Automotive Blog

The Tesla all electric sports car is actually being built and sold today, although only in California. I'm not quite ready to buy a $109,000 car but I love to see electric cars being developed because I do think they are a necessary part of our future to help reduce our dependence on oil but I digress. The Tesla sports car still has a limited range (claimed 244 miles on a charge) so it would be fine around town but not for long trips. An on-board generator to extend the range like the proposed Chevy Volt would be a big plus. For $109,000 I figure the generator should be included. Of course the big problem with electric cars are the battery packs. The 400 lb battery pack in the Chevy Volt only stores the equivalent energy of 1 gallon of gasoline which weighs less than 8 lbs and takes up a lot less space. So while I don't think the government should be helping to develop specific electric cars of any type I do think they should help fund research into new battery or more broadly electric energy storage technologies.

You have a point but unfortunately in a real world, there are few or not enough volunteers . Rich people are obviously not the volunteers and that's why they are rich. If you have to wait for them to wake up or change heart. Good luck.

I agree that government should not sponsor the development of play toys for the rich; however, a low income Hispanic woman taking the bus to work as a cleaning lady is likely sponsoring nothing. The bottom 50% of earners in the US pay about 3% of the total tax revenues collected and the bottom 25% pay nothing.

Apparently you don't understand the macro-economics of this. Sure, why make the cleaning lady pay for a car she won't afford... but if it were NOT for the "rich" or early adopters, your cleaning lady would NOT be able to afford the cell phone she uses to make cleaning appointments, NOR would she be able to ride the bus... because there would be no bus. NOR would she be able to afford MANY of the things that our free market society affords because of the RICH middle class.

How do you presume, gussosa, that our government provide for our people..?? It works off of tax revenue. The "RICH" pay for everything that goes on in this country, and they do not have any say in it. To reciprocate your arguement...

Why would the RICH want to pay for a bus they will never ride on...? We live in a land where everyone has the opportunity to achieve great things. Case in point, Obama. The "very small" amount of taxes that the "cleaning lady" pays will be her share of the advantages she will reap from funding battery technology... NOT the luxury electric car. I doubt she even pay taxes anyway because most of the cleaning ladies I have interviewed are here illegally. But I digress...

I have a problem with the government getting involved in ANY type of funding program. They are notorious for waste and inefficient use of our money.

To answer the question... yes, we are wasting our money on electric cars right now. In order for them to be of value we need two things:

1 - Better battery technology. ALL the cars on the market today will be obsolete in 5 years, and they really do not offer a good savings ratio over gasoline.

2 - Infrastructure. Wouldn't you think this would be the first thing to put in place..? Again, we put the cart before the horse because we let our government dictate our free market priorities.

Back Off government, and let free market work. Support our businesses by making it fair for them to compete against foreign labor

You are trying to evangelize Saint Paul. I am a market anarchist.

However, your view is a little biased. Many of the things governments do are in fact an expropriation of the lower classes to support the rich. For example, public education (as poor people can barely finish high school and much less college). Others are the other way, like a lot of consumer subsidies and the building of roads (poor people don't buy hybrid cars nor live in suburbs). How much you pay depends on where you live and what you do for living. The government robbery ranges between 50% and 95% of your gross income. Even if you are in the country illegally you pay VAT, pay housing taxes in the rent (it adds to your landlord costs), you suffer inflation (the BIG hidden tax in money printing), etc, etc. If your income is low enough, a 50% of taxes may hurt a lot more than a 95% on the income of Chrysler's CEO. However, it is unfair in both cases.

The fair thing to do would be to pay as you use, but I don't think we will see that happen in our lifetime.

By your comments I guess you are an Objectivist. Try reading some Austrian economics. It will clarify the situation. Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" is a great introduction.

As countryman of great inventor, Engineer Nikola Tesla, I resent that his name is used in this story just because has also made electric car :-((

This car is not by far reconstructed electromobile that Tesla has made as his power source was totally different altogether.

There were no Lithium batteries in 1938, and classic accumulators of his time would require a vagon full of such to power this car from present time.

Therefore, it would be really best if true secret of Tesla car would be rediscovered, because same source of electricity could be used in so many ways and so many places both mobile and flying.

