The Tesla Roadster: “Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It?”
[W]hy should taxpayers fork over the capital that Tesla needs? The Roadster is not much more than a functioning concept car that sells for $109,000. The company is requesting $400 million in low-interest federal loans as part of the $25 billion loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year.
Jason Calacanis rips the story apart line by line. For example, on the title:
Yes Randy, the first version of technology tends to be expensive. Personal computers used to cost $5,000, flat-panel TVs were $10,000 and–gasp–the first decade’s worth of solar panels were not worth the price. You’re a *technology* journalist at the New York Times. You understand all too well that expensive technology becomes commodity technology within 10 to 20 years of its inception.
Personal computers now start at $200. Of course the first version of an all-electric sports car is going to be expensive.
I’m not sure that explains why taxpayers should back it, but Michael Arrington agrees. Calling the NYTimes article “an editorial, but not marked as such,” he argues:
Tesla has announced two new vehicles, both at much lower prices (and one targeted at $30,000). Stross’ facts are wrong, and his opinions are misguided. If Tesla succeeds, it will be because it was able to sell cars to the mass market.
I’m against government meddling in the markets. But I would far prefer to see Tesla get any part of that money, if it must be distributed, than any of the big three automakers. As I wrote this weekend, the best thing for them, and for our country, is to just let them die. They are incapable of innovating given their current financial and logistical structure. Tesla, on the other hand, is actually doing something interesting.
SEE ALSO: NPR’s Morning Edition, Electric Car Manufacturer Hopes To Generate Sales.
5 Responses to “The Tesla Roadster: “Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It?””
From the critics at The Truth About Cars
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?s=tesla
The answer to the question is No. But for those who want to support it anyway, they should be fair to other companies, such as AC Propulsion, which have been in existence for years. See below. Note that they use the name “tZero” now to refer to their motive power design, no longer to their own roadster that used to be offered under the same name, years ago. (It was a no-show at the EVAA electric vehicle show I attended in 1998 or 1999 when it came to northwestern Atlanta.)
Note that the much-hyped Chevy Volt itself isn't really that promising. The price is flirting now at around $40,000, and this is for a vehicle whose range is limited. (Even “daily driver” vehicles are evaluated at purchase or lease time in terms of meeting general-purpose needs, including the ability to engage in inter-city travel over longer distances.) I haven't learned yet what the recharging time will be for the Volt, but a serious electric vehicle needs not only to have a gasoline-equivalent range but a recharging time comparable to refueling time for a gasoline vehicle, or no more than what people would tolerate waiting in line or in a waiting room, say 20 to 30 minutes at most. I suspect the Volt is inferior in recharging speed as well as in its range, in addition to being costly.
A friend of mine threw a honda gas powered generator in the trunk of an all electric car, punched through an intake and exhaust to the outside and used the generator only for long trips. Instant hybrid. There is no new technology needed to make electric cars a practical reality. Just the will to do so.
And the generator was there because batteries remain poor, expensive storage devices; this is the killer with wind and solar, which are intermittent. (Effectively, what's needed with any large-scale use of wind or solar is the equivalent of that Honda gas-powered generator, in a highly literal sense — typically natural gas [not gasoline]-fired power plants are used to add the capacity when it is needed; gas plants are cleaner than goal and are the logical choice for this application, when-the-wind-is-not-blowing-or-the-sun-is-not-shining.)
… Hence, a federal R&D effort toward improved battery technology (or a boosted one) may be in order. Obamanians, take note. (Also take note of fuel cells, and the idea of not only vehicles but “off-grid” self-powered homes in the distant future.)