Electric car maker Tesla Motors, in a move that is sure to buoy both the company and the Obama administration, announced Wednesday that it has paid off its entire federal loan.

It is paying off $451.8 million of the remaining loan approved by the Energy Department in 2009 -- with interest.

The loan program has been a major controversy, with Republicans pointing to the failure of solar panel maker Solyndra and likely bankruptcy filing by plug-in hybrid car maker Fisker to make the case that the government embarked on risky "green energy" loans. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cited Tesla, along with Fisker, in bashing President Obama over the loans during the presidential campaign last year.

On his second day as the new Energy Department secretary, Earnest Moniz hailed Tesla's repayment as proof that the loan program is delivering results for taxpayers. So far, losses amount to about 2% of the $34 billion portfolio.

"Today, Tesla employs more than 3,000 American workers and is living proof of the power of American innovation," he says in a statement. "This is another important contribution to what the Obama Administration has done to preserve and promote America's auto industry."

Tesla's move had been anticipated since last week when it took advantage of a soaring stock price to issue more stock shares and make a bond offering. The stock price rose after the company reported that it had earned a profit in the first quarter, the first since its founding.

Tesla makes the all-electric Model S sedan, which has received critical acclaim -- including a 99 out of 100 score from Consumer Reports in its testing and Motor Trend Car of the Year -- but with a starting price of nearly $70,000, remains out of the price reach of most car buyers. Tesla is due to start production of an equally expensive gull-winged SUV, the Model X, later this year.

Tesla, in announcing the payback, said it is the first automaker to fully repay its loan.

Tesla pays off its $451 milllion federal loan (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/22/tesla-loan-energy-department/2351945/)

This isn't going to fit the Republican narrative...

Tesla seems to be a well-run company from everything I've seen.

Model X
http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/images/modelx/falcon_frames/full40.jpg

I'm starting to see a bunch of Tesla's on the road out here in California -- super sharp looking car and very well-reviewed.

Looking forward to seeing their future products.

This isn't going to fit the Republican narrative...

Repubs in North Carolina are trying to pass a bill to make Tesla illegal in NC. I heard Texas too.

They say it's because they sell directly to consumers, not through dealerships, and that selling that way may hurt consumers...

haha... easiest job in America, Fact Checker for Fox News... because they just don't care

Repubs in North Carolina are trying to pass a bill to make Tesla illegal in NC. I heard Texas too.

They say it's because they sell directly to consumers, not through dealerships, and that selling that way may hurt consumers...

Please say you're kidding. Does that mean you can't sell stuff on Craigslist, too? or online? Is it because they will miss out on some state tax on the purchase if not conducted through a dealer? Any idea?

Please say you're kidding. Does that mean you can't sell stuff on Craigslist, too? or online? Is it because they will miss out on some state tax on the purchase if not conducted through a dealer? Any idea?

North Carolina Tesla ban? Bill would prevent "unfair competition" with car dealerships. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_carolina_tesla_ban_bill_would_prevent_unfair _competition_with_car.html)

I wish I were kidding.

North Carolina Tesla ban? Bill would prevent "unfair competition" with car dealerships. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_carolina_tesla_ban_bill_would_prevent_unfair _competition_with_car.html)

I wish I were kidding.

I'm pretty sure this violates the Commerce Clause and is 100% unconstitutional.

kind of funny , cause it seems as though it is a bill against capitalism, which most republicans (*note i'm registered republican) claim to be one of their core platforms to protect

here is what this is all about

A new paradigm for auto sales

According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, 48 states have franchise laws that forbid or restrict the ability of automakers to sell vehicles directly to the public. That's why dealerships tend to be independently owned and operated. Tesla showrooms, on the other hand, are owned by Tesla itself.

However, Tesla says that the majority of its showrooms -- designed by George Blankenship, the man behind Apple's outrageously successful chain of retail shops -- don't actually conduct sales; they simply share information about Tesla vehicles. When it's time to seal the deal, Tesla staff point prospective shoppers to the automaker's website, where they can customize and reserve their vehicle

Other dealers aren't buying it. They insist that even though Tesla's showroom staff don't technically sell vehicles on site, they do everything else that a traditional dealership would do. In short, they argue that by facilitating the sales process, Tesla showrooms are essentially conducting sales.

To date, questions about the legality of Tesla showrooms have arisen in four states: Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon

and the list is growing

here is what this is all about

A new paradigm for auto sales

According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, 48 states have franchise laws that forbid or restrict the ability of automakers to sell vehicles directly to the public. That's why dealerships tend to be independently owned and operated. Tesla showrooms, on the other hand, are owned by Tesla itself.