But, having just lived trough >>Great Depression<< which started in 1929, Tesla knew that it is not time for cheap energy, introduction of which would destroy person who has supported him from start, Mr. Westinghouse.

Even now, when World really need energy that is clean and cheap, think what would be consequences for all enterprises and jobs tied to energy production.

Surely, car industry would adapt fast, airoplanes and ships could be adapted, even if airoplanes would have to have propelers instead of jets, but then with severall independently powered motors and without need to take fuel, airoplanes would be safer and would be able to carry more usefull weight or passengers, railway would become obsolete, and perhaps roads also as cars would became small airoplanes or helicopters that would be absolutely safe........

Robotic machines would be possible with unlimited mobility, but then what would people do if robots take over all work that is repetitive and not creative?

That would make value of work cheap, so all products would be cheap, but this would have to change society very drastically as less and less people would need to work, and this is what is happening in car industry presently, where industriall robots produce more cars of better quality and cheaper than humans can with hands, and if it were not for programmed failure and good materials were used, those cars would last century or more, but such thing limit marketing posibility so it is not alowed. Even today highly personalized models of cars are possible, if assembled out of standard internall parts so they could be serviced anywhere, but nobody is doing this.....

But, how much oposition from oil producing countries would met project that totaly eliminate need for gasoline?

Just imagine: every house could have its own device that would supply electricity exactly per demand, and so also all factories, shops, hotels, and so on...

In Tesla time, World surely was not ready.........

We need energy, true, but in case of free energy society would have to be readjusted considerably, and money would probably lost its present meaning....

Are we today ready?

No...

I was very interested to see a new company form that made it a point to cater to everyone's interests:

Governments and their tax revenue

Companies and their gross revenue

Consumers and the expenses they pay to drive a vehicle

Go have a read at http://www.betterplace.com/

Essentially their model for an automotive company is very similar to a cell phone carrier. "Buy the phone...then buy minutes"

...or in this case: You buy the car (for cheap since there's no battery) and buy drive time by essentially renting a charged battery until it's used. Return old battery, pick up a new one (at special stations) and you're back on the road...

I think Agassi's model is interesting, but very difficult to implement. Also, I think his analogy is extremely week. A closer analogy would be that it is like a cell phone for which you have to return to the store where you bought it to make a call. Imagine the phenomenal inconvenience of trying to finding a battery swap station for early adopters. The natural gas infrastructure is far more developed in the US than Betterplace could hope to be anytime soon (there are natural gas buses in many places) but it is effectively impossible for a private citizen to get a natural gas tank filled, with my nearest location, for example, being in downtown Atlanta (15 miles, or an hour away during rush hour). Imagine arriving at a battery station, only to find that all the batteries are on the other side of town. The numbers of battery packs would have to substantially outnumber the cars, and someone has to pay for all those extra battery packs, the most expensive part of an electrical vehicle by far. At absolute minimum, there needs to be one pack on charge and one pack in the vehicle.

Imagine having to return to your cell phone store to swap batteries instead of charging at home, and imagine that your cell phone battery charge duration was just one day. Imagine feeling trapped by a contract the way many (most?) cell phone users do. (Sure, your $200 cell phone is only $49. Just sign up for this two-year, $1200 contract.)

Cell phones sell because they offer a huge advantage in convenience and productivity. We use to have to find a pay phone, stop, find the change, and finally make the call, standing in a freezing cold or blazing hot booth -- what a hassle. We pay a huge premium, many times more than we spent on pay phones, for convenience.

The reverse situation applies to the Betterplace scenario. Now, gassing up is simple, and gas stations are every where. If battery swap stations are not equally "everywhere" swapping will be seen as a huge hassle. Ordinary gas cars, PHEVs and electric vehicles charged at home will be seen as incredibly convenient, by comparison. Agassi's analogy is very nearly perfectly reversed: cell phones offer incredible convenience (compared to the previous tech), swapping batteries offers incredible inconvenience (compared to the previous tech).

The cell phone analogy simply doesn't fly, in my view.

As a developer of an electric car, I can say that the likelihood that the (for example) Aptera battery pack and my battery pack being the same shape and size is very low: we have both struggled to get the most amount of "stuff" into the least amount of space, while keeping the vehicle streamlined (the rounded contours of such a shape not lending themselves to a boxy battery pack). An advantage of lithium poly batteries is that they are thin and flexible, and can fit where others do not, so it would not be unusual to see battery packs distributed around a car, rather than in one monolithic chunk. (This is the norm in electric conversion cars.) This makes Agassi's strategy hard to implement, for many high-efficiency cars now in prototype.

