to federal money to prove it.

The original intent of the $25 billion was about more than helping the Detroit Three cope with the costs of Washington's expensive new fuel-mileage mandate, Tesla Vice President of Business Development (and ex-Bush staffer) Diarmuid O'Connell points out. It was also about accelerating a new American auto industry beyond Detroit.

The program, O'Connell writes, "specified that the Department of Energy should provide loans to new and existing automakers and suppliers to encourage development and speed delivery of next-generation cars."

Indeed, Tesla was the first applicant for the loan money, requesting $400 million on Nov. 16 -- three days after the program became official -- to fund its premium "Model S" sedan and an advanced battery facility.

The trouble with government subsidies, however, is that they shield emerging companies from market demands. A closer look at Tesla reveals a high-tech company in deep financial trouble.

According to a Nov. 3 issue of Business Week, Tesla looks "a lot like the Motor City."

The magazine found that, until "a few weeks ago," Tesla had "dreams of one day producing a line of electric vehicles for every purse and purpose. Then the world changed. ... Investors, fazed by the credit crunch, were suddenly demanding tougher terms. (Tesla founder Elon Musk) began retrenching, cutting costs and postponing Tesla's second model, the $60,000 Model S sedan."

The financing crunch is the second crisis Tesla has endured in a year. Its first electric, a highly anticipated $100,000 sports car, is over-budget by $40,000 per car and Tesla has delayed the launch by six months to find a way to make it profitably.

Is its federal loan application seed money -- or bailout money? Auto analyst James N. Hall sees a grim future for the company: "If the market wants (electric cars) in the number Tesla is talking about," he told Business Week, "a larger auto company will bury them on cost."

Taxpayers already may be on the hook for decades of bad decisions by U.S. automakers. Do they also want to throw money at California startups that have yet to prove their market viability?

Calif-based Tesla Motors chooses Canada, not U.S., as showcase market for its electric sports car

Submitted by Bryan Myrick on March 4, 2009

Part of President Obama's dream of freedom from petroleum dependence is moving several steps closer to becoming a household innovation, but Americans will remain spectators to progress for the time being.

Tesla Motors Inc – a San Carlo, CA based company – has announced yesterday that it was commencing the sales of its street-sexy, electric-powered Roadster sports car to the Canadian market. Although the sales and servicing of vehicles will initially be conducted through regional centers to be located in Seattle and New York, Tesla's focus on Canada as the "showcase" market is based on the Canada's primary dependence on renewable resources like hydroelectric. The abundance of greener energy was central to the decision because it offers the potential for as much as a 98% reduction reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in provinces like British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba, according to the company's press release.

If I had $109,000 to drop on a second car (it doesn't have a backseat, essential to family-centered conservatives) I would be wiring funds right now. Far from the egg-shaped death traps that we see humming along in earth-conscious King County, the Roadster is a car for people who like to drive. With a 0 to 60 mile per hour acceleration time of 3.9 seconds, a 244 mile range, top speed of 125 miles per hour and a 3.5 hour time for full recharge and a full slate of premium interior options, the two-seat Roadster is bound to invite imitators.

Maybe someone at the White House needs to apply some of that Chicago-style pressure to Tesla to "convince" them of the merits of using their own country to showcase a technology that was a large piece of the President's campaign.

Nancy Pelosi Promises to Name Models in D3 Bailout Fleet Purchase

June 12, 2009

Robert Farago

Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the Obama Administration's order of 17,205 "fuel-efficient" vehicles using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

We know that we can create jobs and save taxpayer dollars while protecting our planet, and with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we are. The news that General Services Administration is one step closer to buying new, fuel efficient vehicles is good for our economy, good for our workers, and good for our environment. Because this will increase the fuel efficiency of the federal fleet, it's also good for the American taxpayer.

Tesla Motors CEO: Gas Should Be $10/Gallon June 15, 2009

CNET Tech News -- (CNET) "I'm anti-tax, but I'm pro-carbon tax," Tesla Motors founder Elon Musk said onstage at the Wired Business Conference here Monday--a remark that prompted interviewer and Wired editor-in-chief Chris Anderson to quip that he was a "true Silicon Valley libertarian."

