Seeking Alpha

Department of Energy plans to offer $4B in loan aid for renewable energy

From other sites
Comments (52)
  • Keith_69
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Ok, who posts this ? For EV vehicles you only list $TSLA ? Correct me if I'm wrong But Nissan and GM also have EV cars. The love for tulips never cease to amaze me.
    16 Apr 2014, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • jdl51
    , contributor
    Comments (252) | Send Message
     
    BMW is increasing their production of EV cars to meet demand as well, and Mercedes and VW will have their own versions out by next year.
    16 Apr 2014, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • Tri Duong
    , contributor
    Comments (1503) | Send Message
     
    Nissan already got their loans from the US government to build the battery factory.

     

    GM's already received a ton of money for the Volt, which is not even a full EV. Its electric range is 36mi and its mpg in hybrid form is 36mpg.

     

    This is a loan and the most likely candidate is probably Tesla. This is due to their huge upcoming Gigafactory + solar project and low cash on hand. Ford or Nissan wouldn't even need a loan anymore. They have cash and profitable.
    16 Apr 2014, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
     
    We'll see how Ford does....Nissan is already a rock star in this space...they own the entry level all electric vehicle class.

     

    This is great news for consumers...although we're gonna have to abandon the Northeast once oil prices hit north of 200 bucks a barrel and natural gas heads back up to 15 bucks.
    16 Apr 2014, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @omarbradley

     

    Actually Nissan part own the entry level space. About 26% of Nissans sales by value is owned by the $7500 tax incentive.

     

    The problem for Nissan is two fold in this regard. Anyone on a low enough income to be happy with a Leaf is unlikely to pay enough tax to benefit from the full $7500 deduction. Those that do, well they can afford something a whole lot less like a Nissan Versa Note.

     

    Secondly that $7500 enabler is for the first 200K units. Unless that rebate is extended, what on Earth is Nissan going to do when its electric Versa Note that already costs double the ICE version jumps by the value of another half a Versa Note?

     

    Third problem - Tesla launching reservations for something competitive with a BMW 328i at the same unsubsidised price point as the unsubsidised electric Versa Note.

     

    I wish Nissan well in improving its value for money proposition but the idea of Nissan owning anything in the EV space is pretty questionable and temporary at best in the absence of a miracle on their part.
    16 Apr 2014, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2071) | Send Message
     
    Great comment, Keith....SA is responsible for these so-called breaking news and they're often either biased or lacking in clarity.
    16 Apr 2014, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • aholzer
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    No, TSLA solely belongs because it wholly relies on electricity and the future ubiquity of charging infrastructure and green sensibility chique. TSLA is the notable public auto name that most clearly benefits from this program. For the other gas oriented companies, the electric auto segment barely moves the EPS dial.
    16 Apr 2014, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • Keith_69
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Shenanigans ! Anyone putting out EV's should get this. How else do they get convinced to transition to less ICE. and make no mistake all electric is not carbon free based upon where you get your electricity.
    And TSLA barely moves the dial compared to the amount of EV's sold by ICE companies. If you believe otherwise, you're only fooling yourself.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    "TSLA barely moves the dial compared to the amount of EV's sold by ICE companies"

     

    Well consider me fooled. Pretty sure Tesla is now leading by value and by the kWh on the roads and the pace of acceleration dwarfs so called competition that with the exception of Nissan is retreating into FFCV hoaxware in a vain attempt to bat Tesla off encroaching disastrously on mainstream ICE sales.

     

    Back in reality, this initiative is aimed a grid storage for renewable energy. Seems like a certain Gigafactory might have a shot at it if so desired.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    Back on March 6, 2014 I named a few entities whom I believe were not going to allow Tesla to die, such as Panasonic, Samsung, Lithium Mining Companies. This was an incomplete list because I knew in my heart of hearts, even China or the Federal govt. will get into the action of financing the Gigafatory if there were no takers. It also seems the timing for the Federal government's offer corresponds conveniently with Tesla's plan of partnership's solicitation.