However, Tesla says that the majority of its showrooms -- designed by George Blankenship, the man behind Apple's outrageously successful chain of retail shops -- don't actually conduct sales; they simply share information about Tesla vehicles. When it's time to seal the deal, Tesla staff point prospective shoppers to the automaker's website, where they can customize and reserve their vehicle

Other dealers aren't buying it. They insist that even though Tesla's showroom staff don't technically sell vehicles on site, they do everything else that a traditional dealership would do. In short, they argue that by facilitating the sales process, Tesla showrooms are essentially conducting sales.

To date, questions about the legality of Tesla showrooms have arisen in four states: Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon

and the list is growing

I heard the story originally from a Tesla employee several years ago WRT Texas and my understanding is as follows... Even if Tesla sold directly from their company showroom in Texas, it would be illegal in Texas. Texas prohibits an automaker from selling directly to the public without an intermediate, independently owned car dealership. Tesla's plans do not include having independent dealers. All stores and showrooms will be owned and operated by Tesla and all sales and service will be directly with Tesla. That's their planned business model worldwide. I don't think a couple of states will make them give that up without a big fight, if at all.

Great company. I expect this will work in their favor in the end. I wish them the best of success.

I heard the story originally from a Tesla employee several years ago WRT Texas and my understanding is as follows... Even if Tesla sold directly from their company showroom in Texas, it would be illegal in Texas. Texas prohibits an automaker from selling directly to the public without an intermediate, independently owned car dealership. Tesla's plans do not include having independent dealers. All stores and showrooms will be owned and operated by Tesla and all sales and service will be directly with Tesla. That's their planned business model worldwide. I don't think a couple of states will make them give that up without a big fight, if at all.

Great company. I expect this will work in their favor in the end. I wish them the best of success.

48 states have versions of that law .. not "a couple"

48 states have versions of that law .. not "a couple"

48 states aren't fighting sales. I can assure you Tesla has sold cars in all markets and most sales haven't been challenged, much less been illegal. Every Tesla gets registered at the state level so it's not like they don't know about it. Only some have been challenged where they have showrooms. When the company is hugely successful but you can't buy their product in some states without jumping though a bunch of hoops of paying some vig to the local powers, I have faith public pressure will override special interest money of the local car dealerships. (Perhaps I should be more cynical about it and about whatever levels of fear and involvement the big automakers have with the issue.)

Teslas are great cars. I've been seeing a few around Edmond and OKC as well. Our neighbor has a roadster and is thinking about getting a model s. Very neat! I'm pretty sure you would have to baby the throttle to get 400 miles though.

This isn't going to fit the Republican narrative...

Very true - I wonder if Palin knows how to hunt crow? She certainly needs to enjoy a crow feast along with Mitt and most other people with (R) after their name.

Read what the large automakers did to Tucker. This is not unexpected. Tesla has Elon Musk though and I think he has the spine and bank account to take them on.

Tesla, in announcing the payback, said it is the first automaker to fully repay its loan.

DOn't know anything about them, and not trying to make this political, but didn't GM take out full page ads declaring they had paid their loan back? Then it cam out that they paid the loan with other loans (IRC, it was with other government loans). Did this company do the same?


with a starting price of nearly $70,000, remains out of the price reach of most car buyers how does that factor into the long term success and survival of the company?

They also have deals to sell drive trains.


Forget what you've heard about delays with the Model X. Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA ) shareholders can expect their company to introduce at least one game-changing vehicle in 2014. Only it'll be Mercedes-Benz that builds the car.

And that's good news, says Tim Beyers of Motley Fool Rule Breakers and Motley Fool Supernova. A small, but growing, portion of Tesla's revenue is derived from creating fully electric drivetrain systems for other car manufacturers, including Mercedes and Toyota Motor (NYSE: TM ) . The Electric Drive looks to be Mercedes' first attempt to make good on its relationship with, and 4.3% equity stake in, Tesla.

Mercedes Introduces Tesla-Powered Car (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/29/mercedes-introduces-tesla-powered-car.aspx)

This thread is an example of how screwed up this country is. Republicans inserting an un-needed middleman in a private transaction, and the OKCTalk left wanting government out of the transaction.

This thread is an example of how screwed up this country is. Republicans inserting an un-needed middleman in a private transaction, and the OKCTalk left wanting government out of the transaction.

haha. yep. my thoughts exactly

Repubs in North Carolina are trying to pass a bill to make Tesla illegal in NC. I heard Texas too.

They say it's because they sell directly to consumers, not through dealerships, and that selling that way may hurt consumers...

The cars would not be illegal though, it is basically trying to force them into doing some sort of dealership arrangement. Seems stupid, and like someone bought a friend in congress.

