Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Motors Getting $10 Million From California For Model X Production

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the apparently-building-cars-is-expensive dept.

Transportation 191

The California Energy Commission has awarded a $10 million grant to Tesla Motors for the company to buy equipment necessary for the production of its Model X electric SUV. Tesla will have to match the funds with $50 million of its own money. From the article: "It was something of a love fest for Tesla at the energy commission meeting in Sacramento as commissioners and other regulators praised Tesla as an innovator that has brought automotive manufacturing back to California while creating clean cars and more than 1,500 jobs. 'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board. ... 'Tesla’s Gen 3 vehicle could ultimately be a game changer for electric vehicles and air quality and public health in California,' added McCarthy, referring to Tesla’s plans to build an electric car in the $30,000 range. Its latest car, the Model S sedan, sells between $50,000 and $100,000 and the Model X, which is based on the Model S platform, is expected to sell in that price range."

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool. (5, Funny)

dtmancom (925636) | about 2 years ago | (#41642171)

Nice to see California is flush with cash.

Isn't California in debt? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642195)

Isn't California in debt?

Maybe I misread the summary, but increasing emission standards is only good for automakers who can go above and beyond. That's a bad thing if you oppose oligopolies.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642233)

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up?

realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

Re:Isn't California in debt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642335)

Why not lower a trade barrier? Protectionism causes higher prices. But to the original point, where will California get the money?

Re:Isn't California in debt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642687)

The only way protectionism causes higher prices is when your industry cannot match the demand. The US has gotten out of the manufacturing business so having trade barriers is not practical.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643201)

The United States is still the largest manufacturer in the world, to the contrary.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (0)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642349)

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up?

realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

We do not import any cars from china.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, the US "Big Three" are well behind the Asian auto-makers.

As far as experience with EVs and hybrids in the major auto-makers, Toyota is in the lead.

So, yeah, this is both expansive, and bad for US companies, that are not Tesla.

Election year fairy tale ... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41642389)

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up? realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

Its a myth that China only does low end low tech manufacturing. They are working very hard at moving to more advanced products. Its likely that advanced car designs will also be sold in China, and likely be manufactured there. The necessary technology and manufacturing expertise will most likely be transferred.

The idea that the US will move to high tech manufacturing while the rest of the world does the low tech manufacturing is an election year fairy tale.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (2)

nonsensical (1237544) | about 2 years ago | (#41642411)

Maybe they are, but this looks to be a very good investment on their part. If Tesla becomes another big car company, it will quickly pay for itself in new tax revenue for the state. Not to mention the benefits of less emissions for the state in terms of reduced healthcare costs.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642511)

Not to mention the benefits of less emissions for the state in terms of reduced healthcare costs.

That electricity comes from somewhere...

Re:Isn't California in debt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642921)

I hate this. yes. The electric car likely gets it's electricity from a coal powered plant. That coal powered plant likely has a better exhaust system than a muffler..... hence, the electric car likely has better emissions. While we're at it, the electric car is possible to power from cleaner sources, greatly enhancing it's emissions. A regular car cannot do that.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (5, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 2 years ago | (#41643159)

That electricity comes from somewhere...

And that gasoline comes from somewhere too. Funny how people who drag out this dead horse of an argument so easily overlook that.

But whatever. For California the electricity source breakdown looks something like this [ca.gov] :

46% Natural Gas
18% Coal
14% Nuclear
11% Hydro
11% other renewable (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, etc)

Probably newer data out there but I'm fairly confident it's close enough for our purposes. So if we weigh emissions by source type [wikipedia.org] and assume a miles-per-gallon and miles-per-kWh for ICE and Electric vehicles, we can get an approximation for how the two compare emissions-wise.

Natural Gas = 0.46 * 443 = 203.78
Coal = 0.18 * 1050 = 189 (being pessimistic here)
Nuclear = 0.14 * 66 = 9.24
Hydro = 0.11 * 10 = 1.1
Other = 0.11 * 30 = 3.3 (also pessimistic)

Total: 406.42 (Say 407) grams of CO2 per kWh generated. We'll bump that up a bit to account for transmission losses (90%) to 452 g/Kwh. Gasoline gives about 8,200 grams of CO2 per gallon. That's just basic a chemistry.

We'll be again generous and say 30MPG for gasoline and again pessimistic and say 3 mi/kWh for Electric - really stacking the odds against EVs here.