     

    This Gigafactory will be fully financed and built and on time. Let there be no doubt about it.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2071) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely spot-on, Keith....you don't get electricity for EVs without power supply to charge them and these power generation utilities run on carbon-fuels, whether clean or unclean, unless we're talking about nuclear-powered electricity. Even the humongous batteries to run the EVs are manufactured with carbon-fueled electricity, which also presents disposal and pollution problems. Nobody can get away with carbon pollution, unless with nuclear power, which also entails waste disposal problems. Nothing is actually entirely environmentally-clean. It's all a matter of convenience and taste, what we use or how we advance ourselves.
    16 Apr 2014, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • Keith_69
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    OMG. Really, convince yourself there are more Telsa Model S on the road then Nissan leaf's or Volts ? Seriously ? Oh no wait you said 'value and kWh" _vs_ ACTUAL PHYSICAL CARS SOLD and TAGGED. Like giving medicine to the dead.
    16 Apr 2014, 05:14 PM Reply Like
  • nwdiver
    , contributor
    Comments (403) | Send Message
     
    "you don't get electricity for EVs without power supply to charge them and these power generation utilities run on carbon-fuels"

     

    R...R...rea....REALLY? Do trolls not even bother reading the title line anymore?
    16 Apr 2014, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2071) | Send Message
     
    nwdiver.....I don't understand what you're trying to ridicule me about. I will not take offence for now but I would appreciate it if you can kindly make yourself clear. I'm an old man and not accustomed to slim and rudeness. However, you might want to ponder over what I said because most people only look at the end result but fail to see the damage that was done in getting there. Batteries must get charged and re-charged. The electricity used are generated with carbon-fuels, so there's no such thing as really and truly clean energy, even for solar power or bio-energy, but there's such a thing as renewable energy. Make your point if you must but please don't indulge in snide remarks (which ignorant and cowardly people often do) or try to make yourself look cool with insults and disgusting displays, which only serve to demean yourself. Those who agree with you are similarly short on courage and good manners.
    17 Apr 2014, 07:49 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @benitus

     

    More respectfully, the wisdom you offer regards the carbon source of all energy is becoming an old paradigm. There is already tremendously more renewable energy entering the grid than the entire solar and EV production industry is consuming as well as the total amount of EV consumption from the grid. The pace of renewable installation is also far outpacing EV consumption with both trends accelerating hard. We are fast approaching a juncture where solar and EVs both offer better value for money than polluting energy sources/uses. The same economic juncture is approaching for distributed grid storage.

     

    Clearly oil and gas replacement technology stocks perform better as a whole than oil and gas. There can be no rational argument besides capital gains tax that would dissuade an investor from moving his money out of oil and gas and into renewables. With price parity and beyond, there can be no reason to prefer the consumption of oil and gas either in energy production or in transport.

     

    We are at or approaching the point where arguing for oil, gas and ICE/FCV is literally arguing for wanton pollution without so much as an economic justification. Nobody is suggesting that transformation of the energy economy will be instant. It should however go much faster than the creation of the oil economy - the majority of the hardware involved being much less than 50 years old. There is no incentive for delay for the vast majority of the human race and plenty of incentive to get on with it as rapidly as possible - including the economic incentive. I think the best thing that could possibly happen is for governments to permit the deferral of capital gains tax on liquidating oil and gas stocks to the liquidation of subsequently purchased renewables stocks. That would put $trillions into the service of transformation without concerns for the wealth transfer of any except managers of big oil who can just as well take a job in the renewables sector.

     

    It will of course take longer to change hearts than minds on the subject. We have had decades of being told that we are dependent on oil. We have been sold that line by the people selling oil. It is even more pervasive than the message that adult humans require cow milk for calcium to strengthen teeth and bones - a line sold by the producers of cow milk to the ruin of the health of tens of millions of US and European citizens. It is really hard to get to grips with something we know to be true turning out to have been a lie all along. Literally my parents would rather die of the classic health complications of milk consumption than to give up their right to a morning of breakfast cereal smothered in milk as part of a 'balanced diet', and die of it they will. Conversely, there can be no doubt that the younger generation has lost patience with being subjected to the twisting and turning of the oil and gas industries in the effort to perpetuate fossil fuel dependency - Hydrogen FCVs being the latest ruse on the list. The impatience of the young is highly indicative of the directions markets will take.

     

    The Tesla Model S is a game changer because it is the first EV that is viewed by its customers as better value for money than a relative handful of alternatives at the high end of the ICE market. For example, as a serial purchaser of the BMW 7 series, I for one will prefer to spend the same money on a Model S than another BMW 7 series when the time comes to replace my current car. As far as my personal choices are concerned, the ICE has had its day and has passed its sell by date. The forthcoming $35K vehicle from Tesla will present a similar choice vs half of the new cars in the market, and if the Model S is anything to go by, the effect will reach to competing with vehicles of half the price.
    17 Apr 2014, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (1592) | Send Message
     
    @Ford,

     

    If history repeats itself, the alleged $35K Tesla will quickly be >$50K.