The cars would not be illegal though, it is basically trying to force them into doing some sort of dealership arrangement. Seems stupid, and like someone bought a friend in congress.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMzYyMzE0NDIwMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzUwMTcxMQ@@._ V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_.jpg

Remember in 2010 when the Treasury Department closed the GM and Chrysler dealerships as part of the auto bailout program and it turned out 96% of the closed dealerships were owned by people who donated to Republicans. It was dismissed as conspiracy talk and 'bad math' back then - but now we know about the IRS.

Even Snopes said it was false.

snopes.com: Steve Rattner - Car Czar (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chrysler.asp)

Maybe the need to re-open their analysis in light of new information regarding the activities in other parts of the federal government.

Remember in 2010 when the Treasury Department closed the GM and Chrysler dealerships as part of the auto bailout program and it turned out 96% of the closed dealerships were owned by people who donated to Republicans. It was dismissed as conspiracy talk and 'bad math' back then - but now we know about the IRS.

Even Snopes said it was false.

snopes.com: Steve Rattner - Car Czar (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chrysler.asp)

Maybe they need to re-open their analysis in light of new information regarding the activities in other parts of the federal government.

Also, didn't Tesla recently hire all those UAW employees?

I am starting to see how the battle lines got drawn.

1) Team Obama closes Republican car dealers
2) Tesla hire UAM employees
3) Tesla by-passes existing republican dealerships
4) Mystery solved.

Review & Outlook: The Other Government Motors - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578499460139237952.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop)

Tesla wouldn't exist without breathtaking levels of government support and subsidies to buyers. In addition to the $465 million federal government guarantee, they received a $10 million grant from the California Energy Commission. U.S. buyers receive $7,500 in federal tax credits, and Colorado buyers receive an additional $6,000 in state income tax credits. A Morgan Stanley report in April said that Tesla made $40.5 million in credits in 2012 and could collect $250 million in 2013. Q1 2013 "emission credit sales" totaled $85 million, and were 15% of the company's revenue (remove the credits and the company lost $53 million in Q1 2013). And these aren't all of them. If you're tempted to dismiss this as a right-leaning editorial in the Wall Street Journal, then read this from the left-leaning Daily Beast: Tesla Goes to War - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/23/tesla-goes-to-war.html)

Bottom line: All taxpayers are paying to underwrite a car costing $60,000+ and sold 9,650 units through April, compared with the Ford F-series pickup which sells without subsidies at an annual rate of 150,000+.

The cars would not be illegal though, it is basically trying to force them into doing some sort of dealership arrangement. Seems stupid, and like someone bought a friend in congress.

That "someone" is called the Autombile Dealers Association. Lobbyists are the bane of responsible government.

Bottom line: All taxpayers are paying to underwrite a car costing $60,000+ and sold 9,650 units through April, compared with the Ford F-series pickup which sells without subsidies at an annual rate of 150,000+.

Ummm..... eh, never mind.

On second thought:

http://www.carsdirect.com/car-pricing/7-basic-requirements-for-a-company-car-tax-deduction


Depreciation Cost Limitations
While you can usually claim up to $250,000 in depreciation costs for general business property and equipment, the depreciation limit for vehicles is much lower. If your small business uses a passenger vehicle in the day-to-day operations of the business, the maximum amount depreciation on your federal income tax return is $2960. If you use a pickup truck, the limit is $3060. This is the limit for depreciation in the first year of service. However, from time to time Congress does authorize bonus depreciation amounts that can also be deducted.

OR this:

http://finance.zacks.com/6000pound-vehicle-tax-deduction-3484.html


Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating between 6,000 lbs. and 14,000 lbs. may qualify for the deduction. If the vehicle is not, by its nature, used for personal reasons, it may qualify for the full deduction, which in 2012 is $139,000. For instance, a multi-passenger van, such as an airport shuttle, would qualify. A pickup with a full-sized cargo bed, capable of holding an item at least six feet in length, may also qualify.

My two objections are: 1) The government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. I'm all for funding technological R&D - we all benefitted from money spent in the early days of the US manned spaceflight program - but not how government has done it in the past generation. 2) This company produces a car that benefits only the wealthy, not the masses - they can afford the sticker price, and benefit from the tax credits. I'd rather see government dollars go into a car that can be more widely-produced, purchased, used, maintained and studied. Those cars can pave the way for others, including luxury vehicles. This went backwards.

So, do these dealership laws prevent ownership in the states? or simply sales? Lets say that I live in Oklahoma (or North Carolina) and want to buy a Tesla. Can I go to California and purchase one and then register it in Oklahoma (or North Carolina)? Is it like buying your Volvo in Sweden and paying an extra fee to register it in CONUS?

So, do these dealership laws prevent ownership in the states? or simply sales? Lets say that I live in Oklahoma (or North Carolina) and want to buy a Tesla. Can I go to California and purchase one and then register it in Oklahoma (or North Carolina)? Is it like buying your Volvo in Sweden and paying an extra fee to register it in CONUS?