Gasoline vehicle @ 30MPG = 8200 g/mi / 30MPG = 273 grams CO2 per mile.
Electric vehicle @ 3 mi/kWh = 452 g/kWh / 3 mi/kWh = 151 grams CO2 per mile.

So even being pessimistic we see that driving electric vehicles, with their electricity coming from "somewhere", releases nearly half the CO2 as their gasoline counterpart. More importantly - and the brunt of what the OP was saying - is that the local in-city pollution is reduced to zero. Not only are you producing less pollution, you are producing that pollution away from population centers where it does the most harm.
=Smidge=

Re:Isn't California in debt? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41642473)

Isn't California in debt?

Woosh! They're in as bad a shape as Illinois. In short, terrible debt.

Re:Isn't California in debt? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642513)

I don't get jobs; I get cowboy bangled!

Badum-tish!

Re:Isn't California in debt? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41642621)

Theyre too big to fail. Dont worry, they know full well that "someone" will bail them out if defaulting is on the table.

Re:Cool. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642281)

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

Re:Cool. (2, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642377)

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

We are way beyond "going into debt." We are spending like a drunken frat boy at a bachelor party with a new Amex Gold card. (New card because all the old ones are full.)

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642635)

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

We are way beyond "going into debt." We are spending like a drunken frat boy at a bachelor party with a new Amex Gold card. (New card because all the old ones are full.)

All the while complaining he can't afford tuition or textbooks ...

Re:Cool. (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#41642735)

"All the while complaining he can't afford tuition or textbooks ..."

No problem......he can always get an education grant from the government.....

Re:Cool. (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41642797)

It's almost like the government is only willing to fund the things which might be of long term benefit... wow.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643443)

And yet taxes are at historic and worldwide lows while property rights entitlements skyrocket...

Re:Cool. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41642633)

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity.

If someone had $500,000 in debt and told you that they were considering using the deed to their car to secure a $30,000 loan to try to start a new business from the ground up, would you say they were:
A) A savvy businessman
or
B) Out of their mind?

Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.

Re:Cool. (4, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 2 years ago | (#41642781)

Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.

The risks are ever diminishing as you get deeper into debt below your net worth. Taking measured risks is ok, but the extra components are knowing what the potential reward is, and understanding any second and third order risks (such as the losing your car and not being able to get any other work).

California is spending money to keep jobs in-state. They will recover half the money they spend through sales tax revenue from the equipment purchase. The remaining $3,400 per employee will hopefully be recovered in income taxes, at least over a 2-3 year period. If there happens to be any economic ripple effect then the payback will be much faster.

Selling a kidney for money to start a business from the ground up on the other hand...

Re:Cool. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643343)

The problem is they aren't going into debt with their money, they are going into debt with the citizen's money. How about I take out a loan against your future earnings in order to start a new business from the ground up that may fail? If it does fail, I'm not responsible for anything, but you are required to cover all the losses.

That is how this is going. The possible outcomes: 1) is works and Tesla makes tons of money, the DNC declares a win. 2) It fails and they lose all their investment with no return, the DNC declares that the now higher CA debt is because the GOP refuses to let them raise taxes. The DNC has been doing this to such a level and the people are the ones losing out every time.

Re:Cool. (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#41643487)

That logic works for the federal government, because not many people are willing to leave the country. It does not work with states.. people will simply leave the state if the taxes are too high.

And if you aren't willing to leave the state when the tax bill comes due... then you're obviously benefiting from it, and maybe you should pay for it.

Re:Cool. (1, Insightful)

Artifice_Eternity (306661) | about 2 years ago | (#41642807)

Constantly analogizing the financial position of a government to that of an individual or a household is of limited value. Macroeconomics is not like household economics. On the personal scale, reaching zero debt is a nice goal. For a government, which is immortal, achieving zero debt is unnecessary and actually unwise. Yes, it's best to keep debt down to a low percentage of GDP, but the reality of economic cycles is such that in a down economy, debt will -- and should -- go up, in order to ensure economic continuity, protect society, and lay the foundation for future growth.

That doesn't mean that all debt is good, but in an extraordinary crisis like the one we've just been thru -- the kind of thing that happens maybe twice in a century -- a lot of deficit spending by government will be needed. Sometimes previous administrations have foolishly run up unnecessary debts even before the crisis hits. That still doesn't mean that government austerity is the right answer.

The real question is: How will a high level of deficit spending right now affect you, positively and negatively? The doomsayers have trouble explaining what the precise problem is. They yell "Greece!" But we are not even remotely close to being in the kind of trouble that Greece is in. High debt is bothersome and can be a drag on GDP. But we are not going to get into a Greece-like situation as long as we control our own currency. And we are not going to default, as long as stupid politicians do not intentionally choose to do so.

