Competing technologies to BEV

[bsd]

Tesla competition developments

Julian,

People don't realize that FCVs just transfer emissions to a different part of the cycle. I certainly didn't realize the extent until I read your analyses. We have a double-whammy here in Canada that most hydrogen is produced in Quebec and then shipped across the country. But...

CalDramin

You are overthinking it.

... I completely agree with CalDreamin. You're including a set of strawman arguments or appeals to conspiracy that are unnecessary. These rhetorical sleights of hand are a turn off for some (like me) but also provides ammunition to those seeking to spread FUD to encourage others to dismiss your views.

When I reviewed papers for academic conferences and journals, text like your ridiculous Japanese revenge tirade would have led to the immediate rejection of your paper. It marks you as a loony and calls into question everything else you say.

Consumers demand green sustainable transport that delivers a solution to climate change.

No they don't. Some consumers do, but for many (most) it's secondary to the costs.

If you replace "want" with "need" then I'd agree.

How do you imagine that should be sugar coated so that objections should be taken more seriously?

If you want your text to make a difference, you remove any barriers so that opponents can raise uncertainty or doubt as to its credibility.

The best academic papers, the ones referenced for years, clearly separate their data from analysis, and then separately draw conclusions. It means your data can live on, even when new data is found that repudiates your analysis and conclusions. It means people can disagree with your conclusions but still use your data and analysis. It mean you can point naysayers to to your data and ask for them to provide better numbers with sources.

You had two theses: that there is a conflict of interest, and that FCVs are not the clean-emissions solution portrayed. The conflict of interest is only pertinent to California; it's not something I'd want to forward to the Minister of Industry or the Minister of the Environment. The FCV analysis is pertinent much more broadly.

Edited: removed a line that was harsher than I meant, and moved a but

 

[Pollux]

Hi, @AustinPowers,

I find myself agreeing with the part of your post essentially implying that more evidence is required before asserting that there are Big Oil conspiracies to destroy BEVs. Much that looks like conspiracy can ultimately be traced to individuals and organizations acting in isolation out of pure self-interest. There *are* and *have been* significant corporate conspiracies (e.g., computer memory pricing, computer LCD pricing) but such allegations require significant evidence, usually of a non-mathematical kind, to establish proof.

Having said that, I'd argue that Julian is indeed on a crusade and that's a fine thing. Pursuing big goals usually requires big passion. Julian's arguments look well-reasoned to me, and if his digressions on various actors' motivations were simply shuffled into another thread, the entire discussion here would be pretty straightforward. Either Julian's numbers add up or they don't. Either he has taken into account all the necessary WTW factors or he hasn't. Anyone wanting to argue in favor of the benefits of a hydrogen-based transportation system will have to show flaws either in Julian's assumptions or his calculations. It's good work. That his work is driven by passion is also a wonderful thing to behold. I think his basic arguments will be better spread amongst various parties -- whether it's this forum, CARB, or elsewhere -- by focusing on the fundamental physics of energy transfer and pollution output rather than diving into conspiracy allegations that are much harder to prove and for which many people will demand a very high standard of proof.

In short: crusade -- OK. Argument (or rant, depending on the eye of the beholder) about conspiracy -- better off in a separate thread, and (IMHO) at best not helpful in discussions with regulatory authorities and at worst used by opponents as a way to dismiss the hard-core analysis and the individual behind them.

Thanks,
Alan

+1 Somehow Julian seems like he is on a crusade, sorry to say. Don Quijote comes to mind as well.

P.S. Right now, Julian's my hero, and I bet that's true in whole or in part not only for the many readers of this thread but also for those who are trying to gently nudge him away from the occasional wild remark that injures the overall presentation of his thesis. I am glad for his analysis and just as glad that he's engaging CARB with his results. He's doing the hard work while the rest of us just kibbitz. I find myself forwarding his work to many others... although not the Japanese comparison.

 

[Julian Cox]

Thank you to those above for the constructive intent to improve upon persuasiveness of presentation.

This needs some very careful thought.


The facts as I see it.

Fossil fuels = emissions problem
EVs/renewables = solution to problem

Hydrogen FCVs are most definitely the fossil fuel solution to the solution, and the success case for FCVs is to maintain the problem.