Gasoline "should probably be $10" per gallon, said onetime PayPal co-founder Musk, who is also attempting to make sending satellites into space cheaper with a start-up called SpaceX. "I'm not paying for the true cost of gasoline at the pump...since nobody's explicitly paying for the CO2 capacity of the oceans and atmospheres, it's getting consumed. We will pay for it down the road, but we are sort of ignoring it for now."

Tesla Motors loan will fund Bay Area jobs

By Josh Richman

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

at 11:38 am

The Obama Administration today announced $8 billion in conditional loan commitments for development of green cars, including some which is expected to create up to 650 Bay Area jobs.

The money includes $5.9 billion for Ford Motor Company to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce 13 more fuel efficient models; $1.6 billion to Nissan North America, Inc. to retool their Smyrna, Tenn., factory to build advanced electric automobiles and to build an advanced battery manufacturing facility; and $465 million to

Tesla Motors

to manufacture electric drive trains and electric vehicles in California.

The first Tesla loan will finance a Southern California factory – with an estimated 1,000 jobs – to produce the Tesla Model S sedan, which is expected to be about $50,000 cheaper than Tesla’s first vehicle, the Roadster. The all-electric car consumes no gasoline, running entirely on electricity from any conventional 120V or 220V outlet; it’ll get the equivalent of more than 250 miles per gallon, which is far better than the 32.7 mpg minimum efficiency required for large sedans. Model S production is to start in 2011 and ramp up to 20,000 vehicles per year by the 2013’s end. This integrated facility expects to create 1,000 jobs in Southern California.

The second part of the Tesla loan will support a Bay Area factory – employing an estimated 650 workers – making battery packs and electric drive trains to be used in Teslas and in other automakers’ cars including the

Smart Fortwo

city car by Daimler. Early pilot battery pack production is to start in 2011, reaching about 10,000 by 2012 and 30,000 packs in 2013.

These are the first conditional loan commitments reached as part of the Energy Department’s

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing

program; more loans are coming in the next few months to large and small auto manufacturers and parts suppliers up and down the production chain.

“We have an historic opportunity to help ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America,” President Obama said in a news release. “These loans – and the additional support we will provide through the Section 136 program – will create good jobs and help the auto industry to meet and even exceed the tough fuel economy standards we’ve set, while helping us to regain our competitive edge in the world market.”

Although he’ll be here to talk about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act economic stimulus funding for clean energy projects, watch for Energy Secretary

Steven Chu

to mention the Tesla loan when he visits the

Edison Electric Institute

’s annual convention Thursday in San Francisco.

Obama admin. loans $465M to Tesla Motors for manufacture of cars most Americans can't buy

Bryan Myrick June 26, 2009

If you thought the Obama administration was finished putting a hammerlock on the United States automotive industry, think again. On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Steve Chu announced that the first loans have been finalized from the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program – a pot of money that will be doled out by the Department of Energy to help manufacturers offset retooling costs in converting factories to build eco-friendlier cars. Among the lucky applicants receiving approval to borrow against the earnings of current and future American generations was Tesla Motors, a California-based manufacturer of stylish battery-powered automobiles that has made a big splash within the elite echelon of environmental correctness, and has now been granted access to $465 million in government loans.

The pre-Tesla electric car world had been plagued by a huge problem for would-be innovators in a free market, the negative perceptions that keep most buyers from considering battery-powered cars were not dismissed by snappy public relations banter. Early electric-only vehicles (not to be confused with hybrids like Toyota’s popular Prius) were lethargic, Spartan, incredibly expensive to get off the drawing board, and required frequent charging at non-standard voltages, putting their effective ranges on par with Fred Flintstone’s foot-driven ragtop.

So, when the Tesla Motors Roadster drove onto the scene, the hearts of both car aficionados and the tree-huggers fluttered. Need for speed? Zero to 60 in 3.9 seconds, and a top speed of 125 miles per hour. Don’t like short trips? Its 244 mile range is enough to fill out the average (even above-average) driver’s daily itinerary. Of course, should you have to go further than that, the Roadster’s 3.5 hour recharge time would make certain that you wouldn’t be waiting long. But although the Roadster has comes across as a hot date, its MSRP of $101,500 is a cold shower for most would-be eco-drivers. If the Roadster were the sole mare in the stable, it would be certain that no future generations would ever utter the phrase, “That’s not your father’s Tesla.”