     

    And, while I am not a FCV fan (current cost structure is not favorable for mass usage), hydrogen is not only a clean fuel, but also the most abundant element in the universe. If we are going to spend $$ on any development, it should be on how to make this green technology more affordable (to benefit all, not just Tesla).

     

    I agree that Model S may be a better choice than a 7 Series!
    17 Apr 2014, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    "hydrogen is not only a clean fuel, but also the most abundant element in the universe"

     

    This is a deeply offensive and intentionally deceptive piece of marketing bunk from what ever source this was derived.

     

    We do not have access to hydrogen clouds out there in the universe, we only realistically have access to hydrogen bonded to the methane molecular constituent of natural gas via one of the most polluting processes ever devised by the hand of man.

     

    No source of hydrogen on earth can compete with it on an economic footing or in terms of abundance. Hydrogen is therefore a de-facto fossil fuel that has no realistic function other than as an assault on efforts to green energy production and transportation and to usurp subsidies intended to accelerate positive change by the very deception contained in your quote. The hope of the proponents of Hydrogen FCVs is to starve the likes of Tesla of sales and block the economics of new EVs from the majors by offering hydrogen most likely for free. (Naturally this is nothing that will be sustainable in any sense of the word - the intention is purely destructive).

     

    Absolutely green energy and transport initiatives should target affordability. There is no point in trying to fight economics. Tesla - case in point, all efforts point to the production of a mass market vehicle that is better value for money than a polluting vehicle. If people like it enough to buy options up to $50K or more then so much the better.

     

    Of crucial importance, all efforts and $$$ aimed at green energy and transportation MUST be actually green. Hydrogen is nothing at all but a slippery slope from green back to fossil fuel dependency. It is a cynical and deliberate cuckoo in the nest whose aim is to halt the threat of renewable and sustainable transportation to the vested interests of the oil gas and auto industries.
    17 Apr 2014, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (1592) | Send Message
     
    @Ford,

     

    "Absolutely green energy and transport initiatives should target affordability."

     

    My point exactly, and justification for the hybrid solution.
    18 Apr 2014, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2071) | Send Message
     
    Dear Ford Perfect, I'm sorry that I was unable to reply to your rather lengthy but impressive argument against the oil and gas industries, etc. I was under the weather of late and couldn't handle the deep thought that is necessary to give you a considered response but I will endeavor to do so now and please forgive me if my reply is found wanting in any regard.

     

    First of all, please note that I'm not a fan of the oil and gas industry and neither am I promoting the use of oil and gas, as opposed to using renewable energy, which I find the technology required to use such renewable energy to be obviously better and more impressive than technologies that rely on oil and gas.

     

    Secondly, I was only cautioning about the need to consider that renewable energy doesn't appear by itself. It must come from somewhere and using something that will convert one form of energy into another. The principle of conservation of energy governs all conversion or transformation of energy, including the destruction of matter to produce energy. Fro example, the use of large banks of batteries must involve the construction and disposal of such energies, as they have a limited life-span, which is the main deterrence to using hybrids or electric vehicles, which involve the use of electricity produced by oil and gas.

     

    I can go on and on with the pros and cons concerning the use of renewable energy or vehicles that uses renewable energy, e.g. solar panels are produced with electricity from oil and gas, including the pollution that goes with such use, so forth and so on, but I won't. Suffice to say that, while renewable energy is indeed ideal and attractive, including the use of vehicles and equipment that runs on renewable energy, we must never forget or ignore the need to reduce the prevailing dependency on electricity produced by oil and gas, or reducing the pollution that comes from using renewable energy. Have a wonderful weekend, my friend. Live long and prosper.
    26 Apr 2014, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1825) | Send Message
     
    The companies to benefit here are FCEL and HYGS: "advanced electric grid technology and storage". Advanced electric grid and storage is what they do. AXPW and other battery manufacturers that do grid storage and frequency regulation will also be helped.
    16 Apr 2014, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @thotdoc

     

    "The companies to benefit here are FCEL and HYGS"

     

    Pffff

     

    Read the fine print dude. This is to reduce carbon emissions, not to promote fracking and steam reforming for H2 feedstock.