That's how you do it but without physically going to California. You buy it on the phone and online. They email you papers. You sign them and send them back. You wire the money from your bank in whatever state to their bank in California. They hire a third party to deliver it to your home. (Or they used to. They might be delivering them in house now.) You register it at your local tag agent.

Yes. You could drive to California and do the same thing but you might have to make two trips. one to seal the deal and one to take physical delivery.

I'm very happy that Tesla is doing as well as they are, and I am a lifelong Republican. I would love for the opportunity to buy an affordable electric car. For years all I heard was that it couldn't be done, up until Tesla did it. They've got up to a 300 mile range right now. In the 9 years I've owned my F-150 that covers all but maybe a dozen trips that I've made.

The total tax credits they've given wouldn't cover 15 minutes worth of the War in Iraq. Steps toward reducing our oil consumption are always welcome.

I'm very happy that Tesla is doing as well as they are, and I am a lifelong Republican. I would love for the opportunity to buy an affordable electric car. For years all I heard was that it couldn't be done, up until Tesla did it. They've got up to a 300 mile range right now. In the 9 years I've owned my F-150 that covers all but maybe a dozen trips that I've made.

The total tax credits they've given wouldn't cover 15 minutes worth of the War in Iraq. Steps toward reducing our oil consumption are always welcome.

*like*

Early adopters of Tesla products also do what most early adopters do despite whatever development money is involved from other sources, tax subsidies or tax breaks, they voluntarily take a hit to their wallets for doing so.

My two objections are: 1) The government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. I'm all for funding technological R&D - we all benefitted from money spent in the early days of the US manned spaceflight program - but not how government has done it in the past generation. 2) This company produces a car that benefits only the wealthy, not the masses - they can afford the sticker price, and benefit from the tax credits. I'd rather see government dollars go into a car that can be more widely-produced, purchased, used, maintained and studied. Those cars can pave the way for others, including luxury vehicles. This went backwards.

http://drupal.org/files/project-images/delorean.jpg

(i object to referencing The American People as The Masses.
It sounds vaguely Commie. =)

Please say you're kidding. Does that mean you can't sell stuff on Craigslist, too? or online? Is it because they will miss out on some state tax on the purchase if not conducted through a dealer? Any idea?

Yeah you could say that...

Wait for it, we're only about a week away from the FOX machine churning out the label Obamacars

Yeah you could say that...

Wait for it, we're only about a week away from the FOX machine churning out the label Obamacars

Ummm... Already been done. Just google Obama Motors.

This thread is an example of how screwed up this country is. Republicans inserting an un-needed middleman in a private transaction, and the OKCTalk left wanting government out of the transaction.
Politicians of both parties give in to the will of the lobbyists and insert themselves into transactions all the time, neither party is blameless in the state of the US government.

Tesla started out buying Lotus shells and inserting their drivetrains in them while developing the Model S, it is an interesting concept. There is a Tesla showroom at Park Meadows Mall and service facility in South Denver. For people to make electric car development proceed there are going to have to be costs associated with it, that is why all of the EV's cost significantly more than a comparable gas engine model. Those costs will come down over time as development goes on, remember the IC car has been around over 100 years.

Again, that's just not true. Or at least is narrowly viewing their role.

Would you say that SpaceX is a space program building rockets only for the wealthy corporations to lease? They are building a reusable rocket that will drive the cost of getting stuff to space silly cheap -- the kind of 'moonshot' step that will fundamentally change space/human interaction. But currently they are leasing for much closer to competitive rates. Why? The tech isn't quite there. They are close. Closest anyone has ever come. But you can't just SpaceX's success on a single frame of their short life. They are working toward a solution and they are darn near close to it.

Tesla is exactly the same thing. The government wasn't picking winners and losers. They invested in a technology. Technology that you can just R&D in a lab. You need cars. Thousands of test cars. Would you rather Tesla just scrap each car and not sell any?

The function of selling cars now accomplishes two major goals: 1) POC for retail market (again, waiting list) and 2) Delivery of real-world experimentation and a reliable feedback-loop.

This is NO different than any other R&D defense contract with Boeing. They pay Boeing to develop something. Boeing of course will commercialize the new tech in the long-term.

I don't presume you're in this camp -- I'm tired of people dogging on Tesla when they are accomplishing exactly what we'd want any company to do that was loaned taxpayer dollars for R&D. They are a text-book success story and frankly, should be used as a model for all R&D in the future. Find a company that wants to build as profitable as possible, even if that means high-end and don't get too caught up with the consumer solution right away. This is where we fail. The consumer versions of the new tech will always get cheaper and more accessible. It's the transition development that is hard to sustain.

