Tesla Motors fully repays $465 million federal loan nine years early

[Skip8282]

Anybody up to speed on hydrogen as a fuel?

I've read about it here and there, but I don't have any depth on the subject.

[sync pulse]

The energy density of liquid hydrogen is around 8 MegaJoules per liter. Gasoline is 34 MegaJoules per liter.  So it would mean that an internal combustion car with a 20 gallon tank of gas would need an 80 gallon tank of liquid hydrogen to have the same range.

The difference is because liquid hydrogen has no carbon in it.

Also, because there are no pools of elemental hydrogen lying around to be exploited, hydrogen would have to be manufactured.  That process is endothermic which means you have to put energy into the process.

[MCWAY]

On the surface it may appear that you have a point. But if we bother to even scratch at the surface a tiny little bit, your point flakes off like a day-old ketchup stain.

First of all, the TRS-80 was actually quite expensive at approximately $3,000 2013 dollars - hardly an everyday purchase for an average American. Computers at the time were affordable, in the sense that a household could afford to buy one, but by no means were they widely so not were they an impulse purchase. Additionally, with the exception of a small run-in with the FCC in connection with interference from the TRS-80 Model I few – if any – regulatory roadblocks stood in the way of Tandy, which is a big difference between them and Tesla.

I didn't say the TRS-80 was a household purchase. You will recall I stated that my grade school had it. Computers were somewhat cheap, back then, for a while. I actually had (briefly) a Commodore Vic 20. But, by the time I got it, the software was all but obsolete and trying to save stuff on a cassette tape was a pain in the behind. The 64s were well into circulation, with the 128s on the way.

The situation isn't different with cell phones: they were also ridiculously expensive for a long time and, indeed, prices of cell phone ownership remained – some might say remains – extremely high even after the price of handsets began dropping once you factor in the cost of the wireless service (without which the phone was useless).

Tesla must spend massive amounts of money to not only develop not only the car but the technology, which it must then spend more money certify (by passing a series of tests mandated by the government) before it can actually put a single vehicle on the road. It may seem simple in principle - some potatoes for the battery, electric motors, a pound of copper for the wire and... TADA! an electric car is born. But it really isn't that simple.

So what is your gripe? That the Tesla costs a lot? Do not forget that the Tesla is targeting a segment of the luxury car market - a segment which their vehicle appears poised to do well in when compared with rivals like Audi, Mercedes Benz and BMW which charge similar amounts for their vehicles and which affluent consumers are, apparently, willing to spend.

Tesla cars costs a lot because almost nobody wants to buy them. If they were actually making any money, a bailout wouldn't have been necessary.  And it appears the only affluent customers who buys those things are trying make more of a political statement than they actually are buying the car for its own sake.

[Straw Man]

I see the sedans all the time, often more than once a day and the sports car quite often too

[Skip8282]

The energy density of liquid hydrogen is around 8 MegaJoules per liter. Gasoline is 34 MegaJoules per liter.  So it would mean that an internal combustion car with a 20 gallon tank of gas would need an 80 gallon tank of liquid hydrogen to have the same range.

The difference is because liquid hydrogen has no carbon in it.

Also, because there are no pools of elemental hydrogen lying around to be exploited, hydrogen would have to be manufactured.  That process is endothermic which means you have to put energy into the process.

So...basically it's not going to happen?

Well, I'm sure Barry will still give them some money, lol.

[sync pulse]

So...basically it's not going to happen?

I didn't say that, but here are some things to consider:

• It could be worthwhile if you use nuclear power (or fusion whenever it is finally made to work) to drive the industrial process to make hydrogen.
• If you burn fossil fuel to make hydrogen...what is the point?  It would be better to direct your attention to designing the best automotive/aviation powerplants that you can to burn the fuel directly.
• It's a cyrogenic material...which can be tricky to handle...and you will be doing it on a large scale.  Not impossible to develop an infrastructure to handle it routinely...but it will be different.
• The tanks will have to be larger for liquid Hydrogen by at least a factor of 4 in order to have the same range per fill.  Sacrifice the trunk space?...Think of the Space Shuttle.

[sync pulse]

Well, I'm sure Barry will still give them some money, lol.

Scientific research almost always pays off in the end...and no you can't always predict how because it is unknown.

[Necrosis]

Scientific research almost always pays off in the end...and no you can't always predict how because it is unknown.

but but .. peppered moths.

[George Whorewell]

I see the sedans all the time, often more than once a day and the sports car quite often too

That seems plausible. Based on your comments, I think there is a strong likelihood you panhandle or work part time at one of the higher end car washes in the greater LA area.   Have you ever cleaned the windshield on a Tesla? Any stories?

[Hugo Chavez]

I didn't say that, but here are some things to consider:

• It could be worthwhile if you use nuclear power (or fusion whenever it is finally made to work) to drive the industrial process to make hydrogen.
• If you burn fossil fuel to make hydrogen...what is the point?  It would be better to direct your attention to designing the best automotive/aviation powerplants that you can to burn the fuel directly.
• It's a cyrogenic material...which can be tricky to handle...and you will be doing it on a large scale.  Not impossible to develop an infrastructure to handle it routinely...but it will be different.
• The tanks will have to be larger for liquid Hydrogen by at least a factor of 4 in order to have the same range per fill.  Sacrifice the trunk space?...Think of the Space Shuttle.

good points but the space shuttle was a bad example lol...

[avxo]

I didn't say the TRS-80 was a household purchase. You will recall I stated that my grade school had it. Computers were somewhat cheap, back then, for a while. I actually had (briefly) a Commodore Vic 20. But, by the time I got it, the software was all but obsolete and trying to save stuff on a cassette tape was a pain in the behind. The 64s were well into circulation, with the 128s on the way.

Ah... those were the days...

Tesla cars costs a lot because almost nobody wants to buy them. If they were actually making any money, a bailout wouldn't have been necessary.  And it appears the only affluent customers who buys those things are trying make more of a political statement than they actually are buying the car for its own sake.

Tesla cars cost about as much money as other cars in that segment when similarly equipped - and what's more impressive is that their cars compare very favorably against the big boys of that segment: Mercedes, BMW and Audi, which is no small feat.

Additionally, just because you may not want to buy them doesn't mean that others don't. Plenty of people are; in fact Tesla recently reported that it was shipping 500 cars per week and new cars would take about two months to be delivered. Also keep in mind that Tesla is not only making a profit but is expanding and will be introducing new models if their presentations at various auto shows are any indication.

And lastly you should get your facts straight so that you don't make a fool of yourself. Tesla never received any bailout money. They did get a low interest loan, but that's quite a different thing. The government decided to make such loans available to businesses - a decision I don't agree with; this was completely unrelated to any bailouts. So Tesla chose to take advantage of that opportunity and I do not blame them. If they needed a credit line and could use this program to get better terms on financing than they could get on the open market, they not only were smart to take advantage of that option but they had a duty to choose it other something else. Again, those were not "bailout" funds. So can you tell us what bailout funds you assert Tesla received?