Another thing: Contrary to the way it's often described, no one is going to present your child or grandchild with a personal bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal debts to be repaid. Our debt is rolling; people are constantly buying newly issued Treasury bills, and the government is continually paying old ones off as they come due. Yet another thing: contra Mitt Romney, most of it is NOT "borrowed from China". Only about 8% of federal debt is held by China. Most of it is held by -- guess who? -- Americans. Yes, mostly the federal debt is money we owe to ourselves.

And right now, Treasury bills are considered by the market to be one of the safest and most favored investment vehicles on the planet. Even with incredibly low rates of return, people are pouring money into US debt. Given inflation, long-term US bonds right now are actually a money-losing proposition -- and yet they are still a wildly popular investment. People are literally paying us for the privilege of buying our debt.

So relax... the sky is not falling. The mistake would be to choke off credit and plunge ourselves into self-inflicted austerity. That's the true danger, and it's playing out right now in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643009)

Constantly analogizing the financial position of a government to that of an individual or a household is of limited value. Macroeconomics is not like household economics. On the personal scale, reaching zero debt is a nice goal. For a government, which is immortal, achieving zero debt is unnecessary and actually unwise. Yes, it's best to keep debt down to a low percentage of GDP, but the reality of economic cycles is such that in a down economy, debt will -- and should -- go up, in order to ensure economic continuity, protect society, and lay the foundation for future growth.

That doesn't mean that all debt is good, but in an extraordinary crisis like the one we've just been thru -- the kind of thing that happens maybe twice in a century -- a lot of deficit spending by government will be needed. Sometimes previous administrations have foolishly run up unnecessary debts even before the crisis hits. That still doesn't mean that government austerity is the right answer.

The real question is: How will a high level of deficit spending right now affect you, positively and negatively? The doomsayers have trouble explaining what the precise problem is. They yell "Greece!" But we are not even remotely close to being in the kind of trouble that Greece is in. High debt is bothersome and can be a drag on GDP. But we are not going to get into a Greece-like situation as long as we control our own currency. And we are not going to default, as long as stupid politicians do not intentionally choose to do so.

Another thing: Contrary to the way it's often described, no one is going to present your child or grandchild with a personal bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal debts to be repaid. Our debt is rolling; people are constantly buying newly issued Treasury bills, and the government is continually paying old ones off as they come due. Yet another thing: contra Mitt Romney, most of it is NOT "borrowed from China". Only about 8% of federal debt is held by China. Most of it is held by -- guess who? -- Americans. Yes, mostly the federal debt is money we owe to ourselves.

And right now, Treasury bills are considered by the market to be one of the safest and most favored investment vehicles on the planet. Even with incredibly low rates of return, people are pouring money into US debt. Given inflation, long-term US bonds right now are actually a money-losing proposition -- and yet they are still a wildly popular investment. People are literally paying us for the privilege of buying our debt.

So relax... the sky is not falling. The mistake would be to choke off credit and plunge ourselves into self-inflicted austerity. That's the true danger, and it's playing out right now in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

Why do we need to pay taxes then if the government can borrow or print money forever?

Re:Cool. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643469)

They can't borrow or print money forever.

You're committing two common slashdot fallacies:

1. Assuming that the base-case default operation of a good business or government is expenses exactly matching income.
2. Linear extrapolation of the deviance from default.

The second is especially galling since he initially said during a down economy. Still, I'll go further and say there's even a place for deficits in an up economy under some conditions, just not to the same degree (and if you dip too far down, the up economy should do deficit reduction).

The trick is that your government revenue, which is to say your taxes, should be increasing faster than your debt increases in an up economy. If that's true, then your debt is decreasing relatively, even if in absolute constant-dollar terms it is increasing. So if deficit spending has an ROI that aids government revenue (compare the net present value of the debt to the investment), you're still good.

(by contrast, if government revenue declines, then you have to amp up your debt paying or it'll consume all revenues).

Re:Cool. (1)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#41642743)

Except that most people don't want an electric vehicle. Expensive (especially Tesla!), batteries that need (expensive) replacement, can't tow anything, can't drive long distances.

My VW Jetta TDI is cheaper, doesn't run on batteries, gets great mileage, and can drive anywhere. It can't tow stuff, though, but could you imagine an electric truck? You'd be lucky if the thing had enough to power itself, much less haul anything.