On the other hand, in boxy little city cars, there could be a standardized battery pack perhaps. (That is the situation that prevails in industrial plants with fork trucks: you swap the whole battery pack, and put the old pack on charge.) But then in city cars, charging is less an issue, because you are unlikely to exceed the range of such a vehicle in a day's time, (unless you are using old tech batteries) and plugging in to charge overnight is cheaper and easier.

The Tesla battery pack is 900 lb, so in a battery swapping plan, some heavy equipment would be required to do the work. (The Tesla is a tiny car -- about the size of a Miata, so battery packs for a pickup truck would be far larger.) You'd need either professional attendants or expensive robotic systems. 200 mile packs for a very small car of moderate efficiency are not likely to get appreciably lighter than the Tesla pack (and an Altair Nano pack, with its 10 minute charge capability -- 5 minutes if you've only driven 100 miles -- is actually heavier. An A123 pack would be somewhat lighter, but not dramatically so.)

My MC2 (or many other PHEVs) can be easily configured for several PHEV ranges or as an all-electric. My bet is that a PHEV version with 30 mile range will sell best, because the battery cost will be low, and the small amount of gasoline that would occasionally be used will not seem problematic. The infrastructure already exists for charging such a car while at work, doubling electric range. Many companies allow recharging for free, but metered charging would be easily implemented if electric vehicles become popular enough that a company finds the cost burdensome. A PHEV is a car you can just get in and drive if you forget to charge it. A full electric car requires a larger commitment. (What do you do with a dead electric car ten miles from the battery swap point? How do you get to work, if the power went off overnight? What if you forget to plug in?)

There are a fairly large number of electric car nuts who reject PHEVs, because they think they are tainted by petroleum. However, the mass market will have a more realistic view, I think, in which they see cutting oil use by 90% to be a very good and sufficient thing, if it enables them to have a vehicle in which you don't need to worry about being stuck with a dead battery, but can operate conveniently on cheap electricity most of the time.

Agassi's plan is ambitious and could perhaps be a generally good thing if widely implemented, (and could be very good for the coal and natural gas industries, and would be no worse, in terms of CO2 generated, than the current situation) but getting the infrastructure in place, getting compliant vehicles manufactured, and getting early adopters to accept the inconvenience is quite a challenge. Putting together a good mass transit system and getting people to use it would be simple by comparison... and how far has that progressed in the US? It will be interesting to see how things develop.

I scratched my head when I first heard the cellphone analogy too. I guess they're trying to make it sound simple since you just "top up" like you would with gas but avoid talking about the technicalities involved with not including your own batteries in the initial purchase price.

I think the nail head to be aimed at with any of these EV vs PHEV vs ICE conversations is that NO car can be perfect for every driver in every situation. Big trucks will never be efficient commuters and little one seaters will never be the errand running, soccer-mom-friendly do-it-all-mobile.

I've just started a conversion and, while it is very interesting to learn about and work on, I find myself already thinking about car #2. The "what would I do if money wasn't the issue?" kind of dream project. I think my dream project would be some kind of a mismash of the rqriley XR-3, the Alé, that 200mpg volkswagen, and somehow make it a finely tuned 50/400km (EV/PHEV) cruiser. No wheel spinning, no drag racing but no yawns and falling asleep in the slow lane.

I recognize openly that what I'm currently doing isn't the most efficient, sophisticated or fancy but it should get the job done and work well since my commute is 40km/day. Double that for the "oops, forgot to plug in" problem and add a little margin to run the heater on chilly mornings. tada...the jensen-mobile! Not for sale ladies & gentlemen!

By the way, what kind of a gas/generator system are you putting into your PHEV? I'm looking at roughly a 150-200km range with the lithiums I'm looking at buying but would like to see the logistics of cramming in a smaller traction pack with a small backup gas system but would like to find something that outputs what the motor requires plus a small margin to top up batteries (slowly...but enough to at least give them enough juice to help on the hills or guarantee a limp home if needed). I suppose, mathematically speaking, 40hp will do that easily...now just to find a turbine and permanent magnet generator to suit the bill, if such a combo exists.

