No, he meant that as Tesla and GM hit 200k in sales, the tax-credit for buyers of their cars shrinks to $3,500, while companies just breaking into the EV car market will sell cars with a $7,500 credit, which is an advantage 

Rather than mandating a specific technology, or battery rating (eg., a 1 kw battery), what we need to do is what most economists have said for a decade: put a price on carbon, via a carbon tax, with the tax receipts being refunded to taxpayers. For tax-payers *as a whole*, there is no increased cost (since it’s…

It’s funny, but while I’m not a huge fan of the Bolt, it’s closing in on 200,000 of them sold (globally). Not exactly horrible.

What about just outsourcing some of the production of the body to Mazda for a couple years, in order to buy themselves (Tesla) time to ramp up production and iron out bottlenecks? Not too different from what they did with Lotus for the roadster. Maza would be getting more paid work, and it’s not like the Model 3 is…

A really good point - anything before written records is pre-history. Not that this guy would be likely to know the difference.

>>“I don’t even know why we study history. It’s entertaining, I guess—the dinosaurs and the Neanderthals and the Industrial Revolution, and stuff like that.”

You really couldn't tell that OP was being sarcastic? Dude...

How stupid do you have to be to lie about any aspect of your background that might conceivably be checked, when you’re running for elected office. It’s 2018, and oppo research is its own whole industry, and *of course* your opponent (s) will dig into any and everything you say or put in print.

“irreplaceable metals”

“irreplaceable metals”

“In fact, many of his worst qualities have been seen in democratic presidents”

Bullsh*t. I’ve been voting in every election since I pulled a lever for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and there are certainly aspects of Trump’s behavior that are unprecedented. And he is indeed special in a very bad way. If you don’t see that, you’re either deluding yourself, or simply haven’t been paying attention.

Welcome to Oregon, you picked a great few days to visit, we’ve had a lot of nice weather lately!

I wrote, “GM sells each one at a loss in order to meet fleet CAFE fuel-efficiency standards.”

I read the entire article before posting it, and it does not refute what I said. It made it clear that GM has incentives to sell the Bolt, even at a loss, and those include fleet average fuel consumption.

A, no. GM produces the bolt in order to meet CAFE fleet fuel efficiency standards. They lose about $9,000 on every Bolt they sell:

You mean like starting a rocket company from scratch, and competing against the entrenched big companies that had been doing it for decades? And kicking their butts in the process, and becoming the first private company to resupply the ISS, among other first? Yeah, that’s crazy, never happen.

Time to pick up that teslaquilla. The Bolt is a compliance car because GM sells each one at a loss in order to meet fleet CAFE fuel-efficiency standards at the *Federal* level.

The Bolt is a compliance car because GM sells each one at a loss in order to meet fleet CAFE fuel-efficiency standards.

Development of the Bolt started in 2012, and GM had existing factories and production lines that just needed updated tooling.

Minor quibble with the opening paragraph: ...”human beings would would learn to split the atom...”