FCVs serious competitive threat with horrible outcomes all round not because it is any good, but because it can be used to blur the boundaries between fossil fuels and the solution to fossil fuels. That is exactly what is being leveraged here and it is working.

 

[The Blue Owl]

Thank you to those above for the constructive intent to improve upon persuasiveness of presentation.

This needs some very careful thought.


The facts as I see it.

Fossil fuels = emissions problem
EVs/renewables = solution to problem

FCVs serious competitive threat with horrible outcomes all round not because it is any good, but because it can be used to blur the boundaries between fossil fuels and the solution to fossil fuels. That is exactly what is being leveraged here and it is working.

I agree with this. It's very thorny, I think, because public perception and behaviour are disproportionately influenced by what people experience at the interface with a product or technology. "Bad stuff" may be happening in order to bring things to market, but when it happens completely out of sight, it just doesn't feel real. It's the same with the Canadian oil sands, industrial meat production, cotton child labour practices, etc. Even if you make people aware of these things, most might become somewhat concerned, but only in the abstract. In practice, the general public always goes with whatever makes immediate economic sense for them, leaving the thorny issues to "the scientists", who are always going to find a fix "eventually".

The key here is that FCV technology allows the inherent dirtiness of the process to be kept out of people's sight. For them, it looks, feels, and smells clean. Look at the tailpipe, it's just water vapour!

It doesn't help that if you type Fuel Cell in Google, all you get is "the future is here and it is green" type of articles. I must say I had no idea that fuel cells were so bad when added all up, until I read your posts (and I think of myself as being relatively well-informed.)

(btw, kudos for responding the way you did to the constructive observations of others.)

 

[AustinPowers]

@bsd: I completely agree with your post.

@Pollux: as I said, I am very much in favor of Julian's goal, but like bsd, CalDreamin etc. I think that he did himself some disservice with the way of his wording and some out of place remarks like the aforementioned Japanese revenge remarks.
Kudos to Julian otoh for his passion and his taking up a stance against what he sees as a threat to real sustainable means of transportation.

 

[Auzie]

Another one bites the dust

The views expressed by Fiat Chrysler CEO may represent the state of Tesla competition in bev space for the next few decades.

Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please don't buy Fiat 500e electric car

"I hope you don't buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000," "I'm honest enough to tell you that."

The gasoline-powered Fiat 500 starts at almost $17,300 including delivery charges, while the 500e starts at $32,650 before federal tax credits. Consumers are not willing to pay a price that covers Fiat's costs so it loses money on the 500e.

"I will sell the (minimum) of what I need to sell and not one more," Marchionne said of the 500e.

Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and received a U.S taxpayer-funded bailout. Italy's Fiat took over the U.S. automaker at the time and completed the buyout earlier this year.

"If we just build those vehicles, we'll be back asking ... in Washington for a second bailout because we'll be bankrupt," Marchionne said of electric cars.

The state of California's zero-emission vehicle mandates and federal fuel efficiency requirements for 2025 were pushing the need for electric cars, but Marchionne said he would prefer the U.S. Department of Energy simply set targets and let the automakers achieve them in their own way. Marchionne said for the company in 2025 to maintain the same type of U.S. sales mix it has now, hybrid vehicles that are powered by both gasoline and electric engines will make up more than half if not close to three-quarters of sales.

 

[Auzie]

Sorry this isn't working for me any more, we need to separate, but plse stay in touch

Toyota wants to keep R&D ties with Tesla

"Tesla has quite a clear business strategy for developing a better battery," said Osamu Nagata, president and CEO of Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America. "[Automakers] as well as suppliers need to work on developing better batteries."

He made the comments to journalists before he was scheduled to receive an annual leadership award on Thursday from the Society of Automotive Engineers Foundation.

Jim Lentz, CEO of Toyota’s North American region, said Toyota sees battery-electric vehicles as viable only in select circumstances such as shorter distances -- from the office to the train, or home to the train -- as well as for use on large corporate campuses.

Lentz said Toyota believes there are better alternatives, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and eventually, fuel cells, for long-range travel needs.

 

[Auzie]

Way to go


Ford's CMO on Tesla:

Way to go. There’s a lot to appreciate. All of us in the car business want everyone to love the driving experience. The experimentation on the distribution model, how they sell and service the products—it’s fantastic. For us as an industry, electrification of the powertrain is one of the most fundamental changes, along with the mobile economy. We’re all experimenting. Last month we sold 3,500 plug-ins. Not battery-electrics or hybrids, but plug-ins. We’re about 35 percent of the U.S. market. That’s exciting.