Good luck on your PHEV...I'll be waiting patiently for the Frymobile (er....MC^2) to humm quietly out of my garage once it's under $20K!

The solution is simple... use a wet cell (not a lead acid ) but something with a liquid electrolyte and replace the electrolyte like fuel (drain out the flat electrolyte) at same time ... it would work with lead acid but the capacity is lacking, as electrolyte changes as it discharges the service station could then recycle the acid but charging it back up. Problem solved no real change in how you fuel up, and the infrastructure change would be minor ir pumps with acid resistant lining and a electrolyte charge station .. Hell they could even sell extra strength electrolyte (more charge then standard electrolyte)

Before investing significant money into the development of electric cars, one should investigate the history of the electric automobile. According to the Wikipedia entry, electric vehicles actually outsold gasoline-powered vehicles in the early days of automotive history. Why did they lose out to gasoline? A primary reason was the development of suitable roadways outside metropolitan areas, creating a demand for longer range. Of course, one can not forget Henry Ford's contribution of the cheap gasoline-powered vehicle. If one looks at today's lifestyles that require significant travel to and from work on a daily basis, and even further distances to stock the larder, one must question the applicability of this ancient technology to today's world.

Electric automobiles are far from a new technology. It will be some time before batteries are developed (if ever) that can meet today's demands for long range. I salute those who develop their own personal versions, but take umbrage with those who claim this is "new" technology....

If I remember it correctly, some 20 or more years ago I have read article how in IBM Laboratories they made dry batteries from plastic and graphite in form of threads (maybe Carbon Nanotubes?) that could store 1Kwh per cm2........

I guess that accumulator industry would not welcome accumulators that would not have to be replaced long time (if ever) and that would not lose charge when not in use, so they surely buried this invention fast :-((

Same thing happened to many inventions that would extend durability of product, like some legures of Titan and Aluminium that would make excellent caroserie (shells) for cars........ It does not matter that such legures would save countless lives lost in car accidents, make car bulletproof, lower gas spending and so on, all because factory must continue producing so more profit would be earned and people keep their jobs.

I just wonder how they did not grasp implications of introduction of industrial robots in production of cars and other products, as it finally led to same result where less and less workers are needed.......

Really, introducing such things as cheap products or cheap electricity would ask for rethinking whole society functioning, else we are in danger that richest people who rule this world, facing possibility that money can lose any value and they would become equal to others (or even of lower status as they are from old and mostly inbred families, and this brings degeneration) reach for some >>final solution<< to get rid of >>great unwashed majority<< as they sometimes call us.........

Perhaps some would think I am paranoic, but just step aside and look what is happening to our world last 20 years, where AIDS and handfull of other more or less incurable diseases appeared, nearly constant state of war in more and more places, Bank crashes, Wall Street crisis and so on.........

What would happen to World if there would be free energy, and nearly free products of all kinds that nobody would buy since one cannot drive in more than one car at once, nor sit on more than one chair or sleep in more than one bed, and eating more than one lunch would kill people by weight in not so long run? What to do when robots would produce all that is necesary and people need not to do anything?

My friend Man need not do anything, look at every other creature on earth all survive without "work", no man enslaves himself in the quest for better shinny things and we become so inapt in the real world most of us would surely die if the robots stops packaging our favorite foods tomorrow, Just think could you survive 3 or 5 days before wanting ya robot snacks ? I both curse the robot snacks yet crave them for my expanding waist knows not how to hunt such tasty foods. Damn this cruel world...

Why do they need government money if they are getting +100K for the cars? Just sell a few...

I don't understand the statement that the "Rich" pay most of the taxes. I'm retired and my state and federal tax bill hits me hard and then I read where the "Rich" scheme to avoid paying their share and succeed. It seems the best way to get a person to pay the taxes they owe is to appoint them to a political office and they quickly want to settle up. Unh!

Henry Ford built a large, successful company and building automobiles that he could price within the reach of working people. No one seems interested in doing that today. Everyone seems dedicated to building more expensive products with a few more buttons that they can charge a lot more dollars for. I don't think projects such as Tesla should be subsidized. I think right now as we wait for alternative powered vehicles to be perfected, we need to continue to improve what we have.