     

    The fossil fuel incentive program is entirely separate. Might be able to apply for that with a carbon sequestering project for fuel cell feedstocks.

     

    Please don't fool yourself or others that Fossil Fuel Cells are a carbon reduction technology.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • moreofthesame
    , contributor
    Comments (743) | Send Message
     
    Fossil Fuel cells they are called? I thought it was just Fuel cells... stress is getting the better these days of investors it seems.
    16 Apr 2014, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @moreofthesame

     

    FFC (Fossil Fuel Cells) - definitely.

     

    I think there is a possible case for methane (natural gas) fuel cells in fixed power generation so long as there is sequestration of the resulting CO2 - and a massive clamp down on the emissions and groundwater pollution from gas drilling, fracking and flaring that is currently going unregulated (see Haliburton Loophole).

     

    There is absolutely no case for hydrogen, not in fixed storage and definitely not in vehicles.

     

    The round-trip efficiency losses in the conversion of renewables to hydrogen and back to electricity is ridiculous 25% loss in one direction 50% loss in the other, plus compression and any transport losses. If one wanted to store a lot of renewable energy, pump some water up a hill at 85~90% efficiency and run it back through a generator at 85~90% efficiency.

     

    Nothing to do with hydrogen can compete with the abundance and low cost of fracked Natural Gas as a feedstock for steam reforming = copious CO2 + H2S emissions. Every other suggestion for H2 production for FCVs can only be a Trojan horse for the Nat Gas infiltration of the green energy market. Hence FFCVs to keep it honest.

     

    There is only one market for hydrogen - a market of tree huggers that have been soundly duped by claims that hydrogen is emissions free when only the opposite is the truth. That market is generally educated and has access to Google. The hoax is a ticking time bomb for investors because hoax it is. Just a matter of time for the few remaining tree huggers without internet access to figure it out.

     

    Once the duped tree huggers have left the party there is nothing left for hydrogen. It cannot even compete economically or in terms of efficiency with CNG - and we have infrastructure and vehicles that can burn that stuff already.
    16 Apr 2014, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • gelstretch
    , contributor
    Comments (2091) | Send Message
     
    The private sector should be the source for financial assistance. Social engineering by the government is nothing more than corruption and pandering in its purest form. Tesla just raised $2 Billion just a few days ago... all in convertible bonds. Why is the inefficiency of the government financing relevant whatsoever? It is not needed, and the taxpayers money if better used by the taxpayer.
    16 Apr 2014, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Captain Pike
    , contributor
    Comments (786) | Send Message
     
    You mean like building roads to help the car industry or airports and air traffic control to support the airline industry? Or perhaps you mean the ethanol mandate to help the corn farmers?

     

    If anything the US has fallen down on infrastructure and subsidies compared to other nations and our own history. And what we do now support is usually wrong and inefficient, see the ethanol program. So it's not the concept of Govt. helping industry, it's the brains and (lack of) foresight behind it. The $500 mil loan to Tesla by the BUSH Admin was a good move that is helping the whole country!
    16 Apr 2014, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • tstreet
    , contributor
    Comments (890) | Send Message
     
    The progress made over the last decade in increasing solar panel efficiency and bringing down manufacturing costs has been astounding. It is not likely that this would have been done by solely relying on the private sector. The bleeding edge of technology requires some government assistance. Further, the amount of money spent in this sector is nothing compared to other areas, especially defense. Do you have any idea where the money is going with respect to the defense department? Do you have any idea on how much money is being spent on outright grants that are funding pure speculation and numerous dead ends?
    16 Apr 2014, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • MKBaxley
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    You mean like building roads to help the car industry or airports and air traffic control to support the airline industry?

     

    No. Like cutting taxes and oppressive regulations thereby growing the private sector. Oh, and balancing the budget and paying off debt. That's what is needed.
    16 Apr 2014, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • MKBaxley
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    Do you have any idea where the money is going with respect to the defense department?

     

    Yes. The defense budget is only about 18% or less. Have you visited a military base lately? They keeps the lights off in their buildings, and there is no heat, not even in the hospitals after a certain time of year. Military personnel and once again living on Food stamps, just like the Carter days. Also, the grass is not cut as it should be, or not at all. I visited the Navy base in Charleston, SC with my sister last summer. It is a disgrace how far we have cut the military. How about cutting social programs. They got increases while the elderly and the military are cut to the bone.
    16 Apr 2014, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    If Tesla really needs a loan from the Federal government, they should provide because if they don't Tesla may turn to China. And the Gigafactory and its technology will built in China along with thousands of jobs lost to the Chinese. The Chinese contract may also include a promise of building the Tesla's world factories in China.