Sid - SpaceX customers are governments and large corporations, they are succeeding where NASA lost its focus and became increasingly beaurocratic, and their initial funding of $100 million came from the founder of PayPal (successive rounds came from private equity firms). On the other hand, Tesla customers are individuals, they compete in an industry with dozens of established worldwide competitors, and their funding was largely governmental.

The irony - both companies were founded by the same person, Elon Musk.

He's one of the best entrepreneurs of our time IMO.

JTF: while true, the "subsidies" you cited applied to all brands/manufacturers, right?? I think what OKCTalker was mentioning was an additional "subsidy" for the Telsa???

And the GM=Government Motors...LOL

JTF: while true, the "subsidies" you cited applied to all brands/manufacturers, right?? I think what OKCTalker was mentioning was an additional "subsidy" for the Telsa???

And the GM=Government Motors...LOL

My point was that we live in a subsidized world. If my dog goes poo in the yard there are no less than 5 government subsidies at work in that action.

The government maintains a strong military presence in oil-producing areas, in large part to ensure a stable supply. If oil prices fluctuated wildly, going up to $500 a barrel because Iran got their panties in a wad, it would seriously affect the viability of gasoline powered cars.

The government maintains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a huge amount of oil it can release to curb supply shortages.

The government provided land and huge financial incentives to build the Alaska pipeline.

I could go on and on and on. I am not saying these moves were bad, but they are definitely subsidies. If we invested the same amount of money into the development of electric vehicles, we would live in a very different society.

The government maintains a strong military presence in oil-producing areas, in large part to ensure a stable supply. If oil prices fluctuated wildly, going up to $500 a barrel because Iran got their panties in a wad, it would seriously affect the viability of gasoline powered cars.

The government maintains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a huge amount of oil it can release to curb supply shortages.

The government provided land and huge financial incentives to build the Alaska pipeline.

I could go on and on and on. I am not saying these moves were bad, but they are definitely subsidies. If we invested the same amount of money into the development of electric vehicles, we would live in a very different society.

Good discussion, but there is one (maybe two) elephants in the room that nobody is discussing. First, it is the footprint of electric cars, or rather, their components. For oil, we drill a hole in the ground, pump some crap down there to break the rock, then we extract as much fluid as possible. In most cases, the well is eventually plugged and abandoned leaving behind a small pipe sticking out of the ground. Now, let me ask you: How many of you have ever been to a lithium mine? Nickel Mine? Any heavy metal mine? I've been to one of the countries strategic Lithium mines in Nevada. Its footprint spans one of the valleys that make up the basin and range province near Death Valley. You can look at aerial photographs of nickel mines in Canada to see their footprints (all those colors are not good btw.) You think that is bad, you should see the rare earth mines in China. It is a wasteland that can never be remediated. The media has done a very good job of hiding the TRUE impact of electric cars, but it is only a matter of time before more light is shed on the extraction of these resources. You need all of these minerals/metals for the batteries and electric motors for these electric cars.

Also, how does our 'grid' handle the new demand that will be put on it from electric cars? This is clearly a secondary concern, but it is a problem nonetheless. Houston nearly consumes more electricity than can be output (rolling blackouts during the summer). Our electrical grid across the country is in pretty bad shape and will probably need to be upgraded IF electric vehicles take off. This would take considerable expense. OR, you can build more power plants. Nuclear? Nah, the EPA won't allow those to be built right now. Coal Fired? Nah, EPA again. Solar, wind? Good start, but these need significant technological advancement to become efficient. Nat. Gas? Sure, but you need quite a few of these given their smaller energy output.

On a side note, which is worse: a lot of pollution coming from several point sources (power plants), or a lot of pollution distributed across the country (gas cars)?

All that said, we NEED some type of advancement in technology to meet our energy/transportation needs, but everything we keep chasing just leads us down the same path. Now, if we could figure out FUSION, then we will be all set :)

Good discussion, but there is one (maybe two) elephants in the room that nobody is discussing. First, it is the footprint of electric cars, or rather, their components. For oil, we drill a hole in the ground, pump some crap down there to break the rock, then we extract as much fluid as possible. In most cases, the well is eventually plugged and abandoned leaving behind a small pipe sticking out of the ground.

Wow. Yeah. Elephant in the room. Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Arkansas pipeline spill the other day and things like this notwithstanding...

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4fb5280a6bb3f7fe7e00000c-900/but-thousands-flock-here-to-make-real-money-in-the-oil-sands--where-creating-synthetic-crude-begins-in-the-strip-mine.jpg

Tar sands mine in Canada.

Wow. Yeah. Elephant in the room. Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Arkansas pipeline spill the other day and things like this notwithstanding...

