With federal aid for green-tech startups under assault in Washington, Tesla Motors took to the webs last week touting how its $465 million federal loan had helped create hundreds of jobs — but it didn't reveal that it's now asking for more government money. They also won't reveal why they want it or how much they're asking for.

No electric vehicle start-up has been as successful at mining cash so far as Tesla, which founder Elon Musk has raised $620 million for from private investors on top of its U.S. Department of Energy loan to build the Model S sedan and Model X crossover. Musk secured a $100 million deal with Toyota for an electric version of the RAV4, and the company had more than $661 million in cash as of June 30, including $330 million of untapped Energy loans.

All after building about 1,900 cars so far.

Which explains why Tesla felt the need to defend the loan program after Republicans attempted to cut it as part of the ongoing budget battles on Capitol Hill. In a company blog, Tesla contended that the loan had allowed it to add 1,000 jobs, and make plans for an additional 1,000 jobs next year as it ramps output of the Model S.

Yet it took a call from the San Francisco Chronicle for Tesla to disclose that it had asked for another federal loan, in an amount it has declined to disclose. Tesla has previously said it had enough cash to cover the costs of launching the Model S and Model X — but the ramp-up of those vehicles may take years.

Tesla acolytes suspect the loan might pay for a long-rumored "Bluestar" model meant to be an affordable family car. Given the heat on the government's loan program, Musk may have to prove he can launch the Model S without issues before getting another boost from Washington.

http://jalopnik.com/5843937...ore-government-money

Burn all you want. We'll print more.

I am not sure why they would get ANY money. It's not like they are developing new technology in an area that needs it ... like batteries and charging. They are just combining off the shelve parts. Big deal.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 09-26-2011).]

$620 mil private investment + $100 Million govt loan=$720 million.
Math--my poor suit------each of those 1000 jobs only cost 720,000 dollars?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: $620 mil private investment + $100 Million govt loan=$720 million. Math--my poor suit------each of those 1000 jobs only cost 720,000 dollars?

I'll do it for half that!

quote Originally posted by maryjane: $620 mil private investment + $100 Million govt loan=$720 million. Math--my poor suit------each of those 1000 jobs only cost 720,000 dollars?

Sure, but each job only cost taxpayers $100,000.

Plus, they gave us a re-worked Lotus Elise, which is heavier, has had transmission inssues, will go 80 miles (in the real world) on a charge, and requires hours between charges to recharge!

What progress!

If what they are doing (or any of the other automakers) with electric drivetrains makes sense, let private industry fund 100%.

Oh, boy! Another "green jobs" boondoggle!

I'm in the wrong business. It looks like I need to get into the "milk the feds for green cash" business.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 09-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Fformula88: Sure, but each job only cost taxpayers $100,000. Plus, they gave us a re-worked Lotus Elise, which is heavier, has had transmission inssues, will go 80 miles (in the real world) on a charge, and requires hours between charges to recharge! What progress! A few corrections. The lotus Elise chassis will not work. They may have taken some methods or material inspiration from the lotus Elise, but it's not a reworked Elise chassis. I happened on five teslas last month in Harrison Idaho. Two of them had come from Seattle Washington which is 348 miles away. They stopped in Ellensburg to recharge. The recharge took about 2 hours. That's more than double the 80 mile range you quote. Plus they look better than an Elise which is already a good looking car. I believe that the Tesla is a transitional proof of concept car. They've shown that an electric car can be a high performance car with a practical range. Now they will just get better. If what they are doing (or any of the other automakers) with electric drivetrains makes sense, let private industry fund 100%.

Here's Car and Driver saying they made 143 miles with the roadster before it was in the flashing red. - dated Feb 1, 2010.

They also said they got a 47 mile range (displayed) from the batteries after a 10.5 hour charge on 110v.


http://blog.caranddriver.co...ge-what-up-with-dat/

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-27-2011).]

Please read my reply to Fformua88. This was a real world result!!

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 09-27-2011).]

And you think Car and Driver's results weren't real world?

Or do you just want to believe only the things that support how you feel things should be?

Just the things that support my viewpoint. That would make me fit right in here right?

The vehicle was developed with input and engineering from Lotus, Elise structure designs, and actual parts from the Lotus Elise. Although modified to some extent, it's not like you can divorce the Elise from it.

Charging is based on what you have to charge it. A 240V outlet on a 90 amp circuit will charge the car from empty in 4 hours. A 120V outlet on a 15 amp circuit will take 48 hours from empty.

Real world range even if 140 (and it is very dependent on weather and driving style) is not too great.

All told, I am not seeing the great advance here. It is a decent performing sports car, but it costs six figures too, has limited range, needs high power infrastructure for charging to charge relatively quickly...

I am not seeing the great advance here. It is nice. It works. it isn't terrible. It also is far from practical. Can Tesla turn this into a mass produced electric that can be driven daily and is practical? I do not know but the Nissan Leaf is already available at a quarter of the cost (although not as powerful), and the Volt (or Prius even) solves the charge/range problem.

Electric car's are limited by their batteries, not the drivetrains. It is the batteries that need advances, and the Tesla is in no way unique in using Li-Ion batteries.

Ultimately, I just do not see the reason to subsidize this with tax dollars. This Tesla roadster, as it sits, is not practical. If it were, it would not need subsidy. Of course, that is the story for a LOT of "green" projects.

Electric cars are just a niche car for at least next 10-20 years...mostly for rich who want to feel good.

" Since deliveries began in December 2010, General Motors has sold 3,498 Volts through August 2011. "

Those arent very good numbers and any other name brand car with them would be dumped. They sold 4 times as many Edsels in the same time period. Tesla is a relatively small manufacturer and can prob sell every one they can produce even though they cost 2 times as much as a Volt. The 150 mile range claimed is getting close to what Id want personally. I know the Volt claims 50 miles, but in reality with extras like lights and heat/ac, theyre really only good for less than 20 miles from what Ive seen. Theyre out of the price range of what 90% of people can afford. The cost of the car doesnt include the up to $2000 it costs to install the charging jack in your home. According to GM, it requires a 30 amp, dedicated 240 v outlet. My whole house and shop only has 50 amp service. For me, the electric company would have to come install a complete new line and box. Whats that cost....a few more grand ? At least the Tesla plugs into a regular 110 v outlet....$0 cost.

The electric cars today are not what we will see in the future. Nano technology offers hope that both batteries and solar cells can make giant leaps forward. I don't believe in "flying cars" etc. Like in popular mechanics, but the "model T" didn't turn into a GT40 overnight. These things take time and technology will dictate what direction they will go.

it will never work until some much denser batteries are created
you just cannot beat the concentration of power found in fossil fuels. yes, we all know they are limited in supply, and take longer to create than the time man has walked the earth - the fact is - they are here - now. I can only hope "this most advanced being" to walk the earth can make use of what is available, and at the same time, actually create a path for the future. tho, I expect greed & folly will in fact exhaust the limited supply, while NOT having a path for the future.....capitalism thrives on emergencies.....any disaster is a good distaster.....

quote Originally posted by dratts: The electric cars today are not what we will see in the future. Nano technology offers hope that both batteries and solar cells can make giant leaps forward. I don't believe in "flying cars" etc. Like in popular mechanics, but the "model T" didn't turn into a GT40 overnight. These things take time and technology will dictate what direction they will go.

Well, those 'flyin cars' were all but promised to be in everyone's "garage"--right around the corner timeline wise. That was in 1955.

I am not ready to assume that battery powered electric cars are the wave of the future. A lot has to happen before they are affordable enough to be worthwhile, and then to be accepted by the mass public. .

First, you need a super battery. A battery that holds a LOT of charge in ALL weather conditions. In Buffalo, any of these all electric cars currently on the market will have hardly any range on a 0 degree snowy winter day. The cold saps the battery, and what is left gets pumped into heating and defrosting elements that burn a lot of energy. Next, that battery has to reliably hold a lot of charge to offer sufficient range. They must offer longevity (which is currently being achieved by utilizing a small portion of the batteries power). Finally, they must charge quickly, and be cost effective to charge.

Next, you need a revision to power production and the power grid. Getting off of fossil fuels for electrics works best if your not burning fossil fuels to create electricity. More nuclear is the only short term way to do that. Yet, building more nuclear will now be more difficult than ever after the disaster in Japan. To move that power, and get it cars in driveways, you need a national revision and rebuilding of the power grid, and homeowners are going to have to need revisions to their home power to get the needed 90 amp circuits for relatively quick charging. Charging stations for fast charges will have to go up nationwide.

It all could happen, but it is a lot with a lot of what if's. Another known (hydrogen) or unknown technology could step in to fill the void too.

Electrics are interesting and offer some exciting possibilities. I wouldn't bet the farm on them, and question the need for government subsidy to make and sell them in a time of governmental fiscal crisis.

What they need to do is shrink a nuclear reactor down to a suitcase size.
When not in use they could be plugged into your home and power your home since you can't really stop the reaction...might as well take advantage of it...