Josh writes: H/t Paul Homewood on an interesting story in the LA Times about the subsidies Elon Musk receives from the US Government. Well worth a read – if you don’t mind the smell.
Josh writes: H/t Paul Homewood on an interesting story in the LA Times about the subsidies Elon Musk receives from the US Government. Well worth a read – if you don’t mind the smell.
http://doubtingisthinking.blogspot.com.es
This is a great site on the battery scam of Telsa.
Tuesday…Titter? That’s not even a thing.
You should have gone with Tuesday Tee-Hee.
How Tesla got Nevada to give it $1.4B in exchange for a giant battery factory
Note it includes electricity discounts while others pay full fare!
http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/16/how-tesla-got-nevada-to-give-it-1-4b-in-exchange-for-a-giant-battery-factory/
“A recent Fortune story explains, step by step, what went on behind the scenes as various states jockeyed for Tesla’s favor. Ultimately, Nevada won out by giving Tesla a generous package of incentives, including:
20 years without paying sales tax on equipment and construction materials (worth $725.8 million)
10 years of zero property taxes ($349 million)
10 years of discounts on payroll taxes ($29.4 million)
$195 million in tax credits from a program originally meant to benefit filmmakers and insurance companies
$113 million in Nevada state funds committed to building a new four-lane highway from U.S. Route 50 to the Gigafactory location
$8 million in electricity discounts for Tesla
980 acres, paid for by the state, in a desert location east of Reno
A bill to legalize direct car sales in Nevada, a serious point of contention between Tesla and most other states”
Much of this for a car that only the super rich can afford.
Consider for a second that Nevada is the same state that has repeatedly sent Harry Reid to Washington.
Suddenly, throwing $1.4B at Tesla sounds like one of the more prudent things they’ve done.
uh oh josh –
***the liquid in that ottle suggests you know this slang term!
2 June: UK Daily Mail: AAP: Coalition MP breaks ranks on RET (Renewable Energy Target)
Nationals MP Keith Pitt said the draft laws paring back the target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000 would only increase the cost of electricity for those who could least afford it, and slug taxpayers billions of dollars to subsidise private enterprise.
“And come 2020, environmentalists will have little to show for it other than a warm and fuzzy feeling,” he told the lower house on Tuesday.
Another coalition backbencher also voiced concern with the draft laws, saying the target simply won’t work.
Liberal Craig Kelly said the legislation, which requires 20 per cent of Australia’s energy to come from renewables by 2020, would lead the nation backwards in terms of productivity.
He questioned how building 2,000 wind turbines would reduce the impact of climate change.
“It is little different from those in primitive societies that believed that we can change the weather by throwing 2,000 virgins down a volcano,” Mr Kelly said.
The costs of investing in solar panels would outweigh the benefits, he said.
***”The investment will see $9 billion of our nation’s limited and precious resources – excuse the language – simply pissed up against the window.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-3107124/Coalition-MP-breaks-ranks-RET.html
it is not made clear in the following whether Kelly ended up voting for the bill or whether his vote, like Pitt’s, was not counted:
3 June: 9 News Australia: AAP: RET bill passes lower house
Legislation paring back the renewable energy target to a bipartisan 33,000 gigawatt hours has passed the lower house
Nationals MP Keith Pitt broke ranks during debate on the legislation…
However, his vote was not formally counted among those in opposition, with only independents Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie voting against the bill…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/02/ret-bill-passes-lower-house-0
Which of these sources of non-dilutive funding should Musk be turning down, and how should he explain the decision to forgo the funds to his shareholders? You have to play the game with the set of rules that exist.
I am a bit surprised that many here are bagging one of the great entrepreneurs of our time. How much is NASA now saving because of SpaceX carrying payloads to the Space Station? If he had several options to place the solar factory, should he have avoided all states that offered inducements? The mind boggles. Industries of all types get inducements to bring employment to specific states all the time. Yet Musk’s subsidies are tainted, while others are OK?
It is also well established that he has put all his money where his mouth is … once again, something that used to be celebrated in the USA. What happened? The problem would seem to be with legislators if the subsidies are ill-conceived, but you are attacking someone for taking advantage of inducements on offer.
The lynch mob mentality here certainly doesn’t do this web site any favours.
