Tesla repays federal loan nearly 10 years early

[JohnR! 5,495]

That was fast! My first computer had a modem speed of 1200 baud and I was thrilled when I got a 9600 baud modem with a throughput of 14,400 bps, I could download a GIF in 2 hours instead of 8.

Yep! Life on the fast lane!!! And today's kids get exhasperated by having to wait 25 seconds for a download...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yep! Life on the fast lane!!! And today's kids get exhasperated by having to wait 25 seconds for a download...

I have 54 mbps now. I am faster than many of the servers I bounce off of to check my speed.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why? My wife would do just fine having only an electric car. The distances that she drives, she'd be absolutely okay with only an electric vehicle.

Utterly impossible! . What if she decided to take a 800-mile trip? You would need to buy her a new car for that!

Edited May 23, 2013 by Gegel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Govt's job is not to loan money to a particular company coz they made poor decision or they entered market at wrong time or they have wrong product.

Tesla did not make any poor decision at all. Nor did they enter the market at the wrong time nor do they have the wrong product. If any of these would apply, then Tesla would not have been able to raise $1bn in private funds and repay the taxpayer a decade early. You simply fail to understand the concept of supporting a new technology or industry to lay the foundation of tomorrow's economy. The US government has always done that. This was done more by the government directly in the past but with all the shrinking of the government, much of it is now left to private enterprises which the government supports with things such as these start-up loans.

[Harsh_77 718]

If one chooses to travel by air and rent a car at the destination, both cars - electric or gas - are proven worthless for the enterprise, according to your sophism.

I appears to me you are having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

Again, it is almost as if not all cars are suited to all enterprises. Perhaps that is the reason one sees so many varieties in size and purpose on our roads....

To sum with the electric car you cannot travel 800 miles if you choose to which you can with conventional car.

Hence for most ppl who like to drive electric car at this point 2 vehicles are required.

If you cannot grasp this simple logic, there is no way to dumd it down any further.

[Harsh_77 718]

Tesla did not make any poor decision at all. Nor did they enter the market at the wrong time nor do they have the wrong product. If any of these would apply, then Tesla would not have been able to raise $1bn in private funds and repay the taxpayer a decade early. You simply fail to understand the concept of supporting a new technology or industry to lay the foundation of tomorrow's economy. The US government has always done that. This was done more by the government directly in the past but with all the shrinking of the government, much of it is now left to private enterprises which the government supports with things such as these start-up loans.

Dude if they were able to raise $1b from private fund they should had gone that way from day one.

Tesla was not a startup when it went to govt with loan request.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So if you have to travel 800 miles you will plan a 4 day trip?

If I had an EV and planned to make an 800 mile trip by car, I'd probably shell out the $20.00 and rent me gasoline powered vehicle to drive that distance. But that's just me. Some people would apparently come up with ideas like strapping a generator onto their EV but it takes a special kind of person to even have something like that come to one's mind.

[GandD 5,966]

Conventional cars are also improving. I am just saying are not a panacea, at least not yet. American and the world tend to jump on trends that cause more environmental damage in the end, like plastic bags and CFL's.

I get your point and I would agree that there is too much "bandwagoning" with the environmental stuff.

Consumers want to buy true environmentally responsible products if the cost and capability are close to what they are used to. Established private companies have little reason to meet emissions or safety standards when not pushed by a government. I think that if some major companies can be coaxed into these new industries by government incentives or maybe even a few mandates, the country will benefit as a whole and the capability/cost of devices in new industries will improve to more than the CFL gimmicks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude if they were able to raise $1b from private fund they should had gone that way from day one.

Tesla was not a startup when it went to govt with loan request.

They were not in the position two years ago when they were granted the loan that they are in today. The loan helped them to get where they are today. The government program actually did exactly what it was designed to do - help a new industry demonstrate that it is viable. And it is. And our kids will be better off for it. And the Tesla loan didn't cost you or me a dime. Couldn't be better.

[Harsh_77 718]

Why? My wife would do just fine having only an electric car. The distances that she drives, she'd be absolutely okay with only an electric vehicle.

Yes if you just going to do the city commute.

How about for longer commute?

[JohnR! 5,495]

To sum with the electric car you cannot travel 800 miles if you choose to which you can with conventional car.

Hence for most ppl who like to drive electric car at this point 2 vehicles are required.

If you cannot grasp this simple logic, there is no way to dumd it down any further.

There is nothing that forbids anhone from traveling 800 miles with an electric car. There is also nothing that says the only way to travel 800 miles is by car.

