<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_1437210</id>
	<title>Tesla Motors To Suspend Roadster Production</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264952640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Wyatt Earp writes with news that a recent SEC filing from Tesla Motors revealed the company plans to <a href="http://jalopnik.com/5460062/tesla-to-kill-electric-roadster-in-2011">stop production on its electric Roadster</a> (and the Roadster Sport as well) in 2011. This will <a href="http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/teslas-roadster-to-exit-in-2011/">leave the automaker without any cars to sell</a> until the launch of its Model S sedan (financed in part by <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1947208/Tesla-Nabs-465M-Government-Loan-To-Build-Model-S">$465 million in DoE loans</a>) in 2012. Tesla plans to resume production of Roadster models "at least a year" after the Model S arrives. From Wired's Autopia blog:
<i>"'As a result, we anticipate that we may generate limited, if any, revenue from selling electric vehicles after 2011 until the launch of the planned model S,' the company says in the SEC filing. That may not be a problem if S production starts on plan and goes off without a hitch, but if Tesla hits any snags, things could get ugly fast &mdash; a point it concedes in the filing. 'The launch of the Model S could be delayed for a number of reasons and any such delays may be significant and would extend the period in which we would generate limited, if any, revenues from sales of our electric vehicles.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wyatt Earp writes with news that a recent SEC filing from Tesla Motors revealed the company plans to stop production on its electric Roadster ( and the Roadster Sport as well ) in 2011 .
This will leave the automaker without any cars to sell until the launch of its Model S sedan ( financed in part by $ 465 million in DoE loans ) in 2012 .
Tesla plans to resume production of Roadster models " at least a year " after the Model S arrives .
From Wired 's Autopia blog : " 'As a result , we anticipate that we may generate limited , if any , revenue from selling electric vehicles after 2011 until the launch of the planned model S, ' the company says in the SEC filing .
That may not be a problem if S production starts on plan and goes off without a hitch , but if Tesla hits any snags , things could get ugly fast    a point it concedes in the filing .
'The launch of the Model S could be delayed for a number of reasons and any such delays may be significant and would extend the period in which we would generate limited , if any , revenues from sales of our electric vehicles .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wyatt Earp writes with news that a recent SEC filing from Tesla Motors revealed the company plans to stop production on its electric Roadster (and the Roadster Sport as well) in 2011.
This will leave the automaker without any cars to sell until the launch of its Model S sedan (financed in part by $465 million in DoE loans) in 2012.
Tesla plans to resume production of Roadster models "at least a year" after the Model S arrives.
From Wired's Autopia blog:
"'As a result, we anticipate that we may generate limited, if any, revenue from selling electric vehicles after 2011 until the launch of the planned model S,' the company says in the SEC filing.
That may not be a problem if S production starts on plan and goes off without a hitch, but if Tesla hits any snags, things could get ugly fast — a point it concedes in the filing.
'The launch of the Model S could be delayed for a number of reasons and any such delays may be significant and would extend the period in which we would generate limited, if any, revenues from sales of our electric vehicles.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972150</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>gtbritishskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about let it compete on price.  It would be extremely competitive if we stopped all subsidization of oil.  And also recoup all subsidies to oil in the past 20 years.  We can start with a tax to recoup the costs of the war in Iraq (I heard a figure of $420 billion but I am sure it is higher by now), and then once that is paid off we can work on others (epa regulation and cleanup costs, increased medical costs from smog, ect).
<p>
I know, its hard when your black and white world starts all looking a little grey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about let it compete on price .
It would be extremely competitive if we stopped all subsidization of oil .
And also recoup all subsidies to oil in the past 20 years .
We can start with a tax to recoup the costs of the war in Iraq ( I heard a figure of $ 420 billion but I am sure it is higher by now ) , and then once that is paid off we can work on others ( epa regulation and cleanup costs , increased medical costs from smog , ect ) .
I know , its hard when your black and white world starts all looking a little grey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about let it compete on price.
It would be extremely competitive if we stopped all subsidization of oil.
And also recoup all subsidies to oil in the past 20 years.
We can start with a tax to recoup the costs of the war in Iraq (I heard a figure of $420 billion but I am sure it is higher by now), and then once that is paid off we can work on others (epa regulation and cleanup costs, increased medical costs from smog, ect).
I know, its hard when your black and white world starts all looking a little grey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975216</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay.  But it's more like 9MJ/kg for the gasoline because internal combustion engines are usually about 20\% efficient.</p><p>So we only need batteries which at 10 times better to beat gasoline pound for pound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay .
But it 's more like 9MJ/kg for the gasoline because internal combustion engines are usually about 20 \ % efficient.So we only need batteries which at 10 times better to beat gasoline pound for pound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.