Bulldust</strong>- Try this: Since the advent of the internet, more citizens are aware that the government picks winners and losers in the economy, always and ultimately, by force. Sam makes out like a bandit and Bill, Mary and Alice have less money in their pocket. The money issue is endemic to government at all levels.
Now, we find that the schemes which the government supports the most, are exactly too often made in order to support the government's own agenda of increasing its power over the citizenry.
This article is about Elon Musk, the poster boy for beneficiaries of gov't largesse in regard to the two points I just made. You've made some good points, but chastising the readership for talking about the obvious downsides to Musk's efforts doesn't do you any favors, but does lend credence to your name as being apropos to your remarks.
Pardon mods- I failed to close a tag above… pimf.
LOL the ole Bulldust how apt remark /yawn at ad homs
The point is that the commentators here appear to be increasingly politicised these days. They see green (aka watermelon red) and go batcr@p crazy. I much preferred the site when it was a bit more scientifically oriented and aloof. These kind of posts and the associated commentary detract from the more serious aspects of the site – but that is just my opinion. Obviously it is Anthony’s site and discretion as always, and I respect him immensely.
I am a long-tim reader here, but less and less a commentator, largely for the reasons outlined above.
Elon Musk is clearly both very bright and very successful. How someone who is so successful and so bright can believe in CO2 caused runaway global warming is totally beyond me. It just goes to show that being bright and successful does not guarantee a proper understanding of genuinely reproducible evidence based science. He must know that there has been no warming for 18+ years or more.
There are many bright (and rich/powerful) people who are all aboard the CAGW bandwagon. That they disregard clear evidence which refutes the CAGW meme, while lining their pockets by way of their advocacy, really tells the tale.
No-one with the name “Elon Musk” could ever be taken seriously, however many “achievements” fall into his lap from the generous American tax-payer.
To guard against social faux pas here is a phonetic guide on how to pronounce the writing on the featured bottle of eau de toilette:
Elon Musk
Stench
Parfum de blob
Paris
Should sound like:
Ey – lohn Moose
Stonn – shh
Parr – fumm d’ blow
Pa – ree
Tesla is a diversion.
In the society run by loonies and corrupt loony wooers one has to [focus] their attention on something shiny and useless enough to be approved — while doing something useful, something they would stop immediately if only they could realize, what exactly. But I am talking too much already.
Heh, TANJ. But I harbor similar thoughts to explain EM’s path through the wickets. Mars or Bust.
Ficus = focus.
I didn’t mean water-boarding an innocent plant.
Elon Musk is not the new Steve Jobs. He’s the new Ross Perot.
Eh… I’d put him more on the level of Jerry Wiegert.
Musk does deserve credit for forging ahead to achieve economies of scale in the battery segment, but that is now about to be wasted on all electric vehicles in place of the 10x potential benefit of 200 mpg cars and crossovers that could have been produced with those batteries. The big disconnect between the overly conservative Toyota Prius battery and the Musk all electric battery push is a tragedy.
What economies of scale? If anything, he’s taken advantage of the economies of scale that already existed for laptop cell production, and exploited them for use as a niche automotive battery. Try scaling the energy content of the Panasonic cells up to what would be required for 1,000,000 Nissan Leafs per year (let alone 1,000,000 Model S) and watch what happens to the price of Lithium.
The SpaceX $20 million can’t be counted as Green subsidy.
The LA Times piece counts ALL of the solar subsidies everywhere as being in favor of this one company.
Even Climate Scientists know that’s bad math!
Eh… no matter how one splits one’s ledger, the fact is that bilking the taxpayer should always appear on the bad side.
Is blob now going to replace troll as the go to preference for use by name callers on threads?
John
If you are a business man, and your competitors have a shot at almost $5 billion of free money, are you going to be dumb enough to let them get it? Musk is no Solyndra. Pick your targets better. With SpaceX and Tesla at least we have some things to be a little proud to call American. These things work and they are going to get much, much better. And maybe we’ll get the HyperLoop.
My worry is excellent business leaders like Musk might get used to the easy cash and become dependent on it. I hope he avoids the trap. Obama, et al., can’t stand the idea someone can succeed on their own. Government prefers to pick the winners and losers, and then they have servants instead of entrepreneurs. Mostly, that serves govt purposes better, while it falls well short for us.