Again, if the vehicles is so great, WHY do you have to have the government pay you to buy the vehicle?

If milk is so good why do we have price fixing?

Even Pri started out with a government subsidy - now they are doing so well, even you use them as a cost comparison.

If oil is so great why does the government subsidize the oil business? If coal is so great why does the government subsidize coal? I realize I got a 'subsidy' to buy my vehicle - and why shouldn't I get a tax break, when big oil has for decades? You want a piece of the pie - buy an electric car, or not...

We live in a land where the government does make some decisions to create opportunity for new technology. Since the government has been cutting back on subsidizing research, this is the way they have decided to augment research, with rebates. Here they are, in fact, subsidizing battery technology. Batteries are improving a lot and one of the big drivers is vehicles. Tesla wouldn't be selling nearly 300,000 cars without the rebate, but since it is, it will get to pour money into improving battery technology, something that will filter into many different industries.

Edit - oh, I see you neglected to do the math on the cost of operating my car - I wonder why that is?

You never actually answered the question

I look at the rebates as the governments' contribution to research into electric vehicles/battery technology/clean air. Really no different than people who invest in Wall Street, so they are 'funding' those companies' progress (hardly true, but, whatever), so the government gives them a break with a lower tax rate on capital gains.

I also looked at a CTh at $30,000. I liked the Volt better than the Lexus, and would have chosen the $28k Volt over the $30k hybrid, all things 'even'.

I certainly wasn't going to walk away from the rebates however, that would have been stupid.

Again, I asked first - how about that math for computing the cost of operating my car? We all know you chose one of the highest cost per kilowatt hour locations in the US for your comparison, how about mine?

Yes, let's all pretend that battery tech is new, and also pretend that phones and such don't all ready massively incentivize new batter R&D.

Yep. Let's pretend that only govt funding of a darling car company will get us to unicorn powered bliss. :rolleyes:

So we're trillions in debt and give money to a billionaire who makes $100K daily drivers for the stylishly wealthy. And loses money on every sale.

Makes sense.....if you're a liberal idiot.

Electric rate seems a little off: The Boulder, CO electric rate is $0.1105/kWh

Boulder, CO Electricity Rates | Electricity Local

Not what you were going for, but ..."The performance"... 25 mpg sedans are boring... Based on my one time ride in a P90D in ludicrous mode (or whatever it's called), that's jet fighter acceleration.

I could not care less about the relative costs or subsidies. The Model 3 is interesting to me because it will come with the 2nd engine option and have a fast mode... Taht's if they redo the nose, that thing is uglier than a scooter.

I gave you a link to my rates - Xcel Energy - .026 per kwh - I live near the kingdom of Boulder, I am not foolish enough to actually live in Boulder or Boulder County.

Again, the math?

edit - for some reason the link ends up 'truncating' -http://www.**********.com/business/ci_29262867/xcel-plans-decrease-electric-gas-rates-early-2016 - the ****** need to be replaced with denver post - one word

we are trillions in debt and give hedge fund managers, billionaires and big oil tax breaks.

Makes sense, if you are a conservative pawn.

I still don't get how they make money on these at even $50k. --let alone the base $35k. Even the Model S is rather Spartan at $100k+

Tesla has had one profitable quarter, in 13 years, and that was from selling a bunch of govt manufactured carbon credits.

Governments often use the tax code to modify behavior. You could ask that question of a thousand government tax incentives/give aways. The question is why does the government want investment in electric power technology?

Because much like ethanol, they don't understand the limitations of the technology? I'm fully convinced that congress makes decisions at about a 4th grade level.

The fact is, if a technology is appealing enough to stand on its own merits, there is no tax incentive required. Nobody subsidized the iPhone, because consumers wanted it so bad they were willing to stand in line for hours to have one. It would be interesting to see how that interest in Tesla changes with the removal of the tax incentives. Propping up a business that isn't financially viable with subsidies is a totally different topic altogether, you can easily lump Tesla in with GM and Chrysler to ask why our tax dollars should be supporting automakers.