I would like to see someone produce an automobile that would let you occasionally fit a six-foot long item into it but that would get fifty per cent more gas mileage than the minivans do. In other words, I'm saying someone here in the U.S. should be building a reasonable sized and reasonablely priced station wagon that would deliver 30 mpg. About the only company doing that now is Volkswagen but buying foreign automobiles is not going to fix the American economy.

I am not US citizen, so sorry beforehand if someone would think this don't concern me or something.

To answer this question posted, i would say: no, benefits outweigh limitations, and price could be made affordable, too!

Mr. Ford has succeeded to make affordable cars by starting mass production, and if electromobiles would be mass produced then they would also become affordable.......

Moreover (IMHO), those far factories in big problems should just reprogram their robots to produce electromobiles instead of classic cars, so they would be able to sell their products and US government would not need to bail them out.

Bailout money could be used much more productively in a way that would bring employment, recycle agricultural and other waste products, and even bring profit to investors who would finance it, or to government if it is money from government budget. If money paid in form of taxes would be reused and it multiply and also bring the profit, then taxes could be lowered also.

I have developed financing system that have such effects, and I offered my services if someone could introduce me to Mr. Obama, but so far only results were that everybody disbelieve me....

Same way, if factories that are about to be closed would be given instead in hands of people working there, then surely they would not decide to throw themselves out on the street, debts could be reprogrammed since that way suppliers would get their money even if little later, and workers would do their best to find profitable and necessary product to produce in their factory. Former owners would also be satisfied if they receive 25% of profit that this particular factory would earn, as in other option they get nothing.

In case of electric cars, benefits of their use must outweighs their limitations, and lessened O2 production is benefit by itself, but for this there would be need for cheap, clean and abundant production of electricity. As inventor, I have solutions for this also, so it would be one more reason somebody recommend me or at least connect me to Mr. Obama cabinet. If this happen, I could explain everything to US government experts, and I am sure that they would not forget who gave such ideas that would benefit everybody. Using existing robotized factories and reactivating closed ones, price of my devices would be very affordable, and America could sell them all over the world as everybody needs cheap electricity.

Cheap electricity would not only help in making transportation cheap, but make production of all kinds cheaper, and savings would be made on electricity spent by government offices, hospitals, schools and so on, including each and every citizen.

Interestingly, in spite of my repeated offers, nobody has responded positively, perhaps because results I describe are unbelievable good, so everyone think I have way to earn lot of money by this, which is opposite from truth.......

Well, if nobody is able to recommend me, I guess I would have to try to do it trough US Embassy in my country.........

Hi Jay

Try reading "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It is available in every single library.

It is true that riches pay most of the taxes, measured in money. However, poor people pay more taxes as a share of the income. To poor people it hurts more. However, both things are unjust. You have to pay for what you use, the same price your neighbour pays. The ideal would be to pay a fee to use the park when you take your children there and not paying for every single park in the city whether you use all of them or not even one.

Go ahead and buy the foreign car. When you buy a better foreign product you either have more quality for the same money or the same quality for less money.

Having paid the same (or more, it doesn't matter for the analysis) you increase the total real wealth of your country, the capacity to enjoy life. Most of the money went to a foreign manufacturer, but first think of the freight company, the importer, the retailer, the VW trained mechanics in your country: they all get a share. Now think of the manufacturer. He is going to buy raw materials, pay his employees and pay taxes. To avoid going in loops let's see at the VW employees. They have to buy clothes, food, drinks, electricity, gas, etc. We are probably talking of a VW factory in Mexico because the freight to USA is cheaper there. The production of corn in Mexico is really primitive, compared to USA, so the tortillas they eat are probably made of USAmerican crops. So the money finds it way back to USA, paying for the operation of an activity that USAmericans do better than Germans and Mexicans.

When you make a smart choice and choose the better for you, you are actually helping your country. You help to switch money from activities that are done worse in your country (compared to others) to activities that you do better.

When you choose to buy the pricier local product anyway (either voluntary or forced by your government) you are actually wasting your money. There is a percentage of what you pay for the product that goes to the sewers, when you could have used it to buy something else, or saved it and buy something nicer in the future.