Therefore, the Tesla Model S sedan was conceieved as the company’s next step in its quest to lead innovation (and eventually sales) in the electric car market. But in the critical phase that exists between product development and driving a car off the lot, there’s an item that even the brightest innovator needs to acquire in large quantities: Capital. With traditional venture capital being as hard to find as Governor Mark Sanford’s character, and a president in the White House who speaks as though he will be running a Make a Wish Foundation for Green Industry Entrepreneurs, it was inevitable that President Obama’s spend-lust and the Tesla’s wanton need for cash would eventually hit it off. The fruit of their courtship: a $465 million loan that both Tesla and the Energy Department promises will be repaid no later than 2022, a guarantee made with the wild-eyed optimism of a sixteen-year-old agreeing to the conditions under which he might take Dad’s Porsche to the Homecoming Dance.

Unlike the father weeping very genuine tears over the dented fenders on the morning after the big dance, who wishes his hindsight could have been delivered a day earlier, we have lessons from our recent past on the effects of unwise lending and borrowing that are supposed to have made us wiser. President Obama himself capitalized on the economic calamity, railing against the poor decision-making by banks and insurers, suggesting that the men and women who made those decisions were based on something other than sound judgment and solid underwriting. The president was right when he suggested that our financial institutions needed to take more care in their actions, and it is important that we hold his administration to the same standard.

But don’t expect the Department of Energy to reveal its lending criteria. As

CNN.com reported Wednesday

, the terms of these loans will not be disclosed, although as a shareholder in the entity that made the loan I think I have a right to know how the decision was made. For purposes of conversation then, we will pretend that you and I are the loan committee, considering Tesla’s request for nearly half a billion dollars to begin building what, based on ordinary odds for new businesses, has a better chance of being the next Edsel than the next Prius.

The battery-powered car that Tesla sought these loans to produce – the

Model S sedan

, a four-door car that really does incite a Pavlovian impulse when one gazes at its sleek lines and a chart of performance characteristics that rivals gasoline-powered alternatives in its class – is shown on the company’s Web site with a base price MSRP of $49,900*. (There’s a caveat to that price, it’s one you’re going to end up wanting to know about, and I’ll get to it in a paragraph or two.) That price tag will offer strong competition against the mid-priced European luxury sedans. It also ensures that the Model S might be driven on Wall Street, or Park Avenue, but not probably on Main Street.

Stylish design and a comfortable ride can't make a loan payment. Profit is what a company uses to make payments against its debts, and although details about the manufacturing costs of the Model S are difficult to come by, its sexier Roadster cousin is reported to be roll out of the factory for about $80,000 per vehicle. At a rough gross profit of $21,000 per Roadster, the gross profit per unit as a percentage of sales price is a tad more than 21 percent. Even giving Tesla the unconventional benefit of assuming that the costs of marketing, overhead, and all other non-production expenses already exist within those figures, if that profit margin holds for the new Model S (unlikely considering how costs run in newer phases of a product’s life cycle) Tesla can expect to gross a little more than $10,500 per sedan that rolls off the lot. With that profit ratio, even if the Department of Energy’s loan was made at zero interest, the company will need to sell 46,831 units in order to pay off the loan to Uncle Sam. By comparison, the Toyota Prius, with the backing of an established and respected auto manufacturer, sold close to 160,000 units in 2008, according to the numbers from the U.S. Department of Energy. For that matter, Toyota will capitalize on their preeminence in the market for alternative fuel-sourced vehicles when concept vehicles teased the Detroit Auto Show last year hit showrooms. Will Tesla be able to compete with a plug-in Toyota sport luxury vehicle, especially when the Japanese auto giant wages a price war to drive out all smaller competitors?