Families need an economic distance vehicle with great mileage for commutes and trips, and a working vehicle that can tow/move things. Electric vehicles are lousy at all of this: they're expensive to buy and maintain, can't do distance runs, and can't haul anything. You'd think the green people would have a problem with throwing away all those batteries, too.

So many inaccuracies. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642923)

Ah, somebody is thinking they can get some stories past us.

Your Jetta DOES run on an energy storage system, that's why you have to keep buying gasoline. Much of which is wasted in terms of heat. But don't pretend it's any different than a battery.

Most people drive short distances most of the time, they don't take long trips, they don't need to tow, they don't need to go a hundred miles at a time. And no, they don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of stuff. Sorry, but the reality is most people need a lot less car than you think.

As for maintenance, an electric motor IS a lot simpler than an internal combustion one. They're not expensive to maintain at all, and yes, the batteries can be recycled.

Unlike the pollutants spewing out the back-end of your Jetta. Those are just going to pollute the air.

And yes, there ARE electric trucks. And Tractors. Goodness me, don't you know anything?

Re:So many inaccuracies. (1)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#41643027)

Most people drive short distances most of the time, they don't take long trips, they don't need to tow, they don't need to go a hundred miles at a time. And no, they don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of stuff. Sorry, but the reality is most people need a lot less car than you think.

I'm curious, is this the Slashdot consensus? Anybody else want to chime in, because it certainly isn't true for me or really most of the people I know.

As for maintenance, an electric motor IS a lot simpler than an internal combustion one. They're not expensive to maintain at all

Oh, how much does it cost for a set of new batteries? (I'm genuinely curious as I have no clue)

And yes, there ARE electric trucks. And Tractors.

Indeed, but I'm concerned that it won't pull my boat [travelpete.com] . :/

Re:So many inaccuracies. (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | about 2 years ago | (#41643189)

Hard to tell what "consensus" is, but I've got a pretty long commute -- it's about 45 miles in each direction. Counting for inefficiencies and the fact that MPGs lie, if I could buy a reasonably-priced 200 mile EV, I'd jump on it. That said, my family would probably keep at least one gas vehicle. Right now, we have 3 gas vehicle -- going to 2 EVs, 1 gas would be delightful.

Replacing Prius batteries is either a $1000 job if you want to do it yourself and get it from eBay or about $2300 for the new battery pack (plus some dealer work -- figure on a total of about $3000).

Re:So many inaccuracies. (1)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#41643283)

Hard to tell what "consensus" is, but I've got a pretty long commute -- it's about 45 miles in each direction.

Well, that's not too shabby, but there are times when I want to visit family or drive somewhere for a staycation.

Right now, we have 3 gas vehicle -- going to 2 EVs, 1 gas would be delightful. Replacing Prius batteries is either a $1000 job if you want to do it yourself and get it from eBay or about $2300 for the new battery pack (plus some dealer work -- figure on a total of about $3000).

That doesn't sound too fiscally friendly to me, but if you are a handy person and your main concern is the environment, I say kudos. Do you feel that the emissions on a higher-efficiency gas/diesel powered vehicle are lower than a vehicle charged by coal power plants (which is the primary source of power generation in my area, sadly)? I have no clue as I haven't read any studies.

Some people say ethanol is cleaner burning, too. Others would disagree when you take into account the emissions created in production.

Re:So many inaccuracies. (1)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#41643087)

Unlike the pollutants spewing out the back-end of your Jetta. Those are just going to pollute the air.

Oh, I forgot to ask - Does driving an electric vehicle (power largely by coal plants where I am) have a net benefit in terms of pollution? Again, I am genuinely curious.

Re:So many inaccuracies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643399)

Yes, it does. See a coal power plant (which is hardly necessary) can be significantly more efficient than a gas combustion engine AND easier to deal with the pollution.

Check some of the coal industry's studies. They're quite insistent on the cleanness of their product.

Re:Cool. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41643135)

Indeed, how do those huge, mining transportation trucks ever power themselves. Or trains. Surely not with electric motors?

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.

The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.

Re:Cool. (1)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#41643227)

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.

The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.

So which EVs do you recommend a person like me purchase that needs one vehicle for mileage (I generally would want to make a 200 mile trip without stopping to plug it in) and one work vehicle (capable of pulling a boat, trailer full of stuff, or maybe a piece of furniture that I've impulsively purchased)? I'd rather not be limited in what I can do by the capabilities of my vehicles.