It is almost as though there isn't such a thing as one single vehicle - of any kind - that fits all and every need, is it not?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Yes if you just going to do the city commute.

How about for longer commute?

Here is a shocking idea: Why not take the amount of driving one does before one purchases a car so that one can make a choice that fits one's lifestyle?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I guess u were in haste to respond and u did not read complete post.

Govt can have favourable laws, tax laws etc to help a industry.

Govt's job is not to loan money to a particular company coz they made poor decision or they entered market at wrong time or they have wrong product.

Roads are investment?? Whats ROI?

exactly. He is beating the drum like one out of, god knows how many that failed made i t. If this was a venture capital program it would have been out of business long time ago and the CEO fired. We taxpayers are the stockholders and it has been a dismal failed investment program. We are out over 50 billion, and so far we got a return of 500 million. Hardly a success. Yeah one success. Les than 10% success rate. Your blind alliance to the failed policies of this administration, and they Pavlovian way in which you devour the skewed talking point never ceases to amaze me at your failure to think for yourself. This program has already lost far more than it will ever take it. Just think if we had returned that 50 bil to the people that earned it.

Edited May 23, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[mota bhai 2,675]

... they Pavlovian way in which you devour the skewed talking point ...

You, sir, have a way with words.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Tesla did not make any poor decision at all. Nor did they enter the market at the wrong time nor do they have the wrong product. If any of these would apply, then Tesla would not have been able to raise $1bn in private funds and repay the taxpayer a decade early. You simply fail to understand the concept of supporting a new technology or industry to lay the foundation of tomorrow's economy. The US government has always done that. This was done more by the government directly in the past but with all the shrinking of the government, much of it is now left to private enterprises which the government supports with things such as these start-up loans.

You really bragging on a 2% success rate.

As many as 50 Obama-backed green energy companies bankrupt or troubled

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/#ixzz2U8L1EjxO

The October bankruptcy of solar company Satcon Technology Corp. puts the number of bankrupt or troubled green energy companies as high as 50, according to one estimate.

During the first presidential debate, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said the Obama administration had doled out $90 billion to green energy companies, half of which he said had failed, which sparked a media-wide debate over the accuracy of the claim.

The Romney campaign later clarified that he was talking about the DOE’s 1705 loan program which doled out $16.1 billion to green energy companies, according to the Washington Post. Of the 33 companies that received 1705 loan guarantees, only three have declared bankruptcy.

Ads by Google

• Washers & DryersWhich Washers & Dryers are Best? Read our Expert Reviews ConsumerReports.org/Reviews
• Nice SUVs Under $10,000Lots Of Great Sport Utilities Under $10,000 Bad Credit OK www.mitchsimpson.com

However, when other subsidies, outside of the 1705 loan guarantees are factored in, the number of government-backed green energy failures is much higher.

The blog Green Corruption’s “Obama green-energy failure” list contains 23 bankrupt and 27 troubled green energy companies which were backed by the federal government. This list uses data compiled by the Heritage Foundation, but also includes some things the conservative think tank doesn’t.

According to the Heritage Foundation, $80 billion was set aside in the 2009 stimulus package for clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, and 10 percent of these funds have gone to companies that have filed for bankruptcy or are in dire straits.

The Green Corruption estimates are on the high end as others have total number of bankrupt and troubled green energy firms much lower.

The Heritage Foundation’s list contains 34 companies that have either filed for bankruptcy or are faltering as of October 18. Of those 34 listed, nineteen have filed for bankruptcy and fifteen are considered faltering.

Ads by Google

• Washers & DryersWhich Washers & Dryers are Best? Read our Expert Reviews ConsumerReports.org/Reviews
• Nice SUVs Under $10,000Lots Of Great Sport Utilities Under $10,000 Bad Credit OK www.mitchsimpson.com

The Heritage list only contains companies that received federal funds from the Obama administration’s Energy Department and other agencies, and does not include “other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies,” which would raise the amount of taxpayer dollars that was given to these companies.

Another list compiled by the Senate Republican Policy Committee shows a total of 19 government-backed green energy companies that have either gone bankrupt, are in distress, or failing — twelve bankrupt, six in distress, and one failing.

The committee’s list, however, does not include the most recent green energy failure, Satcon Technology Corp., which received a $3 million DOE grant earlier this year and filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 17, making it the second green energy company to file for bankruptcy that week.

Electric car battery manufacturer and recipient of a $249 million loan guarantee, A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy the day before.

“And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world,” Romney said during the first presidential debate. “But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?”

“And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business,” Romney added. “A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/#ixzz2U8L7cky1