Tesla Nabs $465M Government Loan To Build Model S 505
SignalFreq writes "Tesla Motors, based in San Carlos, California, was approved yesterday for $465M in loans from the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Tesla plans to use $365M of the money to finance a manufacturing facility for the Model S (review, Letterman video) and $100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area. 'Tesla will use the ATVM loan precisely the way that Congress intended — as the capital needed to build sustainable transport,' said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk. Tesla expects the Model S to ship in late 2011 and the base cost to be $57,400 ($49,900 after a federal tax credit). Ford received $5.9B and Nissan received $1.6B under the same program."
Green Car on a Budget - Innovation Not Required (Score:2, Interesting)
My Unstoppable Tesla Prediction: +1, True (Score:1, Interesting)
Tesla will be out of business ( a.k.a. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy) by Jan. 1, 2012 along with Chrysler and General Motors.
Go China.
Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout
loans for everyone! (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone left wondering why our tax dollars are funding a loan for Nissan while U.S. auto companies are struggling?
Re:loans for everyone! (Score:1, Interesting)
They gave the most money to Ford. GM and Chrysler didn't get money in this round because only viable companies were considered for Loans. Tesla is considered viable because they're backed by Daimler (you know, Mercedes Benz?). Chrysler and GM are in bankruptcy court, so they don't exactly qualify. Call me again when they can cover the debts they already owe.
Electric vehicles aren't great (Score:3, Interesting)
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-B-51905%7C2009-B-69390&semesterid=2009-B/ [berkeley.edu]
Lecture 1 - 46 mins in Richard Muller talks about the cost vs pay of an electric vehicle.
Battery replacement cost? (Score:3, Interesting)
That thing looks hot.
My only concern is battery replacement. Replacing a UPS battery is roughly half the cost of the UPS. If cars like these get the same battery economy that would mean $25k every 5-7 years according to their FAQ. (I'm just guessing here based on battery life; they made no mention of battery replacement costs)
Their FAQ claims the car is a great lasting investment due to lack of complexity and moving parts, but having to drop $25k every 6 years for a new battery would be a deal breaker.
I do wish them luck though, it's way past time we stopped supporting extremists in the middle east. Not to mention that fact that a complete 300 mile recharge would cost about $4.
Re:Geography (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually my initial thought was the opposite. Who is the most likely to buy (read, afford) these cars? Silicon Valley nerds and Hollywood liberals. (And I don't mean to disparage either of those groups; if I were in either of their socioeconomic strata I would be standing in line with them.) Factor in the stricter emission standards of California as extra incentive, and one has to wonder why it would make sense to build them 2000 miles away when all of the output will be going to the West Coast anyway.
Re:It's a Loan. (Score:5, Interesting)
It must be great to be old, stupid and wrong.
Many banks and financial organizations are ALREADY preparing to pay it back, starting next month.
In fact, there some people are saying they should be allowed to until the enact the changes they promised when taking the money.
That's not going to happen. Almost all of that money will be paid back within a year. Why? because the financial institution don't like the strings that came with it. That's right, the government add string that would pretty much guarantee a payback.
Maybe you should read up on things instead of letting libertarians spoon feed you? You might be able to actually look at facts can come to your own independent conclusion.
"But if it was a sure fire moneymaker they could have raised the money on the private markets"
You've never looked for VC funding, have you?
Frankly I would rather get a loan I can pay of then give up 60+% of my company to a VC that want's to make 10 times the money they invested immediatly.
Wouldn't be the first company a VC forced a sell of so they could make a quick return, and destroying the company at the same time.
No, that is not a reasonable assumption, and if you knew anything about financing companies at this stage, you would understand why.
Re:More bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
How is funding a boutique luxury car manufacturer at the rate of half a billion similar to funding interstates, military, postal service, etc.? Tesla does not even hope to provide shared infrastructure or essential services to the country as do these programs. I don't get it.
I am so sick of this argument! They are NOT just a boutique luxury car manufacturer, they started that way to get enough money for their company but they are now working on selling the first truly viable all electric family sedan, that is within the range of most other nice sedans like Audis, etc, which many familys have.
They are the first company with the balls to say FU to the oil companies and actually do some real innovative work, and they deserve every fucking penny of what they got.
While every other automaker in the world has treated electric cars like a curiosity, Tesla came right out and saw them as the future. If anyone *doesn't* deserve the money, it's the major automakers that ignored anything efficient until oil blew up and being green became fashionable.
-Taylor
Re:God forbid our tax dollars be used to build (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Henry Ford had no idea that using fossil fuels could lead to dire consequences of worldwide magnitude.
In all honesty, we should have made these serious changes over a decade ago.
Re:It's a Loan. (Score:3, Interesting)
Tesla? What about Ford?
Both companies are probably going to produce the same number of electric cars, so what entitles them to an extra ~5.5 billion?
Why no diesel-electric cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is all the development on electric and electric-hybrid cars going into fancy new systems with lithium ion batteries or hydrogen fuel cells and (for hybrids) complicated switching between a conventional drive train and electric motors, instead of using and improving upon the time-tested diesel-electric technology which has efficiently powered many trains for quite some time now?
Build a simple all-electric car - just a body, steering rack, four wheels with a dynamo on each (there's your propulsion and your regenerative brakes), some circuity to control them all, and a small battery that holds just enough charge to get you up to speed, maybe twice that for a safety margin. Then stick the most efficient diesel or gas generator you've got in it to provide electricity to keep the battery charged. You lose a bunch of weight and mechanical complexity by ditching most of the drive train and transmission system for some simple wiring between the generator and the dynamos; the alternator and the standard car battery become redundant with the generator and main battery; heck you could even replace the radiator with a small steam engine for still increased efficiency, turning that excess heat into electricity instead of just disposing of it to the air.
Yes, it still uses some fossil fuels, but in the end most of our electricity comes from coal anyway (even for a wall-charged all-electric vehicle like the Model S here, which I am very excited about). This just seems like it would have been far cheaper, more efficient (in terms of both money and thermodynamics), and simpler a solution than the complicated hybrids they've been building for a while now; plus the technology has already existed in widespread use on trains for decades!
So why isn't anybody doing it in cars? Is there a good technical or economic reason?
Re:A requirement for the loan (Score:3, Interesting)
should have been a 25K car cost cap.
As with computers early adopters will help finance more affordable cars.
In general I oppose subsidies but at least this money has to be repaid, and some of the money will be used to open a factory employing people.
Falcon
The US government is retarded. (Score:3, Interesting)
Government was already fund Detroit. While I don't like government subsidies whereas 2 of the Detroit big 3 are bankrupt, Tesla looks to be profitable.
The ideal and proper method for government grants
These are loans not grants and have to be repaid.
Falcon
the TARP thing was needed (Score:3, Interesting)
TARP may of been needed but if so then strings should have been placed on the funds, such as requiring banks to lend money instead of using it to buy competitors and hoarding the money. Money was given to banks because they were too big to fail, well now they're massive and when they crash again the government won't be able to bail them out.
The bailout also gave bad banks advantages over banks that were properly run and didn't make bad loans. Good banks and borrowers were made to pay for those who made bad loans and those who took out bad loans. In other words the government was choosing winners and losers instead of letting the markets do it.
Falcon
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)