But it's more like 9MJ/kg for the gasoline because internal combustion engines are usually about 20\% efficient.So we only need batteries which at 10 times better to beat gasoline pound for pound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974484</id>
	<title>Snakeoil salesmen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971246</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Care to cite what bail out funds Ford  got?<br> <br>It's a loan only up to the point that they need to file for bankruptcy. I think you should take a little time to familiarize yourself with how that system works.<br> <br>And Tesla Motors will occupy a spot in the automotive museum right along side of the DeLorean... you can bet on that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to cite what bail out funds Ford got ?
It 's a loan only up to the point that they need to file for bankruptcy .
I think you should take a little time to familiarize yourself with how that system works .
And Tesla Motors will occupy a spot in the automotive museum right along side of the DeLorean... you can bet on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to cite what bail out funds Ford  got?
It's a loan only up to the point that they need to file for bankruptcy.
I think you should take a little time to familiarize yourself with how that system works.
And Tesla Motors will occupy a spot in the automotive museum right along side of the DeLorean... you can bet on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972402</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1264968360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</p></div><p>Because, at the time, the capital markets were frozen and no one was lending. The only organization lending was the US government. Hell, GE couldn't even get financing at the time through the commercial paper market and had to rely on the US gov to backstop them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $ 450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers ; 99 \ % of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla ? Because , at the time , the capital markets were frozen and no one was lending .
The only organization lending was the US government .
Hell , GE could n't even get financing at the time through the commercial paper market and had to rely on the US gov to backstop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?Because, at the time, the capital markets were frozen and no one was lending.
The only organization lending was the US government.
Hell, GE couldn't even get financing at the time through the commercial paper market and had to rely on the US gov to backstop them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971012</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1264959180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car. Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche. The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers. Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?</p></div><p>It's new technology; even if this model never takes off the expertise can spill over.  It's not like giving money to Ford to keep more Mustangs on the street.  It's a potential benefit even if the parent business fails.</p><p>It's a pretty good way encourage technology development.  A lot of private people think they may be able to make it profitable eventually, they've put in their money, so the government leverages work that may prove valuable beyond the short-term by giving loans.  No new government buildings needed, no new bureaucracy you can't kill.</p><p>I don't know enough about Tesla or the industry to say if this particular one is the best use of money, but it's not unique or anything.  Corporations often get subsidies for new tech; basic research just doesn't get done at measurable levels these days in private industry.  Bell Labs isn't what it used to be.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.</p></div><p>The "picking winners and losers" thing has really become a meme.  Government policies necessarily determine winners and losers all the time, of course, with zoning laws, housing subsidies, mileage standards, public roads, wars for oil, leasing out of federal land, tarriffs, and so on. </p><p>If we (ie, the people through the government) chose to spend massive subsidies on electric cars, it would be because we thought the benefits (noise, local pollution, energy flexibility, global warming) outweighed the costs.  We'd be saying that cars that spew out those pollutants are "losers," and it's worth paying for them to get off the roads.  That is fundamentally a government business--making decisions about the common areas in communities.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</p></div><p>Because, obviously, a good investment for the government is not the same as a good investment for a private investor.  We don't expect corporations to identify candidates in kindergarten and pay for their schooling through 12th grade and college.  They'd never get their money back, at least not in a free labor system, but society as a whole benefits.</p><p>Your points are really all cookie-cutter stuff, by which I mean they apply to any government intervention, not just Tesla, not just for putatively rich people.  But even in freshman college micro-economic models, concepts like externalities might justify state intervention, and in the real world, actual or de facto subsidies for other industries require it.  Given this specific intervention is a loan, not some recurring grant and not regulation, which will let the company live or die in the market (as evidenced by the actual story), do you have any actual reason to oppose *this one*, and not just all?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % ( and that is being very generous ) of Americans will be able to afford this car .
Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche .
The best that they ( and the taxpayers ) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers .
Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people ? It 's new technology ; even if this model never takes off the expertise can spill over .
It 's not like giving money to Ford to keep more Mustangs on the street .
It 's a potential benefit even if the parent business fails.It 's a pretty good way encourage technology development .
A lot of private people think they may be able to make it profitable eventually , they 've put in their money , so the government leverages work that may prove valuable beyond the short-term by giving loans .
No new government buildings needed , no new bureaucracy you ca n't kill.I do n't know enough about Tesla or the industry to say if this particular one is the best use of money , but it 's not unique or anything .
Corporations often get subsidies for new tech ; basic research just does n't get done at measurable levels these days in private industry .
Bell Labs is n't what it used to be.If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.The " picking winners and losers " thing has really become a meme .
Government policies necessarily determine winners and losers all the time , of course , with zoning laws , housing subsidies , mileage standards , public roads , wars for oil , leasing out of federal land , tarriffs , and so on .
If we ( ie , the people through the government ) chose to spend massive subsidies on electric cars , it would be because we thought the benefits ( noise , local pollution , energy flexibility , global warming ) outweighed the costs .
We 'd be saying that cars that spew out those pollutants are " losers , " and it 's worth paying for them to get off the roads .
That is fundamentally a government business--making decisions about the common areas in communities .