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4fb5280a6bb3f7fe7e00000c-900/but-thousands-flock-here-to-make-real-money-in-the-oil-sands--where-creating-synthetic-crude-begins-in-the-strip-mine.jpg

Tar sands mine in Canada.

Yes those are terrible accidents and they do happen from time to time although they are extremely rare considering how many wells are drilled on a yearly basis and how much crude is transported on a daily basis. I agree too that tar sands are bad but that is not oil exploration in the traditional sense. I actually lump that method of extraction with nickel strip mines, etc. Either way, you can't argue against the fact that electric cars are not as "green" as they are made out to be.

Sure. Lets pretend...

Sure. Lets pretend...



Obviously you already have your mind made up. You pick the most extreme method of hydrocarbon exploration and refuse to face facts. How about this fact: 1, count it, ONE horizontal natural gas well averages 267,362 equivalent gallons of fuel PER DAY! From one hole in the ground with a footprint of maybe an acre. CNG vehicles are as efficient and environmentally friendly as any other alternative out there, yet it doesn't get the publicity as electric cars. Why? Probably because people like you have it in your head that all hydrocarbon exploration is like the picture you showed when in fact that it is not. Yet, people hold on to this belief that electric cars are the best thing since sliced bread, but they are unwilling to accept the photographs that I have referenced of all the strip mining that goes in to creating the batteries that electric cars rely on. I just don't get it....

I am for building stuff close enough together that they can be reached by foot or bicycle 90% of the time - and mass transit the other 10%, which leaves no need for cars (gas, cng, electric, or otherwise) and all the expensive infrastructure that goes with it. If we spent the last 60 years developing cities they way we did the previous 10,000 years we would live in a much different world.

Obviously you already have your mind made up. You pick the most extreme method of hydrocarbon exploration and refuse to face facts. How about this fact: 1, count it, ONE horizontal natural gas well averages 267,362 equivalent gallons of fuel PER DAY! From one hole in the ground with a footprint of maybe an acre. CNG vehicles are as efficient and environmentally friendly as any other alternative out there, yet it doesn't get the publicity as electric cars. Why? Probably because people like you have it in your head that all hydrocarbon exploration is like the picture you showed when in fact that it is not. Yet, people hold on to this belief that electric cars are the best thing since sliced bread, but they are unwilling to accept the photographs that I have referenced of all the strip mining that goes in to creating the batteries that electric cars rely on. I just don't get it....

Don't mistake me for some froofy hippy tree hugger. Oil and natural gas are a vital part of this state's economy. I don't think we are in any danger of going away from it any time soon. That said, when electric cars come down in price I may get one. Every source of power we have creates some sort of environmental consequence. The advantage to heavy metal mining is that as long as guidelines are followed, the crap stays there. A mining site in Nevada may be contaminated, but I won't be breathing it in. It's much more localized and easier to contain.

If you chose NOT to do things based upon accidents, then we wouldn't allow cars or planes, surgical procedures, construction...

But we do.

Obviously you already have your mind made up. You pick the most extreme method of hydrocarbon exploration and refuse to face facts. How about this fact: 1, count it, ONE horizontal natural gas well averages 267,362 equivalent gallons of fuel PER DAY! From one hole in the ground with a footprint of maybe an acre. CNG vehicles are as efficient and environmentally friendly as any other alternative out there, yet it doesn't get the publicity as electric cars. Why? Probably because people like you have it in your head that all hydrocarbon exploration is like the picture you showed when in fact that it is not. Yet, people hold on to this belief that electric cars are the best thing since sliced bread, but they are unwilling to accept the photographs that I have referenced of all the strip mining that goes in to creating the batteries that electric cars rely on. I just don't get it....

Actually I am biased, based on real information. It's fantasy to set aside everything you don't like about oil and then compare what's left to electric using supposition. I'm not interested in playing those games.

There are studies. Most of them agree electrics cradle to grave are greener than oil, but with one of the main issues being what the source of electricity is. Coal, not good but still greener than most ICE cars. Charge with cleaner fuels and renewables, no contest. You can look those studies up and yes you can find those that cherry pick like you want to and say something else.

I don't support a future that would be building electric cars only to run on coal or some dirty fuel source. I support building all green technologies, that includes electric car technology now, even if they run on dirty fuel for the time being, and working on more sustainable energy technology at the same time as we phase out the more dirty unsustainable types.

You can't get to cars running on clean and renewable fuels if you don't develop the electric car technology.

I am for building stuff close enough together that they can be reached by foot or bicycle 90% of the time - and mass transit the other 10%, which leaves no need for cars (gas, cng, electric, or otherwise) and all the expensive infrastructure that goes with it. If we spent the last 60 years developing cities they way we did the previous 10,000 years we would live in a much different world.

If my aunt had wings.