Furthermore, in one of those pretzel twists of incentive that Washington, D.C. is churning out like hotcakes this year, the American taxpayer if Tesla just defaults on the loan and never sells a single car. That’s because the $49,900 sticker price is what a Tesla owner pays after a $7,500 federal tax credit. That’s right, if Tesla sells the 48,831 Model S sedans mentioned earlier as a hypothetical break-even to pay back the Energy Department loan, we get to pay an extra $351 million. Or, Tesla could sell the cars

and

fail to repay the loan, making the taxpayer’s potential exposure a whopping $846 million and change. Anyone who offers assurances that no such catastrophe can occur lacks the business acumen to make these kinds of lending decisions and has been living under a rock for the last two years.

At best, because the “loan” to Tesla has been made to a business with a very short track record, one that has recently found the company limping along waiting in anxious anticipation of this government financing in order to sustain itself, it should be classified as both speculative and risky. It is precisely the sort of lending decision that precipitated the current recession. At worst it is the classic socialist method of picking winners and losers in the marketplace based on ideological criteria, without regard for how those preferences are destroying the most vital value of the American economic system, the ability of consumers to determine what goods and services the market produces instead of government bureaucrats and politicians.

For all of the speeches President Obama and Vice President Biden have made to support the dime-store magic act known as the Middle Class Task Force, the primary effect of government loans to Tesla will be to cut auto prices for the Sierra Club board of directors and the Hollywood elite. The dual-income, four-job family scraping by to pay their utilities and make payments on a used 1995 Ford Bronco, getting 12 miles to the gallon, the ones President Obama asks to continue their vigil of hope, will, in this case, watch their taxes go to keep auto prices low for wealthier Americans. Maybe this is the Obama-Biden middle class initiative in action, and if so, one that reveals the non-dynamic duo’s progressive rhetoric about wealth transfer to be the electioneering ploy it has always been.

There is, however, another aspect to the emphasis the Obama administration is placing on pumping government funds into green industries. Although his motives may be pure, after years of listening to the wage a war of allegations to the effect that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were making foreign and domestic policy decisions to line their own pockets, President Obama’s failure to disclose with specificity his financial holdings should be (but won’t be) an issue raised by the press. Bush was accused of pushing policy for big oil; Cheney of pulling Machiavellian strings for his friends at Halliburton. Aside from President Obama’s late-delivered and less-than-specific personal financial disclosure, what more has been done into the president’s holdings in companies that will be directly benefiting from executive decisions? With the science of global warming still very much in dispute (it being the primary driver of the green economy) we should know exactly where conflicts of interest exist in order to be better able to ingest information in a smart and useful way.

Or, maybe we should just Velcro the motto “Do as we say, not as we do” to the presidential seal for the remainder of Obama’s term and wait for the payoff, the joyous ripping sound as it is torn free on Inauguration Day 2013 when we can begin assessing the damage and rebuilding the country.

[Evster2012]

And what powers the millions of chargers that power these cars? Foreign oil. So we change our cars from gasoline to electric. Where does the electricity come from? Last time I checked you can't dig for electricity. It comes from power plants. And what comes from power plants? Huge plumes of smoke. What makes the smoke? Fossile fuels.

Then you have the Biofuel people. More fossile fuels are used in the growing and processing of biofuels than just making plain old petrol. Oh, and then there's the cost of food skyrocketing because the resource is now being shared with keeping our cars going.

I don't claim to have the answer. I just know when I see bullshit.

[SteveAJones]

Tesla Motors: Sporty green welfare queen?

March 27, 2009

Tesla Motors is expecting $700 million in loans from taxpayers so that it can sell its pricey electric cars to the public: a $109,000 Roadster sports car and a $49,900 sporty sedan (Model S). The actual price of the Model S is $57.400, but taxpayers will be paying an additional $7,500 per car (over and above the loans) to reduce the price to under $50,000.

Tesla Motors, of course, will have to sell tens of thousands of these cars to pay back taxpayers. So far, only 300 of the Roadsters are on the road.

The Model S will “only” take 45 minutes to recharge enough to provide 300 miles of driving — and, depending on the source of the electric power, with more CO2 emissions than from conventional gasoline.

What’s not to like?

[Evster2012]

I have a 2004 Toyota 4-cylinder pickup. I get 30 mpg on the highway. It's California green (whatever that means). How many power plants are they going to have to build to power our cars? And what will fuel them? Electricity? With as many autos as we have on the road? Yeah, my car is green, but all I see are smokestacks powering our cars if we go electric. It's just shifting the prblem, not solving it.