 

[ggies07]

Good for Ford. But I think this thread needs a title change because it seems there will be no competition for years. Hahaha. Nissan is the closet thing and until they get there 2nd generation LEAF out they are not in the same league as Tesla.

 

[rcc]

Thank you to those above for the constructive intent to improve upon persuasiveness of presentation.

This needs some very careful thought.


The facts as I see it.

Fossil fuels = emissions problem
EVs/renewables = solution to problem

Hydrogen FCVs are most definitely the fossil fuel solution to the solution, and the success case for FCVs is to maintain the problem.

FCVs serious competitive threat with horrible outcomes all round not because it is any good, but because it can be used to blur the boundaries between fossil fuels and the solution to fossil fuels. That is exactly what is being leveraged here and it is working.

If you start out branding the FCV backers as liars, you lose a huge amount of credibility and look like a raving lunatic. Especially since it's likely that your wrong. Most people who "lie" about stuff like this do so unintentionally. It's like the old joke about the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman: the used car salesman knows he's lying.

So here's the facts as I see it:

- EV/renewables = solution to the problem if and only if long-range travel with EVs is practical.
- That means >200 mile range. 100 mile range EVs require building too many fast-chargers and require drivers to take too many breaks when travelling to be appealing.
- That also means that the someone needs to build enough EV high-speed charging infrastructure for long-range travel for it to hit critical mass.
- To guarantee success, the EV company needs to be able to fund building the high-speed charging infrastructure itself.
- Auto companies (and for that matter, most people) don't think like this so they don't believe EVs are a practical solution.
- If it weren't for Tesla, the only EVs on the road would be short-ranged city-car EVs which are useless as a mass-market replacements for fossil-fuel cars.

- Ergo, if it weren't for Tesla, you could make the same argument about EVs that you're making against FCVs - that EV backers are liars and frauds and that all the money being poured into EVs was a total waste.

Yet we have Tesla today and Tesla is demonstrating that EVs can be a practical replacement a fossil fuel car.

It's remotely possible that investment in FCV technology could make FCVs a better proposition just as investment in EVs and improvement in battery technology is making EVs a practical solution. If the government hadn't been willing to loan money to EV companies, Tesla would have died before the Model S made it to market.

So my suggestion is you separate out the practicality and appeal of EV and FCVs into two separate issues. You can possibly convince someone that FCVs don't make sense given today's tech. You can possibly convince someone that EVs do make sense. Your odds of convincing the same person at the same time that both are true is very low.

And when bashing FCV's, as the previous poster suggested, put your data into one place, put your analysis in a second place and leave off speculating about motivations because when you do that, you are likely to lose any and all credibility that your data and your analysis may have gained you.

And FWIW, while not a researcher today, I was trained as an academic researcher and long ago was on the Program Committee (the people who pick the papers that get selected) of one of the top conferences in my area of research.

 

[qwk]

If you start out branding the FCV backers as liars, you lose a huge amount of credibility and look like a raving lunatic. Especially since it's likely that your wrong. Most people who "lie" about stuff like this do so unintentionally. It's like the old joke about the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman: the used car salesman knows he's lying.

So here's the facts as I see it:

- EV/renewables = solution to the problem if and only if long-range travel with EVs is practical.
- That means >200 mile range. 100 mile range EVs require building too many fast-chargers and require drivers to take too many breaks when travelling to be appealing.
- That also means that the someone needs to build enough EV high-speed charging infrastructure for long-range travel for it to hit critical mass.
- To guarantee success, the EV company needs to be able to fund building the high-speed charging infrastructure itself.
- Auto companies (and for that matter, most people) don't think like this so they don't believe EVs are a practical solution.
- If it weren't for Tesla, the only EVs on the road would be short-ranged city-car EVs which are useless as a mass-market replacements for fossil-fuel cars.

- Ergo, if it weren't for Tesla, you could make the same argument about EVs that you're making against FCVs - that EV backers are liars and frauds and that all the money being poured into EVs was a total waste.

Yet we have Tesla today and Tesla is demonstrating that EVs can be a practical replacement a fossil fuel car.