A tornado just knocked out 14000 homes and other infrastruture in Moore and didn't even scratch the surface of the areas you would like to abandon and build new, using methods that are a lot more energy and resource intensive than single story balloon framed homes. My guess is instead of costing 2 billion to rebuild, if you put all that downtown it would cost 4 to 6 billion and eat up a likewise amount of energy and resources. Carry that calculation out for the other 90% of the metro that's not downtown and hasn't been destroyed but that you propose to abandon and rebuild.

That's never going to happen because it doesn't make sense.

...The government maintains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a huge amount of oil it can release to curb supply shortages....
While it could help with a shortage, if oil was cut off completely, there is enough to supply the U.S. for 74 days???

SPR Quick Facts and FAQs | Department of Energy (http://energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-reserves/strategic-petroleum-reserve/spr-quick-facts-and-faqs#faq_20)

How is days of import protection determined? The number of days of import protection are based on the SPR's current inventory level and the EIA's reported net petroleum imports. Based on total U.S. import levels during 2011, the SPR holds 74 days of protection.

While it could help with a shortage, if oil was cut off completely, there is enough to supply the U.S. for 74 days???

SPR Quick Facts and FAQs | Department of Energy (http://energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-reserves/strategic-petroleum-reserve/spr-quick-facts-and-faqs#faq_20)

Theoretically we'd have killed a bunch of Arabs by then and have more oil. It isn't a "every pump in the world runs dry at the same time" backup plan, it's a "Iran blocks the Gulf" kind of backup plan. But that's the point. The US government has a backup plan for oil. It has invested significant money into securing as much oil as possible. If they put that same amount of money into wind energy or solar, they might not need a strategic petroleum reserve.

In the end, I am excited because electric cars give us a glimpse of a potential future.

If my aunt had wings.

A tornado just knocked out 14000 homes and other infrastruture in Moore and didn't even scratch the surface of the areas you would like to abandon and build new, using methods that are a lot more energy and resource intensive than single story balloon framed homes. My guess is instead of costing 2 billion to rebuild, if you put all that downtown it would cost 4 to 6 billion and eat up a likewise amount of energy and resources. Carry that calculation out for the other 90% of the metro that's not downtown and hasn't been destroyed but that you propose to abandon and rebuild.

That's never going to happen because it doesn't make sense.

I think you are living with a world-view that is rapidly disappearing. The statistics are all around you but you need the courage to believe it. Your way of life is going to disappear faster than it appeared. What took 3 generations to build will vanish in a single generation.

Arbus Magazine May/June 2013 (http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=153472&p=22)

2020 is just six and half years away. Your tinfoil hat might hold on that long and then you can crawl out from under the bed, see the daylight and that not much has changed. The burbs will still be here chock full of people living good lives.

In other news, a Tesla mechanic did yearly service on my Roadster today. He's based in Texas. (Dallas) They formerly serviced me from Chicago. I asked if they had a showroom there now or still had issues with Texas laws. He said nope and yes. No showroom, just service and distribution. They don't hand out any literature, they take stickers out of the windows of cars shipped there for delivery. They won't unlock a door for a passerby to show them inside or do anything else that can be construed as selling a car. You can go online in Texas and order one, have it delivered directly to your door just like anything else you buy on the internet. (Fedx delivered mine.) They also ship them to their Dallas center in groups on a regular car carrier and hand them off to owners who ordered them on the internet, along with how-to info just like getting a new car delivered the traditional way.

He did not know how many Teslas are in Oklahoma. (In 2010, a year after we bought ours, there were 12 in the state.) He did say we had the second largest quantity of Roadsters of all the states, California having the most. That is due to the rebates our forward thinking legislature had put in place at the time.

If my aunt had wings.

A tornado just knocked out 14000 homes and other infrastruture in Moore and didn't even scratch the surface of the areas you would like to abandon and build new, using methods that are a lot more energy and resource intensive than single story balloon framed homes. My guess is instead of costing 2 billion to rebuild, if you put all that downtown it would cost 4 to 6 billion and eat up a likewise amount of energy and resources. Carry that calculation out for the other 90% of the metro that's not downtown and hasn't been destroyed but that you propose to abandon and rebuild.

That's never going to happen because it doesn't make sense.

It's not that it would all have to be abandoned. Let's just build it up.

Step 1: Stop developing anything further out. Create a boundary on new construction in the metro and don't go one foot farther out than that. New construction must go inward. You can't go building a new development out on NE 136th and Hiwassee. You have to build inside the city. Over time, this will make land prices inside the city become significantly higher. This will promote more dense construction.

Step 2: Develop a metro-wide light rail system. This will allow people in most parts of the metro to at least get kinda-sorta within walking distance of most other parts of the metro. You should be able to get on the train in Edmond and get to Will Rogers, or Midwest City, or Norman, or Lake Hefner, or the zoo, etc. This will also promote more dense construction, as businesses will want people to be able to walk from the train stop to their front doors.