[Rock Action]

Don't even get me started. It could get real ugly...

[Evster2012]

Don't even get me started. It could get real ugly...

No please express yourself! Not knowing if you'll agree with me or totally throw me to the wolves, I still want to know.

[Rock Action]

I'm 100% with you. This "green" bullshit has gone way too far, and isn't going to accomplish a goddamn thing other than to kill what's left of our economy.

[SteveAJones]

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Obama pushes Senate to pass climate bill

Charles Babington / Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Hailing the House, President Barack Obama put pressure on senators Saturday to follow its lead and pass legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, helping usher the U.S. into a new age of energy efficiency.

"Now my call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. "Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It's just not true."

The legislation, which the House narrowly approved Friday night, would place the first national limits on emissions of greenhouse gases from major sources -- such as power plants, factories and oil refineries -- to reduce the gases linked to global climate change. It would also start moving the U.S. away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner power sources, such as geothermal, wind, solar and more nuclear generators.

The potential impact on people's daily lives is great. If the proposal, which faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, were to become law, it could make it more expensive for people to heat, cool and light their homes; mean more smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric cars; and create more "green" jobs, or environmentally friendly ones. Windmills and solar panels might replace smokestacks.

The complex bill, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by midcentury.

Opponents complain about the costs and say some industries will simply move their operations and jobs out of the U.S. to countries that don't control greenhouse-gas emissions.

House Democratic leaders said the bill helped accomplish one of Obama's campaign promises and would make the U.S. a leader in international efforts to address climate change when negotiations take place in Denmark this year.

"We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after the 219-212 vote.

Success will be tougher in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up the legislation by the fall. Sixty votes will be needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.

The "razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles -- and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."

But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day.

[Evster2012]

I'm 100% with you. This "green" bullshit has gone way too far, and isn't going to accomplish a goddamn thing other than to kill what's left of our economy.

Glad we both see it the same way. I'm too tired to have a fight!

Yes, I'm all for alternatives, but only if they make sense. So far I only see ideas that appear to shift usage from one resource to another, all the while using the same things at the same rate we've been using all along. If not worse and less efficiently.

Then you have solar and wind. I'm all for that, but then you have the folks who think it'll ruin the landscape.

In the end we'll all have to compromise. I await the delivery of my my waterwheel!

[lzfan715]

I think that it is very important that we do something about fuels. However, I do agree with what Rock and Evster said. I never really thought of it that way, but you made a very good point.

[Jarlaxle 56]

Electric cars aren't really realistic, unless you have safe nuclear power plants or hydro powering them. Even then I don't think it's going to work.

Ethanol based fuel would ruin the food supply for most third world countries, so that's out.

I think the only alternative fuel options are hydrogen based fuel or solar powered cars.

[jabe]

Who are Obama's puppeteers? He hasn't arrived with these groovy solutions on his own. I smell the foxes farting in the henhouse. Government control can lead to constipation.

[Dzldoc]

I have a 2004 Toyota 4-cylinder pickup. I get 30 mpg on the highway. It's California green (whatever that means). How many power plants are they going to have to build to power our cars? And what will fuel them? Electricity? With as many autos as we have on the road? Yeah, my car is green, but all I see are smokestacks powering our cars if we go electric. It's just shifting the prblem, not solving it.

It means more emission control, less mpg at a higher cost per gallon.

[~tangerine~]

I have no idea what we are going to do to improve our situation... i won't even attempt to add to the conversation. I just know that if our country could spend a few bucks to greatly improve our public transportation systems, we could go a long way in reducing the pollution and fuel problems we are facing. If it was convenient and comfortable, i would take the train more often.

[ally]

And what powers the millions of chargers that power these cars? Foreign oil. So we change our cars from gasoline to electric. Where does the electricity come from? Last time I checked you can't dig for electricity. It comes from power plants. And what comes from power plants? Huge plumes of smoke. What makes the smoke? Fossile fuels.

Then you have the Biofuel people. More fossile fuels are used in the growing and processing of biofuels than just making plain old petrol. Oh, and then there's the cost of food skyrocketing because the resource is now being shared with keeping our cars going.

I don't claim to have the answer. I just know when I see bullshit.