It's remotely possible that investment in FCV technology could make FCVs a better proposition just as investment in EVs and improvement in battery technology is making EVs a practical solution. If the government hadn't been willing to loan money to EV companies, Tesla would have died before the Model S made it to market.

So my suggestion is you separate out the practicality and appeal of EV and FCVs into two separate issues. You can possibly convince someone that FCVs don't make sense given today's tech. You can possibly convince someone that EVs do make sense. Your odds of convincing the same person at the same time that both are true is very low.

And when bashing FCV's, as the previous poster suggested, put your data into one place, put your analysis in a second place and leave off speculating about motivations because when you do that, you are likely to lose any and all credibility that your data and your analysis may have gained you.

And FWIW, while not a researcher today, I was trained as an academic researcher and long ago was on the Program Committee (the people who pick the papers that get selected) of one of the top conferences in my area of research.

A simple physics course will tell one that your comparison is silly. We use batteries in everyday life without having to worry about leveling a small town when something goes wrong. Hydrogen accidents are a different story. Have you ever seen a propane tank explode? Well, that is childs play compared to hydrogen.

 

[RobStark]

It's remotely possible that investment in FCV technology could make FCVs a better proposition just as investment in EVs and improvement in battery technology is making EVs a practical solution.

Sure investing billions of dollars can lower the cost of FCEVs but basic science literacy tells you that they will never be more cost effective than ICE or BEV nor a better technology from a green perspective. GM,Toyota,Honda, Daimler,BMW et al results after investing billions over the past three decades demonstrate this.

FCEV are always 15-20 years in the future of becoming practical.

If the government hadn't been willing to loan money to EV companies, Tesla would have died before the Model S made it to market.

According to Elon Musk this is a lie. Daimler money saved Tesla from bankruptcy in 2008. Department of Energy money quickened the production of Model S. It is possible even likely without Daimler investment that Tesla's financials would be too weak for the DoE to make loans to Tesla.

 

[Julian Cox]

If you start out branding the FCV backers as liars, you lose a huge amount of credibility and look like a raving lunatic. Especially since it's likely that your wrong. Most people who "lie" about stuff like this do so unintentionally. It's like the old joke about the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman: the used car salesman knows he's lying.

So here's the facts as I see it:

- EV/renewables = solution to the problem if and only if long-range travel with EVs is practical.
- That means >200 mile range. 100 mile range EVs require building too many fast-chargers and require drivers to take too many breaks when travelling to be appealing.
- That also means that the someone needs to build enough EV high-speed charging infrastructure for long-range travel for it to hit critical mass.
- To guarantee success, the EV company needs to be able to fund building the high-speed charging infrastructure itself.
- Auto companies (and for that matter, most people) don't think like this so they don't believe EVs are a practical solution.
- If it weren't for Tesla, the only EVs on the road would be short-ranged city-car EVs which are useless as a mass-market replacements for fossil-fuel cars.

- Ergo, if it weren't for Tesla, you could make the same argument about EVs that you're making against FCVs - that EV backers are liars and frauds and that all the money being poured into EVs was a total waste.

Yet we have Tesla today and Tesla is demonstrating that EVs can be a practical replacement a fossil fuel car.

It's remotely possible that investment in FCV technology could make FCVs a better proposition just as investment in EVs and improvement in battery technology is making EVs a practical solution. If the government hadn't been willing to loan money to EV companies, Tesla would have died before the Model S made it to market.

So my suggestion is you separate out the practicality and appeal of EV and FCVs into two separate issues. You can possibly convince someone that FCVs don't make sense given today's tech. You can possibly convince someone that EVs do make sense. Your odds of convincing the same person at the same time that both are true is very low.

And when bashing FCV's, as the previous poster suggested, put your data into one place, put your analysis in a second place and leave off speculating about motivations because when you do that, you are likely to lose any and all credibility that your data and your analysis may have gained you.

And FWIW, while not a researcher today, I was trained as an academic researcher and long ago was on the Program Committee (the people who pick the papers that get selected) of one of the top conferences in my area of research.

I cannot be bothered to trawl through the flaws in this rant.

Suffice to say, you lost all credibility with me. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dan5]

I think if we really want to get at the crux of the FCV vs EV arguement; the ZEV credits must be analyzed.

For starters the question comes up as to why fuel cells get 9 credits vs EVs getting a maximum of 7.