Re:Cool. (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41643335)

The problem of energy storage is not yet solved, as stated in the last paragraph of the post you quoted. Therefore, none.

Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.

Saved money by buying foreign ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41642331)

Nice to see California is flush with cash.

Well California "saved" money by buying bridge components (cables, towers, deck, etc) for the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge from foreign sources. That "frees" up money for other pet projects.

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41642405)

The Golden Gate Bridge was built in Pennsylvania. Not a foreign country, but the money was not exactly kept in the local economy.

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ... (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 2 years ago | (#41642575)

>>new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
>The Golden Gate Bridge

uh, and what does the the later have to do with the former?

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41642605)

I assumed that the post was a sarcastic critique of the decision to buy foreign-made parts for the new bridge. I was just pointing out that the most famous bridge in CA was also built outside of the local economy.

Re:Saved money by buying foreign ... (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 2 years ago | (#41642813)

That was an asinine decision in retrospect. But, at the time, the construction industry was flush with cash and likely thought they could charge a little extra.

At least the technology isn't there yet to build a five-mile long bridge in China, test it, and float it over to the US, set it in place, and be done. At that point, it won't be loss of $200MM to the local economy, it will be $7B.

Re:Cool. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41643077)

Nice to see California is flush with cash.

Californians ARE flush with cash. The State of California just needs to get it from 'em. Recent events have shown that Californians will pay any price for a gallon of gas. So the State should just add $1 of Tesla Tax to every gallon of gas. The State can use the money to buy Teslas for the poor any needy. Since everyone will be poor and needy after paying that tax, that will make Tesla high volume producer and the costs of the Teslas will fall. Yep. That should work as well as other government alternative energy plans. Probably.

Another untapped potential tax revenue in California is the income of dead people. Michael Jackson makes more money now that he is dead, than he did while he was alive. Raise the tax rates of dead people. Even if they don't like the taxes, they can't vote politicians out of office. Because they are dead. If California STILL is short of tax income, even after taxing all the dead people, they could maybe "encourage" some Stars to end their "careers" early. Like, Justin Bieber, for example.

Tax residency for dead people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643409)

Slightly off topic, but now I'm trying to imagine an IRS rule for bona fide foreign gravesites with a foreign income exclusion, and how much more strict the CA FTB rules would be... maybe there will be special mausoleums in the Cayman Islands to help a 1%er out...

Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Cars? (1)

Aero77 (1242364) | about 2 years ago | (#41642231)

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board. ... Color me surprised...

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#41642379)

Yeah, because the energy used to charge the Tesla vehicles just comes from a magical source. Of course - not a source that pollutes...

Good way to drive up costs for your competition, but totally ignore the fact Tesla vehicles generate emissions, just at a power plant.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 2 years ago | (#41642449)

Depends on the power plant. Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar (which California has varying degrees of) don't really generate air pollution.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642519)

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (2)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 2 years ago | (#41642571)

The excess electricity produced by wind, hydro and geothermal energy during the night can be used to charge car batteries ;-)

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (2)

olden (772043) | about 2 years ago | (#41642943)

The vast majority of EV charging occurs between midnight and 4am [theevproject.com] , when there is ample capacity, esp from wind [caiso.com] , so EVs actually use the cleanest part of the grid.
Which in California is quite clean to start with: most of its electricity is coming from carbon-neutral sources (hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind...); only 7% was coal in 2010 [ca.gov] and getting lower.

Another sobering thought: the energy spent refining gasoline alone (6kW*h / gallon) [gatewayev.org] for a 20-some mpg vehicle would be enough to propel an EV the same distance.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642983)

Now include the energy spent towing an electric vehicle back home because the battery is dead.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#41643125)

You mean most of the energy they produce. Most of their energy comes from other states, of which is mostly coal.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (5, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 2 years ago | (#41643353)

Renewable power does not run at peak all the time. It's the old forms of power - coal especially - that runs flat out 24/7 because throttling those kinds of powerplants is incredibly costly, inefficient and slow to react. It's called "spinning reserve" because the only reasonably way to reduce the output of a coal powerplant is to de-energize the generators and let the turbines keep spinning. If they turn off the furnaces it would take hours to get running again. Throttling a coal powerplant means complete waste of money and resources.

Electrical generation capacity is critically underutilized at night. You need generating capacity to handle peak demand, but most of the time you are running nowhere near peak demand. The reason why many people in CA are eligible for Time-Of-use metering is because increasing off-peak use actually reduces costs. Many utility providers desperately want people to plug in electric cars at night to "fill the tub" and level out the 24-hour demand curve, allowing more efficient and less costly operation.