What is the inherent limitation of electricity? We've made huge strides in learning how to generate and use it in the past 100 years. I don't know of an inherent limit, do you? It's always been limited by the current state of technology. Fossil fuels DO have an inherent limit - it exists in finite amounts.

Not true. Methane, for example is quickly made from decomposing carbon-based plants, animals.

And on battery limitations...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1460219379.jpg


Point being, 'fossil fuels' have massively more energy density than the limited electro-chemical battery. And believe me, Plenty is being done to find ways to build a better battery. (cell phones to satellites --the motivation has existed for decades. Hell, WW2 subs would run on batteries.)

I'll ammend my statement as I wasn't specific enough. The limitation isn't electricity, as an electric motor is much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. The limitation is battery energy density.

Foxy, the average rate for Electricity in Colorado is around 11.6 cents per kWh. You claim to have 2.6 cents per kWh, which isn't low, it is below cost.

Instead of a link, why not post a redacted electric bill.

We've been round and round this again and again. What are the tax breaks given to "Big Oil" ? Sammy and I have debunked this SEVERAL times on this board

I question each and every one of them, including the ones in my own industry - Solar.

I would far prefer a consumption tax and do away with the ten of thousands of tax breaks. But this won't happen because too many legislators make a living generating tax breaks for this group or that group.

All energy exists in finite amounts. There is a finite amount of solar energy that hits the planet.

Back to the original issue, electricity does not travel well beyond a certain distance. Even at the very high voltages, it has significant losses. Distributed generation is best.

Battery storage technology STILL isn't great. It weighs too much. It takes too long to charge. And some of the new technologies are prone to catch fire.

Tesla came out with the "Power Wall". It came in 2 flavors, 7kWh for $3000 and 10kWh for $3500. You had to put down a deposit to get in line for a Powerwall.

Details were skant. Now, the 10kWh is cancelled. The 7 kWh is really 6.4 kWh. And it still doesn't come with any of the equipment needed to make it work.

Tesla generated $250-300M in working capital in these deposits. They are marketing geniuses. But the actual products always seem to fall short.

Currently produced methane isn't a fossil fuel. I don't believe "plenty" is being done to advance electricity storage. I don't believe we've come close to the limits of our ability to generate and store electricity.

I don't think we'll have to worry about the sun running out of energy. We'll be long gone by the time it browns out or whatever.
I am not of the philosophy that if it hasn't been done it can't be done. Engineering challenges are challenges, not insurmountable walls. I still have hope for fusion. It hasn't been done yet. Should we just quit trying?

:rolleyes:

How much time do you want to spend on why hydrogen fusion won't work? 3 words: High Speed Neutrons.

Instead of trying to go for fusion, we could concentrate on making fission smaller, cheaper, faster and safer. And then go for the brass ring: Matter to Energy. With fully developed fission, we have roughly 500-1000 years...

Oh, I thought the Tesla 3 looked familiar...

http://static.cargurus.com/images/si...1600x1200.jpeg

No, but there are companies spending billions of their own R&D dollars on innovating new battery technology because there is significant money to be made. There's no reason why tax dollars and incentives should be thrown at one company with a loser of a business model, it's not as if Tesla is the last hope for battery technology.

it's not as if Tesla is the last hope for battery technology.

Yep. They took existing laptop battery tech and piled it high. Truly nothing pushing battery tech there. And as large as their stack o battery tech is, I'll guess that Apple sells more battery by volume. Clearly Apple needs/deserves some free govt money. Maybe some big rebates for their offerings.

Why are they speculative fools ? They put $1000 down to secure a place in line and it is refundable. The car costs the same as the average new car (crazy!!) ! Very few people ordered 2 (which could be speculation or a big family). And the odds someone else will come out with a nicer electric car than the T3 before the T3 are high (that nose!!) ... Not much of a speculative gamble. They're close to 300K orders - respect ! They put a new market segment under the microscope.

I can see a situation: any commute < 300 miles (should cover a lot of people) where you want a car that, with the optional 2nd motor, can kill 0-60 in 2.6 seconds. I'd like that as a commuter... I can hear and enjoy my flat 6 on week ends only...