Secondly the entire purpose of the ZEV credit is for lower emissions correct and to remove ourselves from multiple sources of tailpipe emisisons.

Fairly recently the CARB board decreased the ZEV credits for Tesla from 7 to 4 I believe and if they want to get the full 7 retroactively they have to document how often the quick swap stations are used.

That is fine and dandy. The car is capable of it, but if no one uses it is kind of pointless.

Now we get the the FCV vehicles. Why would you give them 9 credits vs an EV getting 7 credits?

Secondly; Since Tesla has to "jump through hoops" so to speak with regards to the quick swap charging stations and document how often they are used I think it would be completely fair and balanced to also ask the FCV backers to track where the hydrogen is coming from (NG steam reforming) or electrolysis.

Since Tesla got knocked down to 4 despite the technology being present, but not utilized, the same standard should be held when it comes to hydrogen vehicles. They should get 3 CARB credits until they can show that the hydrogen is completely coming from renewable sources to make the hydrogen. Sounds fair and logical right?

 

[PonoBill]

A simple physics course will tell one that your comparison is silly. We use batteries in everyday life without having to worry about leveling a small town when something goes wrong. Hydrogen accidents are a different story. Have you ever seen a propane tank explode? Well, that is childs play compared to hydrogen.

I don't quite get why this is such a heated issue. RCC's comments seem cogent and reasonable. FCV is a rational technology that may eventually become practical. Hydrogen as a fuel has some promise. It's not really true that hydrogen explosions make propane look like child's play. You need a Stoichiometric mix of hydrogen to oxygen to have an explosion, and that's hard to do by accident. Generally it just burns, or even more frequently just escapes since it's so light a permeates so quickly. The pictures of the Hindenburg burning are commonly flashed around, but Hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible blue flame. The H2 was certainly zooming to the upper atmosphere as soon as the bags punctured. The orange flames must be the shellacked fabric skin.

Anyway, I don't understand the fanboy attitude. I love Lipo batteries. I hope we see the true potential realized--for smartgrids (perhaps more important than EVs), for smartgrids partially composed of EV's, for off-grid solutions not requiring lead. For my recumbent trike and my quadcopters, and my wife's SP85+, but I'd like to see competing technology go as far as it can. The premise seems to be that there can only be one winner, and we've lived with that for the last hundred years. Time to have a lot of eggs in the basket.

Asking why political spoils are distributed unevenly is a waste of perfectly good bytes. It certainly has nothing to do with rationality or logic.

 

[qwk]

I don't quite get why this is such a heated issue. RCC's comments seem cogent and reasonable. FCV is a rational technology that may eventually become practical. Hydrogen as a fuel has some promise. It's not really true that hydrogen explosions make propane look like child's play. You need a Stoichiometric mix of hydrogen to oxygen to have an explosion, and that's hard to do by accident. Generally it just burns, or even more frequently just escapes since it's so light a permeates so quickly. The pictures of the Hindenburg burning are commonly flashed around, but Hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible blue flame. The H2 was certainly zooming to the upper atmosphere as soon as the bags punctured. The orange flames must be the shellacked fabric skin.

Anyway, I don't understand the fanboy attitude. I love Lipo batteries. I hope we see the true potential realized--for smartgrids (perhaps more important than EVs), for smartgrids partially composed of EV's, for off-grid solutions not requiring lead. For my recumbent trike and my quadcopters, and my wife's SP85+, but I'd like to see competing technology go as far as it can. The premise seems to be that there can only be one winner, and we've lived with that for the last hundred years. Time to have a lot of eggs in the basket.

Asking why political spoils are distributed unevenly is a waste of perfectly good bytes. It certainly has nothing to do with rationality or logic.

Hydrogen is not only much less safe that batteries, it takes much more energy to make from renewable sources than charging a battery. This is extremely unlikely to change. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue hydrogen for passenger vehicles. Nobody is being a fanboy here, they simply understand that we are bound by certain physical rules on this planet.

 

[TSLAopt]

Hydrogen is not only much less safe that batteries, it takes much more energy to make from renewable sources than charging a battery. This is extremely unlikely to change. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue hydrogen for passenger vehicles. Nobody is being a fanboy here, they simply understand that we are bound by certain physical rules on this planet.