Also, there's that lie again. See my other post in reply to you. But even if that were the case and electric vehicles were actually "coal powered" like you want to believe it's still cleaner than the typical gasoline engine. There are no areas of the country where electric vehicles have higher global warming emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle. [ucsusa.org] (PDF warning, quote from page 11)
=Smidge=

Solar Panels (2)

DaKong (150846) | about 2 years ago | (#41642759)

Sorry to interrupt the FUD, but the Tesla supercharger stations supply the electricity from solar panels on their rooves. There is no emission shifting.

If you recharge the cars at your house or office, there may be some emission shifting, but we don't know for sure because we don't know where those facilities' electricity is sourced.

Re:Solar Panels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642947)

We know exactly where it's sourced. It's delta; it comes from natural gas peaker plants.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642391)

This is because by some magical logic, pollution from power plants is not pollution. In California, they get their power from magical electricity fairies.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642417)

You are aware that there are power plants which are not powered by coal or oil, yes?

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642493)

You are aware that there are power plants which are not powered by coal or oil, yes?

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642645)

Go back to your dark cave of a world and stay there. Status quo for vehicles has passed...it is time for a change, and if you think the pollution from the power plants (the ones that actually produce it) outweighs the pollution produced from millions of little ones all over the road every day, you just need to go back to riding your bicycle. Grown up transportation and thoughts aren't for you.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642755)

And why can't we increase capacity of clean power?

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643309)

I see that you are completely unaware of the fact that even getting dirty power, net emissions would be less.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 2 years ago | (#41642585)

Don't be ridiculous! That is just plain impossible!

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41642553)

Nuke plants don't pollute. [ca.gov] Natural gas pollutes less than gasoline, so if the electricity is generated by gas, it would pollute less.

A Tesla in Clinton, IL wouldn't pollute at all. A Tesla in Springfield, IL would pollute more than an Escalade or a Hummer; its electricity is from coal and gas.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (4, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41643147)

Would still pollute a whole lot less actually. Coal power plants, while very "dirty" by power plant standards, are exceptionally clean by automotive standards.

Re:Strict Emissions Standards Benefits Electric Ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642437)

Yep, this is the same organization that hired a scientist to develop California's diesel emission standards. Expect the guy faked his resume and was not a scientist. The problem is the courts have said his work is still valid and most of the media ignored the scandal.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/18/gov-knew-carb-scandal-dec-19-2008/?print&page=all

Disgraceful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642257)

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board

Gee, maybe because it gives Tesla competitive advantage? California is paying this company to exist and then manipulating the market so consumers will buy their vehicles.

Re:Disgraceful (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642409)

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board

Gee, maybe because it gives Tesla competitive advantage? California is paying this company to exist and then manipulating the market so consumers will buy their vehicles.

Hmm... I have seen this somewhere before... Change California to Federal Government, and Their Vehicles to Chevy Volt. That worked out so well for everyone...

Re:Disgraceful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642623)

And even with all that they still haven't turned a profit.

Wake up time, granola boys! (1, Funny)

phrackwulf (589741) | about 2 years ago | (#41642283)

The Tesla design is still too expensive, the future of electric powered LUV's (light utility vehicles) will be decided by John Deere and Harley Davidson with the able assistance of the Argonne Laboratory vehicle group and the price point will be $15,000. Stick that in your Silicon Valley you tofu eating, suckers! HOOAH!

-Outrider-6 out

Re:Wake up time, granola boys! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642395)

... the future of electric powered LUV's (light utility vehicles) will be decided by John Deere and Harley Davidson

-Outrider-6 out

Harley Davidson consulted with Porsche when it needed some real engineering expertise.

And YOU are just a stupid redneck who has no idea how things really get done.

Hooah, my ass.

I bet you have never been under fire in your entire white trash life, macho boy. Why don't you
go find a cock to suck, you know you want it.

Re:Wake up time, granola boys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643059)

Actually, if history is any guide, the future of electric LUVs will be decided by Japanese, Chinese, and Korean companies, while John Deere and Harley Davidson crank out greatly inferior products at a higher price that Americans are still willing to buy because they don't realize that their country's manufacturing sector is at least a decade behind the rest of the world and slipping further back.

Forget 0-60 time, give me range (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41642385)

I can't think of a single instance where I'd need to accelerate from a dead stop to 60mph, as quickly as possible. Every time I take my car out, though, I drive a couple of hundred miles at least.