     

    The US government will be politically and economically astute in providing Tesla with its need in this country.
    16 Apr 2014, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • nwdiver
    , contributor
    Comments (403) | Send Message
     
    "Social engineering by the government is nothing more than corruption and pandering in its purest form."

     

    You mean like the government funded DARPA project that created the internet you're currently using possible? ... hypocrites... they really are a dime a dozen...
    16 Apr 2014, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • gelstretch
    , contributor
    Comments (2091) | Send Message
     
    nwdiver....

     

    Technology is the creation of human beings..... Just because a governmental "wonk" wanted to finance it, does not mean it would not have been eventually created.

     

    The US Postal serve was created and financed by the US government, but it is an albatross of wasteful spending. Fedex and UPS were created with private sector funding, and innovation, because these two enterprises were needed, as a result of the sloppy administration of the Postal Dept.

     

    If a "need" is evident, then it is the free enterprise system, along with our capital markets that make it happen.... not the government. Typically, the government funds projects that are not needed, and have very little commercial appeal. Just look at all the "silly" experiments that are made on the breeding habits of butterflies and monkeys. Interesting maybe, but certainly the "need" test is not met.
    17 Apr 2014, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • nwdiver
    , contributor
    Comments (403) | Send Message
     
    "Just because a governmental "wonk" wanted to finance it, does not mean it would not have been eventually created."

     

    Yes... I agree that your fantasy world is better than our real one... fantasy always trumps reality.
    18 Apr 2014, 01:13 AM Reply Like
  • Franklin76
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    DOE's Facebook Wall Postings
    - Favorite song: Whitesnake..."Here I go again"
    - Favorite movie line: Holy Grail..."perhaps if we built a large wooden badger"
    - Favorite animal: Unicorns...their pretty."
    - Favorite quote: Nietzsche..."Insanity in individuals is rare, but in Gov. Depts its the rule."

     

    Must be nice to use other peoples money with no accountablibity to drive value.
    16 Apr 2014, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • DAFEI
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    thotdoc beat me to it, but the list is missing a key name in renewable storage: AXPW
    16 Apr 2014, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @DAFEI

     

    "key name in renewable storage: AXPW"

     

    Oh I nearly cried laughing. Wait for Petersen to come out guns blazing for the chance for AXPW to get into taxpayer's pockets (again) - sorry state of Pennsylvania, I am sure it was the thought that counted giving those guys $800K.

     

    Petersen has just finished a lecture on remedial taxation, this ought to be good.

     

    P.S. Anyone know the AXPW PbC cost per kWh yet or is that still a commercial secret that is unavailable to Petersen's sheep?
    16 Apr 2014, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (2408) | Send Message
     
    Oh, are you personally attacking the "Great" John Petersen? Calling his followers "Sheep"?

     

    If this were the hood I would give you the "bump".
    16 Apr 2014, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    We don't need to know how much Axion PbC costs for due diligence purposes because it's really good.

     

    Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

     

    It's just the stock price that is irrationally scraping along the tarmac like a dog tied to the tow hitch of the family SUV following a very distracting picnic.
    16 Apr 2014, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • tommyf115
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    'focusing on advanced electric grid technology and storage'

     

    Don't forget smart-grid companies. SSNI, ELON and ABB/GE.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • 10414841
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Well,,,, EVs are a VERY minor business for both GM and Nissan. And MAJOR for TSLA.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • PairofdiceBird
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    I wonder if this renewable energy loan opportunity will also be addressed with the other anticipated deals and announcements...

     

    Plug Power (PLUG) Confirms Upcoming Conference Call and Investor Conference Schedule

     

    http://on.mktw.net/1hV...
    16 Apr 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • 523546
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Probably because Nissan is a foreign company and the American taxpayer already bailed out GM only to be stuck with faulty ignition switches.
    16 Apr 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • JonasGrumby
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Where's FCEL????
    16 Apr 2014, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • CAMAGOO
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    check out, world.honda.com/fuelce... you'll be grinning from ear to ear!!!!
    16 Apr 2014, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • OneCitizen
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    A nice lifeline for TSLA and maybe others as well.