Yes, if You look long term, then You are absolutely right, and yes, things mostly balance out, as it function on principle of supply and demand, but only in ideal case where all other factors that influence price are the same. But even then for short term look, things get pretty bumpy, since inevitably this industry that cannot sell its products has to perish, and that would not go without some death throws. Therefore jobs would be lost when factory is closed, and people that dont get pay would not be able to pay credits they took (so Banks would appropriate houses bought on credit, which in case of too numerous events like this lead to situation like it is at present in America, then Banks would colapse too, but not before milking dry the Insurance companies, and so on) nor they would be able to buy other products from domestic factories, which can broke that factories also, because they live on debt and use other companies money (i.e. Suppliers for materials they use in production, who wait untill goods produced was sold to get their money) and those other companies or factories may use Bank credits to pay for materials they use, so if they perish, Banks perish after them as money of their clients is lost......

That goods which are cheaper, could be cheaper for severall reasons, like government of country subsidizing such product or at least not taxing it if it is exported.

Goods could be sold intentionaly for for very small profit or even for simple production cost, plus of course transportation cost, customs, taxes, etc. After industry that cannot or would not be able to do same is destroyed, then foreign company can set prices it want.

To gain inroad into new market, companies sometime sell goods even under production prices, and it is called >>Dumping<<.

You should also compare wages for same work in Your country and in country of producer. If in one country like India average dayly wages are around 2 US $, and there is need to spend same amount of human work for same type of product, then of course same product from US would be much more costly..........

Car industry is specific (but other industries follow trend) because of extensive use of industriall robots, which are much more productive than humans, need not sleep, dont go to vacations, dont get tired and are much faster and precise. So not only that production price is less if productivity is high (and it is measured as number of product produced at same time period if cost of work per hour remain same) in case of robotic factory, but quality is better since human error is taken out of work, there is less technologicall waste and so on. Given that price of roboticized factory is same in both Japan and US, there is question of price of materials used, but if that would be same and quality, design, fuel consumption would be same, then naturally cars from Japan would be more expensive because of shipping and transport cost, and people would buy US produced cars....... But then still there is one trick that could be used, and it were like this with YUGO cars that were sold in US very cheaply, while in Yougoslavia, country that produced them, buyers paid 5 times greater price than was production cost.

Therefore Mr. Gussosa, You may not do such great help to Your country by buying foreign products. That is reason for Mr. Obama to nudge US people in right direction, and intention is saving workplaces, not only that of car factories but in each and every factory that lose its clients if they lose their jobs, and it goes from there like Domino's fall where one domino toples another, this toples next and so on........

I did not read what Mr. Hazlitt has written, but I am professionall ecconomist and I know repercusions and consequences of one such seemingly right move as buying cheaper product.

I do not say You should not buy better product at same price, or even higher price, as then You can say that one producing something not good enough has to raise its standards of quality or would be left with unsold products on stock. That would bring positive result, specially inside same country. That is called competition. But competition lead to price wars when factory producing less quality product lower price so it can sell its products, and as much as it look also good for buyer, it inevitably break one side or other, and winner could then rise prices as much as it like.

Solution to this problem would be cooperation and specialization for production of various standard parts. If there would be only cars assembled from prefabricated standard parts, then quality would be same, expenses of maintenance and repair less, car would last longer and price would still be affordable because of mass production of every part. If profit would be fixed proportionally to production price, then there would be no price wars, and price would remain same. Those desiring something extra would be able to get designer's model of car, unique and produced on request, or produced in small serial. There could also be difference in prices where higher quality parts or materials are used, so rich would still be able to order super quality cars for extremely high prices. Something akin to Rolls Royce cars, still more quality and produced on demand. Making designer's cars is possible even if uneconomic but if price is paid and profit is earned, who care if there would be less cars produced, demand is dropping anyhow, that is why cars remain unsold..........

Please read my posts more carefully...

Nobody say You should buy worse car for any money, much less more money!

That is case we agree on. But when all other parameters are same, then by buying domestic car You are saving Your own workplace. That is foundation of Obama's plan.

Unfortunately practice of using other companies (suppliers or Banks) money in production, even in marketing of goods is extremely sensitive to any considerable drop in sales volume and breakdown of whole system cannot be prevented nor postponed.