Glad someone else see's this for what it really is. This is exactly what I feared would happen and the reason why I can't bring myself to fully support the organized enviromental cause.

[Lake of Shadows]

And what powers the millions of chargers that power these cars? Foreign oil. So we change our cars from gasoline to electric. Where does the electricity come from? Last time I checked you can't dig for electricity. It comes from power plants. And what comes from power plants? Huge plumes of smoke. What makes the smoke? Fossile fuels.

Then you have the Biofuel people. More fossile fuels are used in the growing and processing of biofuels than just making plain old petrol. Oh, and then there's the cost of food skyrocketing because the resource is now being shared with keeping our cars going.

I don't claim to have the answer. I just know when I see bullshit.

Erm, well... as one of the many articles in the opening post stated, Tesla was going to do things in Canada because of the preponderance of hydro-electric energy use (that's a paraphrase). While hydroelectric power has its drawbacks (the law of 'no free lunch'), it is at least a potentially renewable energy source.

Electric cars aren't really realistic, unless you have safe nuclear power plants or hydro powering them. Even then I don't think it's going to work.

Ethanol based fuel would ruin the food supply for most third world countries, so that's out.

I think the only alternative fuel options are hydrogen based fuel or solar powered cars.

~~~~~~~~~~

I just like the way everybody seems horrified at the prospect of trying things a different way than we've been (unsuccessfully) "trying" for the last couple of decades or so.

Maybe if the DoD comes up with an idea for a non-nuclear 'green-powered' missile that can be fired to or from the moon, then everybody will be happy.

*Jarlaxle, I quoted your post because you actually mentioned hydro-power, my comments aren't aimed at you.

[ally]

Our provincial gov. is high on hybrid at the moment and will spend a ton of taxpayers money on technology that does not function properly. They will do so to accomodate the green deal that they agreed to with the State Of California and to the electorit of this province who honestly believe that this technology works. I'm all for a better way of doing things but I'll be damned if I'll agree to a system that is politically motivated with no sense of reality attatched.

[Evster2012]

Erm, well... as one of the many articles in the opening post stated, Tesla was going to do things in Canada because of the preponderance of hydro-electric energy use (that's a paraphrase). While hydroelectric power has its drawbacks (the law of 'no free lunch'), it is at least a potentially renewable energy source. .

You recall I live 10 miles from Hoover Dam right love?

I'm more referring to getting our fleet across the country. By truck or freight, it isn't likely to change anytime soon. Especially when we're too stubborn to manufacture here what it's so easy to obtain from overseas. The media focus' on the guy who drives his 2-ton SUV 5 miles to work everyday, as if he's the gross polluter/consumer. It just doesn't wash in the broader picture. When our goods are no longer shipped across seas to big smoky harbors, offloaded onto trucks and trains, and hauled further 1000s of miles to Anytown, USA, then we'll see genuine advancement in saving fuel right away. But the government doesn't talk about it. The lobbyists don't talk about it. Know why? Cause there ain't no f**ing money in it! Just raise the price of gas. Leave it to the taxpayer to carry the load. We've already gotten a taste of the "change". It's coming out of our pockets.

I do still love ya Lakey.

[ally]

I'm not particularly horrified at the prospect of trying things a different way, but I am repulsed by the unchecked political corruption. Why is Tesla is even a player? Because they're in Diane Finestein's backyard and she's in bed with Pelosi, figuratively speaking. Pelosi is providing her and the State of California the pork at taxpayer's expense. This

is really no different than the Cheney/Halliburton connection.

You are quite right Steve, The Cheney / Halliburton connection is a classic example of what is happening with regards to pushing the green idea. I could live with that if at the end of the day we all saw some benefit from so called reduced emissions etc but I think anybody who's been around the block a few times can see through the retoric and is well aware that GREEN really means " give us your dollars"

[Evster2012]