+1000
people do not like change, there has to be something compelling for them personally to go through a change to FCVs. Tesla provides a compelling electric car product that is superior in many ways to ICE competition in the same price range.
faster, smoother, more convenient, safer, superior technology (I.e. iPad console, 3G connectivity, etc.)

1)WHO is going to produce a "compelling" FCV? One that is superiors for the buyer more than just thinking it's better for the environment

2)In WHAT WAYS will the FCV car be compelling?
smoother ride? Faster acceleration? Better handling? Lower maintenance? safer? more convenient in some way? Better technology?

when you think about the above it is obvious that FCVs are a huge fail for the foreseeable future.

 

[bsd]

I think if we really want to get at the crux of the FCV vs EV arguement; the ZEV credits must be analyzed.

CARB ZEV is an instance of the false BEV/FCV equivalence problem as being played out in California. It's not the crux of the argument, but the distortions does stand to (wrongfully) benefit many.

 

[Julian Cox]

This started life as a thread about competitive developments to Tesla.

Call me a nutcase but I think a combination of most every major car manufacturer lead by the largest (Toyota) and backed to the tune of $billions by a government hell bent on replacing foreign oil with domestic fracking at the expense of renewables, and oceans of dishonest 'FCVs are green' propaganda and misleading 'green' marketing for c75% subsidised frackmobiles rushed to market with free hydrogen to coincide with Tesla's Gen III unveiling...

Looks like a competitive development to me.

If it was not a complete consumer and environmental fraud I would be concerned. The fact that it is makes me very concerned.

BTW, I think FCVs will be the fiasco of the 21st Century and it will hasten the demise of old auto - but I think there is a role to play in ensuring that Tesla suffers the least injustice and as few environmentally concerned consumers are duped and bought as is humanly possible. $billions in public funds misdirected from environmental benefit to hydrogen fuelling infrastructure @ 356g CO2 per mile is wrong.

That is what I think about that.

 

[rcc]

As for long-term competition, I think one of two scenarios will happen:

1) FCVs will be like the LNG vehicles. A few here and there near where governments have paid for fueling stations. I'd guess the odds here are about 98%.
2) FCV tech develops to the point where it might be a viable alternative to fossil fueled cars. Not likely in my opinion because even if the tech develops, the cars won't sell unless the cost of the fueling stations also drops enough that private industry builds out a lot of stations. Alternative cars without alternative fueling infrastructure won't sell.

So I don't see FCV's as a significant threat to Tesla.

I doubt FCV's will have real impact on auto maker finances because no matter what they say now, I don't think the business case will ever make sense for the auto companies. They'll never believe they can make enough money of them. They'll sink money into R&D and maybe put out a model or two but that's pennies to them.

They're talking a good game on FCV's now because they think can eventually make money off FCV's if someone else builds out the fueling infrastructure. Whereas they simply don't understand how they could ever make money selling EVs even though Tesla is clearly doing it. They don't understand that the FCV fueling infrastructure is so expensive that no one will build enough of it to matter.

It's a chicken-and-egg problem. Plenty of companies would build fueling stations if enough cars were on the road. But the cars won't hit the road in large numbers unless the fueling infrastructure looks like it will be there. And the governments won't build enough to make a difference. Tesla gets around this problem because they only need a handful of superchargers to hit critical mass, they're cheap enough that Tesla can afford the build out, and Tesla is demonstrating they will do the buildout.

Put another way, Tesla probably needs fewer superchargers to cover the US than FCV's need fueling stations just to cover the SF Bay Area.

In other words when it comes to FCVs and EVs, I think the auto companies are incompetent, not dishonest.

This is the typical pattern when established companies are confronted with hugely disruptive technologies and business models. They just don't get it. You can literally walk into the executive boardroom, show them precisely how they're going to be disrupted and why and most of them still won't get it. And the few that do won't be able to change their companies fast enough to make a difference because too many of their middle managers and top designers, engineers and architects won't get it.

As a comment on my so-called rant, ok, I take back my comment about the DOT loan making a huge difference. I remember the interview and I'll agree that Tesla probably would have made it without the loan - just would have taken longer.

But if you replace "govt loan" with "govt support", I stand by what I said. Tesla benefited in a major way from government support. ZEV credits in CA. Solo driving in the HOV lane in CA. >$7500 in tax credits ($10K total in CA). It all adds up.