     

    While moving more towards renewable energy, in many sectors not just transportation is certainly not going to be a painless transition, I believe it is the right path and the sooner governments realize this, the sooner it will make them more competitive economies as well, see the example of some of the Scandinavian countries.

     

    I'm not saying it's ideal but this continued farce of 8 liter V8's and the refusal to adopt smaller more efficient engines for example in private transportation will have to eventually stop, no matter how much GM and other lobby for it.

     

    Right now the US could use much less crude and have less of a hassle sourcing it if only it adopted more efficient transportation long ago.

     

    This photo is simply shameful:
    http://tinyurl.com/o2g...

     

    Ok, no more rambling but I am simply glad and I really hope this time around things will work out better and that soon the splurge will meet it's demise.
    http://tinyurl.com/845...
    http://tinyurl.com/o76...
    16 Apr 2014, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (2408) | Send Message
     
    I know this question will get nowhere, but

     

    when is the vitriol against Tesla Motors going to stop?
    16 Apr 2014, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Keith_69
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Only vitriol when viewed through the euphoria of the longs. A practical look at this company shows it's over valued. But many take the idea that those who say this are actually against the Tesla product line. And they're not. They are against the tide of people believing that they are the end/all be/all of motoring.
    16 Apr 2014, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (1119) | Send Message
     
    surfer,

     

    "when is the vitriol against Tesla Motors going to stop?"

     

    Not for a very long time.

     

    And it will only be replaced by a sullen silence when Big Oil, Big Auto and the assorted haters realize that the future is here right now and they've all missed the (electric) train!
    17 Apr 2014, 03:54 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (2071) | Send Message
     
    Keith....I'm with you again. Tesla is indeed over-valued, IMHO. It's stock was already through the roof before it even produced one car and now, they're beginning to deliver on back-orders, which they're touting to the Chinese, in order to push their sales. They know they need to step up their production to clear the backlog and Elon Musk (did I get his name right?) is unwilling to lend his billions to help Tesla get off the ground, preferring instead to be the first to get into space and hopefully secure the contracts to deliver our astronauts and cargo to the ISS. Now, the Chinese aren't stupid because they're looking for something that will enable them to penetrate markets on the cheap. If he's sticking to selling cars, he doesn't have to travel to China. The Chinese will insist on local production to market the cars. That means transfer of technology and the Chinese will be able to fast-track their own competition to the Tesla.

     

    I've always said, never teach the Chinese how to do things right because they'll do it better than us. They've got the resources and the market, to do things that we can't. Even if they sell only to the rich and powerful, they can easily absorb sales of 100,000 units every year, because govt agencies will take up at least half of that. I seriously hope and pray that Elon Musk won't be tempted to take up the offer because they will sweeten it with all kinds of perks, like free land and even free factory, plus 10-yr tax-free status, etc., since they're only interested in Tesla's technology. Otherwise, we'll lose out to the Chinese again, including exporting jobs to China. If it wasn't for the outsourcing of our country's production to China by greedy corporations, they wouldn't have developed or acquired the capability to launch into outer space. Now, they're talking about going to the moon and building their own space station. May God help us and America from selling more of our future away again.
    17 Apr 2014, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5744) | Send Message
     
    (SPWR) has gone nowhere since September 30 of last year. Is 4B enough to boost the solar industry?
    16 Apr 2014, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • Justin Hohn
    , contributor
    Comments (709) | Send Message
     
    As long as there is public credit and solar cronies with political connections, there's always hope for something to boost this "industry."
    17 Apr 2014, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • moreofthesame
    , contributor
    Comments (743) | Send Message
     
    I look at the building code of Los Angeles and see an absolute nightmare for anybody who would like to make the slightest change to their OWN property while it seems perfectly permissible and ok with society to receive subsidized electricity from some far away powerplant instead of having some solar panels installed to power at least the AC units that purr every day on the roofs of millions of homes, warehouses and office buildings! There should be constant financing for projects that for example cover the freeways with solar panels and use that electricity for public transportation etc. After every 10 years out of a pool of promising projects, the winners should be picked and developed further, the losers should be changed or abandoned. The fact that most buildings in the Los Angeles area use absolutely no solar is insane.
    17 Apr 2014, 02:00 AM Reply Like
  • cactus jack 65
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    GM gets some and maybe use to cover pending lawsuits and will pay back like they did on the last loan
    17 Apr 2014, 11:57 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs