Hacker News Reader

Comment by 40acres | Hacker News Reader

Great numbers and congratulations to Tesla. If we as a country are going to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels companies like Tesla will need to lead the way.

Just a side note that Tesla received a ~$500m loan from the US government back in 2009, which was paid back in 2013 (the loan went out to some other automakers for electric vehicle R&D), and I believe the tax break on electric cars are still valid. Tesla is a really nice example of there being a problem that is both in the interest of the public and private sector to solve, and those sectors working together to innovate.

View on HN

The loan was a terrible deal for taxpayers. It enriched early Tesla equity holders -- including foreign Mercedes-- at the public's expense. The govt was taking on huge risk, the loan was vastly bigger than the company's revenues, but taxpayers got no corresponding upside for that risk. A similar loan to Fisker was a $139 million loss for the government.

Government and business aren’t known for considering externalities in their decision making, but it seems noteworthy that the impact of the loan is not a small return, but the survival of a successful electric car and battery company. Would you be alright with providing equivalent money in grants to produce this tech? Because I would argue loans to a business have a better chance of reaching market successfully. Could they have gotten here without that loan? Maybe. Could better terms have been arranged? Possibly. But I think it was a praiseworthy investment nonetheless.

It doesn't seem that _that_ loan was a terrible deal. It was a loan and it was repaid.

The upside to citizens was probably evaluated under different terms - the development of a nascent industry that could pay social dividends over time in the form of jobs, oil security, etc... (whether that's an appropriate function for government is an entirely different concern).

we are basically living Dune until we're off petroleum from Saudi Arabia.

We are off petroleum from Saudi Arabia. The US now is a net petrol exporter thanks to fracking. We have the cheapest oil in the world.

The person you are replying to did not explicitly identify 'we' as referring to the USA. Fossil fuel pollution and climate change is a global problem; the atmosphere knows no national borders. Globally we are still dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil and Tesla is having a global impact in lessening that dependency

Fracking shale oil is a bad investment. Most of the drilling and exploration companies heavily involved in shale oil "tight oil" fracking are suffering financially due to poor estimates of well productivity and longevity. The primary reason for low oil prices in the Permian is due to a lack of pipeline in that region. The US is not actually self-sufficient in regards to crude oil used to refine into gasoline and other fuel products.

So why do we continue to pander to Saudia Arabia politically?

Note: I have a very shallow understanding of the US-SA relationship.

Oil is fungible. We're on oil as long as Saudi Arabia is contributing oil to the global marketplace. Take their oil off the marketplace, watch the price skyrocket.

> We are off petroleum from Saudi Arabia.

Not really; the issue with Saudi oil has mostly not been direct imports US has (both as a net importer and net exporter) for some time gotten more of it's gross imports from other, nearer sources.

The issue for the US with Saudi oil has been global oil prices and the knock-on effects on, well, everything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com