According to news I saw just the other day on national Ecconomy TV forum, US is badly indebted, guess to who - China! Exactly because of practices I described, and particulary selling their products at cost or with just symbolic profit! So who would bleed to death depends mainly on size of country on each side, as smaller country usually cannot do it to bigger one, specially such that has more people who colectively bear expense of Dumping.........

By declaring me to be >>statist<< You ignore all my recommended meaures to get out of bad situation by introducing changes that would keep workplaces and at same time make electric cars affordable and practicall. Some pose problem of infrastructure lack for electric cars, which actually need just power outlet to refill their batteries, and allready there is electricity at every gas station, is that not true? So even if it would be necesary to have spare accumulators in standard form so instead of refilling Your cars own bateries, one would take empty set out and replace it by properly charged one...

Abolishing minimall wages would be equal to reintroduction of slavery (IMHO) since employers would pay just enough for workers to survive......

In my country all politicians over certain age, including President are former Communists that just turned coats, abolished that party from politicall system and formed fractions that adopted >>democratic<< names. Younger ones are most likely their descedants....... They support old and more than half senile ecconomists that are well trained to say what they want to be merited as professionall opinion, but can barely hide their malverzations and search for new ways to take money and property for themself. Recently they unanonimously woted for expropriation of land where some dont want to sell their land to future owner of Golf course, as someone concluded we need at least 60 of such playgrounds built at best parts of country......

I would rather leverage great capital of US that is presently being thrown into ecconomic >>black holes<< to stabilize World ecconomy, as present crisis has also started there and is shaking whole world, up to point where even in my small country politicians send messages how they want to preclude downsizing of wages and pensions by freezing them, and on other hand blatantly tell us how days of cheap energy are past and we must pay world prices for it, which in turn make everything more expensive.......

If I would follow Your suggestion, I would be like fireman squad that instead of quenching fire that is devouring house start explaining benefits of instaling fire alarm. I am retired, and have long tradition of non involvement in politic, so even in unlikely case that I forget my principles, I have no time left to go trough system, even if that system would be truly democratic :-((

Go ahead and build your car.... my company (Quick Charge Corp -- Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) will be glad to supply the Charging Device for your vehicle.

Research is always expensive but Any new product can't be developed without research. I think we should spend money on that. Who knows; it may give a very economic solution in future.

Tatananodlx

No, we are not wasting public money by developing electric cars, even when supporting a specific company (Tesla in this case). We need to fund development, and this company is putting their money where their mouths are. The USA has lost its lead in several technological areas in the past, mostly to Asian companies, because the US Government has not supported American companies while those Asian governments have supported their national companies.

People who complain that the Tesla is too expensive forget the history of the automobile. The first automobiles were also very expensive (in terms of the day's economy) and were first marketed to the rich. Development followed that eventually brought practicality up and the price down. Today, you cannot build an electric car that is cost and functionally competitive with any other available class of car except for the high end sports car market. So Tesla is smart to compete there first.

While I think the idea of government funding of basic research can make sense, the idea of funding a company that has done no basic research, that has no prior experience in the automotive world, and which has demonstrated convincingly that it cannot execute their business plan should not be the target of funding. GM produced a substantially more efficient electric car a decade ago, and Toyota's RAV4 EV was less than half the price of the Tesla, but held a family or a load of stuff from Home Depot.

Although the technology used in the Tesla (from AC Propulsion) is effective, it does not represent any significant leap, with the AC propulsion motor being very very close in efficiency to the GM motor of a decade ago. The Tzero, the Tesla's "mother" showed that an electric sports car can be fast. Nothing about the Tesla batteries is new, and that is the area that begs for improvements. Making a 91% efficient electric motor 92% efficient, will not have any measurable effect at all on the reason that electric cars are so rarely seen: the battery issues. Making a battery pack of 6000 cells does not advance battery technology in any way. Although I am no fan of GM, the Volt at least is supporting new battery technology, with its election to use lithium polymer and build a Michigan plant to produce massive LP cells.

As an electric vehicle developer, I can say that if GM pulls this off (gets the Volt into production and sells it in large quantities), my future battery costs will be lower, because of their efforts. While I think their marketing of the Volt as a full electric car (giving it a 100+ MPGe rating) rather than the PHEV that it is (giving it a 40+ mpg rating) is sleazy, they will have done something good in helping get electric cars to market. The same can be said for BYD, who will soon bring a truly affordable electric car to the US.