Well the first thing we need to do is stop making Consumption and Emissions inclusive. It makes for nice pretty package, so politaically tidy, but it's two different things. Drilling the ANWR and reducing our "carbon footprint" are two separate topics. They may meet in the end on a braoder scale, but they're two separate topics at this point. In the end, what goes in the air comes from the ground. Makes sense to start at the bottom and work our way up. Pretty pointless talking about clean emissions if no one's using the stuff. If we manufactured our own commodities on site, and eliminated the majority of our cross country shipping, we'd massively reduce consumption and clean the air up too. It's a win-win. Sure, stuff might cost more, but they're going to tax you to death anyway. But once again it comes down to motivation. And in this case again, there ain't no fucking money in it. When I lived in Wisconsin, I lived right down the road from the very first GM plant. Don't bother visiting, it's a ghost town now. But every car in town was manufactured within a couple hundred miles. Now we have to ship them from halfway around the planet to people who can't afford them because they lost their jobs making cars. Now we're supposed to drive electric? Who's gonna build it Washington? YOU??? YOU CAN'T PAVE FUCKING ROADS!!!

[Evster2012]

And while I'm ranting on the subject of Hoover Dam, let's ask the people about the destruction of the Grand Canyon, as the Hualpai head for higher ground. And while we're at it, the Owens Valley. All so we can continue to lop the tops off every hill to build houses in an irrigated desert where 100 years ago no one in their right mind would want to live in the first place. It's 103 degrees people. Who's land is drying up to keep your ac running?

[ledded1]

Welcome to the changing world America. I think you need to get real. The days of your big gas guzzling monster cars are coming to an end.

If you didn't have those big ugly things you drive for fuck all return on your fuwel you wouldnt be so reliant upon foreign oil.

Lets remind ourselves which country is one of the worst for pollution ( apsrt from China and India ) yes its the good old US of A.

Sorry guys but time have changed and they will continue. Time for the reality check.

Sadly though the motor companies and governments arent as determined as they should be in promoting cleaner more efficiant engines or looking at alternatives to fossil fuels.

They spout the words but lack the drive ( pardon the pun).

You have spent so many tax dollars propping up your car industry so you will need to get your money back and that will mean better, cleaner and more efficient cars.

Sorry but its true for all of us, the oil isn't going to last for ever.

And we cant just go invading the oil rich countries to get it. They have us over a barrell ( second pun apology)

[Evster2012]

Welcome to the changing world America. I think you need to get real. The days of your big gas guzzling monster cars are coming to an end.

If you didn't have those big ugly things you drive for fuck all return on your fuwel you wouldnt be so reliant upon foreign oil.

Lets remind ourselves which country is one of the worst for pollution ( apsrt from China and India ) yes its the good old US of A.

Sorry guys but time have changed and they will continue. Time for the reality check.

Sadly though the motor companies and governments arent as determined as they should be in promoting cleaner more efficiant engines or looking at alternatives to fossil fuels.

They spout the words but lack the drive ( pardon the pun).

You have spent so many tax dollars propping up your car industry so you will need to get your money back and that will mean better, cleaner and more efficient cars.

Sorry but its true for all of us, the oil isn't going to last for ever.

And we cant just go invading the oil rich countries to get it. They have us over a barrell ( second pun apology)

Please do keep separate what our government and corporate giants force upon us from what we actually want old friend. I know they say the votes count for everything, but it's a myth. Just ask the gays in California. It's not the American people who need to wake up. We're awake and bloody pissed off!

Besides, all my rich friends drive Range Rovers! Course now they're an India owned company, so we can't blame the Brits.

On a side note, a Chevy Cobalt gets better mileage than a Mini Cooper. And BMW and Mercedes have the worst mileage of the majority of luxury cars.

That big, heavy Chevy Tahoe SUV gets 20 mpg. Not too shabby really when you compare and contrast. I'd never own one cause I don't haul a boat or jetskis, nor do I coach a soccer team.

Hell, a Corvette gets nearly 30 mpg! Amazing what we can wring out of a 90 degree two valve V8 while netting 400 horespower!

Also, America has been in the vanguard or computerized engine management.

People also seem to forget that (and the fact that we drove little shit cars for decades due to the "energy crises" of the 70s. Hello Chrysler K, Ford Pinto, Chevy Vega and Chevette, Pontiac 6000).

And remember, Vauxhall and Opel are GM companies. Well, for now anyway.

In the end it's mostly media panic.

For 305 million people in a developed nation, we're really not that dirty. It's more an issue of being spread out from our homes to our jobs and having a public transport system that can't cope with the fact. The jobs are over here, and the homes are over there, and over there, and up there, and down there. It's a big country. And it's the equivalent of living in London and working in Reading. And the majority of us do it every day. And as more and more jobs go overseas, we have to venture further. Fucking sucks mate!