Once electric cars have comparable performance in both speed *and* range to conventional vehicles, they'll be a much easier sell. Until now, I'll stick with diesel.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range (1)

SylvesterTheCat (321686) | about 2 years ago | (#41642521)

Here, here.

Small diesels are a much better alternative to gasoline / ethanol through the near future (10-20 years). VW, Jeep (diesel Liberty 2005-06), and others have shown this already.

They are well understood and have an existing fuel distribution infrastructure.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41642573)

They use it because it's about the only thing competitive with a combustion car.

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642647)

Every time I take my car out, though, I drive a couple of hundred miles at least.

You are [bts.gov] an [bts.gov] outlier [bts.gov]

Tesla Model S Range is 300 miles (1)

DaKong (150846) | about 2 years ago | (#41642733)

It's right there on their site:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models [teslamotors.com]

At a supercharging station it takes 30 minutes to recharge. On long road trips most people stop that long to eat, stretch their legs, etc.

Tesla is also building a network of supercharging stations, already having built quite a few in California. They say any Tesla car can recharge at them for free. And the best part is the electricity is supplied by solar panels on the stations.

It seems like they have definitively answered your range anxiety.

Re:Tesla Model S Range is 300 miles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642819)

The model S range is not 300 miles. It's only that if you buy the model costing $100,000

Re:Forget 0-60 time, give me range (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#41643097)

I can't think of a single reason I'd want to drive a couple hundred miles. Every time I go on my delivery route I need to stop and go very quickly.

We're broke, huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642397)

Proves Uncle Jerry has all the money he needs, just not as much as he wants. Would the sheeple raise taxes for a bullet train both to and from nowhere? doubtful. Would they raise taxes to give bureaucrats a raise? Hell no. How about to give a private company millions of dollars? No effin way.

So he spends his money where he wants, starves education, then claims that if we don't raise taxes education will be decimated.

Did I mention that after "cutting the budget to the bone", the state is spending 5.4% more this year than last year?

People of CA are idiots. Soon as my parents die (in their 80s) I'm outta here.

Re:We're broke, huh? (1)

brusewitz (1510021) | about 2 years ago | (#41643403)

Soon as my parents die (in their 80s) I'm outta here.

Why wait? Did they lock the basement door?

zero emissions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642413)

Electric vehicle skeptics have long argued that EVs cannot truly be considered “zero emissions” because they use coal-generated electricity, which in itself produces harmful emissions.

Now, a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists seems to lend credence to that view. In a report to be published Monday, according to The New York Times, the advocacy group compares the emissions of a baseline electric vehicle, the Nissan Leaf, in different parts of the country.

The report, titled “State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel Cost Savings Across the United States,” found that given similar driving conditions and distances, a hypothetical Nissan Leaf in Denver would generate significantly more emissions than the same hypothetical car in Los Angeles.

California uses clean energy for much of its electricity. As a result, the Leaf in the Los Angeles part of the comparison would emit greenhouse gases at around the same level as a gasoline-powered car that got 79 miles per gallon. In Denver, where electricity is coal-dependent, the same car would produce the same level of greenhouse gas as a gasoline-powered Mazda 3, which gets only 33 miles per gallon.

In regions where renewable energies are used to generate electricity, the study shows, electric vehicles can reduce emissions significantly. “But where generators are powered by burning a high percentage of coal,” said The New York Times, “electric cars may not be even as good as the latest gasoline models — and far short of the thriftiest hybrids.”

Re:zero emissions? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41642543)

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, that power comes from the ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So the marginal cost of the additional power from converting to electric uses the dirtiest power available.

Re:zero emissions? (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41642849)

Unless the increased demand and rising oil prices make alternative electricity sources more economically viable. Sure, electric cars will have a short term marginal cost purely of the dirty power, but once the supply system adapts (and it will) the new power is likely to come in a large portion from renewables.

Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41642435)

In Bob Lutz's "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters", Lutz writes that it was the Tesla roadster that woke up GM. Tesla made the first electric that could really zoom. That shook up the car guys; they thought electrics would be wimpy forever. GM was wary after the EV-1, where they lost money on every car. Lutz describes the session where the Chevy Volt was sketched out on a napkin.