Step 3: Make the city more walkable by adding lots and lots and lots of sidewalks, better crosswalks, as well as benches, small parks, trees, etc, especially in areas served by light rail.

Step 4: Dramatically reduce free parking requirements in areas served by light rail. If you are within 5 blocks of a train stop, your parking requirements are cut to 25% of what they were. This encourages businesses to build with higher density. You no longer need to provide a massive parking lot when you build. More businesses can be closer together, encouraging people to walk. It also encourages people to ride the train because there won't be massive parking lots everywhere.

Step 5: Wait 30 years. Look at this city and try to find a 30 year old strip mall, or big box store. It's probably on its last legs, ready to be torn down and replaced by something else. We are constantly tearing down old buildings and putting up new ones as a matter of course. The trick is to make sure that the next time we do it, that it is of better quality. Instead of building a Target out on Anderson Road to serve what is currently an empty field (but 30 years from now is more suburb), you get one built inside the city a block from a rail stop. And because the land is expensive you get a six story apartment building on top of it. It will increase wages, property taxes, improve our schools, and make it a more vibrant place to live.

2020 is just six and half years away. Your tinfoil hat might hold on that long and then you can crawl out from under the bed, see the daylight and that not much has changed. The burbs will still be here chock full of people living good lives.

In other news, a Tesla mechanic did yearly service on my Roadster today. He's based in Texas. (Dallas) They formerly serviced me from Chicago. I asked if they had a showroom there now or still had issues with Texas laws. He said nope and yes. No showroom, just service and distribution. They don't hand out any literature, they take stickers out of the windows of cars shipped there for delivery. They won't unlock a door for a passerby to show them inside or do anything else that can be construed as selling a car. You can go online in Texas and order one, have it delivered directly to your door just like anything else you buy on the internet. (Fedx delivered mine.) They also ship them to their Dallas center in groups on a regular car carrier and hand them off to owners who ordered them on the internet, along with how-to info just like getting a new car delivered the traditional way.

He did not know how many Teslas are in Oklahoma. (In 2010, a year after we bought ours, there were 12 in the state.) He did say we had the second largest quantity of Roadsters of all the states, California having the most. That is due to the rebates our forward thinking legislature had put in place at the time.

Ooh ooh ooh, how do you like yours?

It's not that it would all have to be abandoned. Let's just build it up.

Step 1: Stop developing anything further out. Create a boundary on new construction in the metro and don't go one foot farther out than that. New construction must go inward. You can't go building a new development out on NE 136th and Hiwassee. You have to build inside the city. Over time, this will make land prices inside the city become significantly higher. This will promote more dense construction.

Step 2: Develop a metro-wide light rail system. This will allow people in most parts of the metro to at least get kinda-sorta within walking distance of most other parts of the metro. You should be able to get on the train in Edmond and get to Will Rogers, or Midwest City, or Norman, or Lake Hefner, or the zoo, etc. This will also promote more dense construction, as businesses will want people to be able to walk from the train stop to their front doors.

Step 3: Make the city more walkable by adding lots and lots and lots of sidewalks, better crosswalks, as well as benches, small parks, trees, etc, especially in areas served by light rail.

Step 4: Dramatically reduce free parking requirements in areas served by light rail. If you are within 5 blocks of a train stop, your parking requirements are cut to 25% of what they were. This encourages businesses to build with higher density. You no longer need to provide a massive parking lot when you build. More businesses can be closer together, encouraging people to walk. It also encourages people to ride the train because there won't be massive parking lots everywhere.

Step 5: Wait 30 years. Look at this city and try to find a 30 year old strip mall, or big box store. It's probably on its last legs, ready to be torn down and replaced by something else. We are constantly tearing down old buildings and putting up new ones as a matter of course. The trick is to make sure that the next time we do it, that it is of better quality. Instead of building a Target out on Anderson Road to serve what is currently an empty field (but 30 years from now is more suburb), you get one built inside the city a block from a rail stop. And because the land is expensive you get a six story apartment building on top of it. It will increase wages, property taxes, improve our schools, and make it a more vibrant place to live.

Mostly agree. The key is not to move everyone downtown. The key is to work with what we have. Keep jobs decentralized. They are now and that needs to not only continue it needs to be encouraged. Live and work local. That's not just for the rich people who live downtown. That's for the people who live in other parts of town, where people live now and where they will continue to live for decades and decades to come. And yeah, connect it with masstrans so when people do have to travel they can. The more people live and work local the less mass trans will be needed though so same rule applies. Putting everyone and everything downtown is the most unachievable idea ever. The fact that we can't afford it will keep it from happening anyway.