Point is, here where the houses are there's only retail. Sell shoes or work at the drugstore or McDonalds. Can't live on that! You have to drive across half of god's creation to make a living in America. That ain't the people's fault. That's evolution gone sideways!

[ledded1]

Please do keep separate what our government and corporate giants force upon us from what we actually want old friend. I know they say the votes count for everything, but it's a myth. Just ask the gays in California. It's not the American people who need to wake up. We're awake and bloody pissed off!

Besides, all my rich friends drive Range Rovers! Course now they're an India owned company, so we can't blame the Brits.

On a side note, a Chevy Cobalt gets better mileage than a Mini Cooper. And BMW and Mercedes have the worst mileage of the majority of luxury cars.

That big, heavy Chevy Tahoe SUV gets 20 mpg. Not too shabby really when you compare and contrast. I'd never own one cause I don't haul a boat or jetskis, nor do I coach a soccer team.

Hell, a Corvette gets nearly 30 mpg! Amazing what we can wring out of a 90 degree two valve V8 while netting 400 horespower!

Also, America has been in the vanguard or computerized engine management.

People also seem to forget that (and the fact that we drove little shit cars for decades due to the "energy crises" of the 70s. Hello Chrysler K, Ford Pinto, Chevy Vega and Chevette, Pontiac 6000).

And remember, Vauxhall and Opel are GM companies. Well, for now anyway.

In the end it's mostly media panic.

For 305 million people in a developed nation, we're really not that dirty. It's more an issue of being spread out from our homes to our jobs and having a public transport system that can't cope with the fact. The jobs are over here, and the homes are over there, and over there, and up there, and down there. It's a big country. And it's the equivalent of living in London and working in Reading. And the majority of us do it every day. And as more and more jobs go overseas, we have to venture further. Fucking sucks mate!

Point is, here where the houses are there's only retail. Sell shoes or work at the drugstore or McDonalds. Can't live on that! You have to drive across half of god's creation to make a living in America. That ain't the people's fault. That's evolution gone sideways!

I hear what you say Ev but at the end of the day without oil we are fucked.

The world has changed and we need to change with it. We can't live on muscle cars alone.

The so called Chelsea Tractors ( slang for 4x4's here in the UK )are not really suited to our much smaller towns cities and roads and many of the people who drive them don't go any further than a couple of miles a day on the school run and yet they take up so much sapce and if I was celebrating getting 15-20 mpg it would be a sad day for me.

We dont have an British owned car industry now our elite marques of Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar Land Rover and aston Martin are all foreign owned.

And all of the above are gas guzzlers. Although i would love an Aston Martin Vanquish Yes BMW's and Mercs are guzzlers too but how many of us can afford the things?

The next 20 years are going to be so different if governments do push though the environment changes they say they want, big business doesn't like it but as the state really owns the car companies and banks now it will be easier to force through Ibelieve.

But I agree that goverments really need to support radical improvements in public transport but it would be easier here in the uK if our governent had the will mainly cos we are a much smaller country.

For example i would like to go by train to shows in different cities such as Birmingham and Manchester both only 40-50 miles away from my home but the last trains back to my city are about 10.30-11pm. Useless so I have to drive. It costs as much to park as it would to get the train and you can forget buses betwen the cities for that sort of convenience.

As for jobs it is getting harder as people have to travel but its again by car to get there.

All that said though the times of cheap oil/fuel are gone, they will never come back and we have to adapt.

[ledded1]

Quite right. Unlike Europe and the Pacific, America does not have a reliable mass transit system. The automobile was/is seen as a tangible symbol of independence and freedom. Perish the thought of carpooling, let alone having no car at all! Property developers and city planners promoted suburban living which also led to the urban sprawl and continued depopulation of many inner cities, necessitating more energy consumption.

I think you would find many here in the uk who would disagree that we have a reliable mass transit system. Some part are but in general its not so good at all. In many parts of Europe it is definitely better.