Tesla is making rapid progress on price - a $100K car, a $50K car, a $30K car... That's very Silicon Valley. At last, batteries are good enough. Now they just cost too much.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt (0)

amightywind (691887) | about 2 years ago | (#41642855)

The Tesla is every businessman's dream. The product that caused his competitor to commit suicide. Let's see. The government is backing Telsa to compete with their own product, the Volt. Only in today's America. The batteries are good enough to make the drive to and from work in the Bay Area. How will they perform in North Dakota? Elon Musk has a history of swindling the tax payer. If Romney wins the election, that will end.

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642941)

Elon Musk has a history of making piece of shit vehicles then suing people that point out that they are pieces of shit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/24/tesla-libel-suit-against-top-gear-fails-again/
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110802-spacex-agrees-drop-lawsuit.html
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20044697/u-s-court-dismisses-space-x-lawsuit-against-boeing-lockheed-martin

Re:Tesla is responsible for GM developing the Volt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643345)

Did you even watch that top gear episode? I did.They totally staged the battery just suddenly running out of juice. They drove the car around the track and said, "gee the car died". Then they went on to claim the vehicle wasn't any good because of that. Seems like libel to me.

Honestly, you are a dumb cunt.

More govt subsidy for private corps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642515)

money goes straight to the bottom line

Capital markets? (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 2 years ago | (#41642531)

Tesla can't obtain money from the capital markets so they find it necessary to swindle Californians instead. Tire of their yachts and Segways, this is a subsidy for the next expensive trifle purchase of the Silicon Valley elite. But California likes pain, apparently. They vote the democrats in. Its as Mitt says, "The democrats pick only losers."

Hey you free market nutjobs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642537)

How's Elon Musk's dick taste now?

Re:Hey you free market nutjobs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643349)

I find that question a little "shocking"... wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

Money from government (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41642609)

More money from government to private interests, because obviously the government is the best judge of how to spend other people's money. Solyndra? F22? Wars? Bridges to nowhere?

Re:Money from government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643375)

National security and stability are some of the government's responsibilities, therefore efforts to reduce the USA dependence on oil also are.
Same for supporting local jobs and businesses, public health (air quality) etc... I'd much rather see money spent on this instead of blowing up dirt in Irak -- plus it's like 100'000x cheaper.

Re:Money from government (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41643561)

You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is. But when government spends money on trying to increase our independence and ability to choose for ourselves without having to consult the United Nations, everyone cry's foul. And if you think there is no link between federal spending and Ca spending, get a clue. Ca, along with New York, is one of the few states that has a net outflow of taxes to the fed. That means that when the US spends money not on anything other than sending it back to the state, Ca is one of the few states where that money is coming from. Not places like Texas where most of the money is given back t the state. Or places like Arizona and Alaska where money is given to the state. Therefore Ca has a great interest in developing technologies that wil make the US less dependent and thus reduce the expenditures.

Why not hybrid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642663)

As a Californian, I'm sick and tired of these electric car initiatives. They go nowhere and the public has a lot of doubts about electric cars, with issues like needing charging stations, charge time, etc.

That said, why aren't we just pushing hybrid cars? It's a much easier jump from traditional cars to hybrid, and the public seems has much less fear of them. Plus it keeps the oil industry happy as they still have a product to sell, though maybe not as much.

Are electric cars the future? Yes. Is it time for the future right now? I don't think so. Shouldn't we ease everyone into the next step instead of making the tremendous leap from regular cars to electric cars?

Re:Why not hybrid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41642969)

There are too many charging stations in california already! It is time they put it to use.

Re:Why not hybrid? (1)

c9brown (1828396) | about 2 years ago | (#41643417)

10 million dollars is peanuts. Besides, why hold back progress, especially when that progress is actually innovative and tries to make things better for everyone?
North America was built on invention, innovation and beating everyone else to the punch. Without that drive, the economy sags and other parts of the world start to dominate (i.e. like right now).

Re:Why not hybrid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41643589)

Hybrids have been around for over a decade, and were "pushed" with multiple incentives (cash, rebates, carpool lane access) when they were introduced.
Now, not surprinsingly, the same is done with plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles.

You agree that EVs are the future -- so isn't it wise to invest in it, just a tiny bit, especially when it so directly supports the local economy?

More Jerry Brown shenanigans (1)

CQDX (2720013) | about 2 years ago | (#41643397)

Sacramento gives away money to a tiny company that makes expensive cars that nobody wants to "save or create" 1500 jobs. Meanwhile, Jerry Brown claims we are broke and that if we don't approve the tax increases this coming election, hundreds to thousands of teachers, police, and firemen will have to be let go...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>