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $ 450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers ; 99 \ % of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla ? Because , obviously , a good investment for the government is not the same as a good investment for a private investor .
We do n't expect corporations to identify candidates in kindergarten and pay for their schooling through 12th grade and college .
They 'd never get their money back , at least not in a free labor system , but society as a whole benefits.Your points are really all cookie-cutter stuff , by which I mean they apply to any government intervention , not just Tesla , not just for putatively rich people .
But even in freshman college micro-economic models , concepts like externalities might justify state intervention , and in the real world , actual or de facto subsidies for other industries require it .
Given this specific intervention is a loan , not some recurring grant and not regulation , which will let the company live or die in the market ( as evidenced by the actual story ) , do you have any actual reason to oppose * this one * , and not just all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.
Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.
The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers.
Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?It's new technology; even if this model never takes off the expertise can spill over.
It's not like giving money to Ford to keep more Mustangs on the street.
It's a potential benefit even if the parent business fails.It's a pretty good way encourage technology development.
A lot of private people think they may be able to make it profitable eventually, they've put in their money, so the government leverages work that may prove valuable beyond the short-term by giving loans.
No new government buildings needed, no new bureaucracy you can't kill.I don't know enough about Tesla or the industry to say if this particular one is the best use of money, but it's not unique or anything.
Corporations often get subsidies for new tech; basic research just doesn't get done at measurable levels these days in private industry.
Bell Labs isn't what it used to be.If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.The "picking winners and losers" thing has really become a meme.
Government policies necessarily determine winners and losers all the time, of course, with zoning laws, housing subsidies, mileage standards, public roads, wars for oil, leasing out of federal land, tarriffs, and so on.
If we (ie, the people through the government) chose to spend massive subsidies on electric cars, it would be because we thought the benefits (noise, local pollution, energy flexibility, global warming) outweighed the costs.
We'd be saying that cars that spew out those pollutants are "losers," and it's worth paying for them to get off the roads.
That is fundamentally a government business--making decisions about the common areas in communities.
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?Because, obviously, a good investment for the government is not the same as a good investment for a private investor.
We don't expect corporations to identify candidates in kindergarten and pay for their schooling through 12th grade and college.
They'd never get their money back, at least not in a free labor system, but society as a whole benefits.Your points are really all cookie-cutter stuff, by which I mean they apply to any government intervention, not just Tesla, not just for putatively rich people.
But even in freshman college micro-economic models, concepts like externalities might justify state intervention, and in the real world, actual or de facto subsidies for other industries require it.
Given this specific intervention is a loan, not some recurring grant and not regulation, which will let the company live or die in the market (as evidenced by the actual story), do you have any actual reason to oppose *this one*, and not just all?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972360</id>
	<title>This is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Feds need to recall the loans immediately.  They were specifically made for the sedan, but their mere presence allowed Tesla to continute working on the roadster.</p><p>Recall them now.  Immediate payment.  If Tesla goes bankrupt because of it, so be it.  Preston Tucker, what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Feds need to recall the loans immediately .
They were specifically made for the sedan , but their mere presence allowed Tesla to continute working on the roadster.Recall them now .
Immediate payment .
If Tesla goes bankrupt because of it , so be it .
Preston Tucker , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Feds need to recall the loans immediately.
They were specifically made for the sedan, but their mere presence allowed Tesla to continute working on the roadster.Recall them now.
Immediate payment.
If Tesla goes bankrupt because of it, so be it.
Preston Tucker, what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974842</id>
	<title>Was this any surprise?</title>
	<author>BobSutan</author>
	<datestamp>1264939140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when your long term corporate strategy ends with being bought out by one of the Big 3. With GM, Ford, and Chrysler having their own problems (and being unable to buy upstarts like Tesla) it's only a matter of time before they implode. That's exactly what's going to happen if they don't get a cash infusion by external sources. Make no mistake here folks, on their own Tesla has a snowball's chance in hell of competing on the market as an independent entity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when your long term corporate strategy ends with being bought out by one of the Big 3 .
With GM , Ford , and Chrysler having their own problems ( and being unable to buy upstarts like Tesla ) it 's only a matter of time before they implode .
That 's exactly what 's going to happen if they do n't get a cash infusion by external sources .
Make no mistake here folks , on their own Tesla has a snowball 's chance in hell of competing on the market as an independent entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when your long term corporate strategy ends with being bought out by one of the Big 3.
With GM, Ford, and Chrysler having their own problems (and being unable to buy upstarts like Tesla) it's only a matter of time before they implode.
That's exactly what's going to happen if they don't get a cash infusion by external sources.
Make no mistake here folks, on their own Tesla has a snowball's chance in hell of competing on the market as an independent entity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971784</id>
	<title>Re:All of their eggs, into one mobile basket....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Courage? They haven't really invested anything.<br> <br>In the long-gone-by era of industrial giants who actually owned their company, this kind of thing was ballsy. Today, living off of government grants, loans and investors, they're providing themselves with a job on the dime of someone else. If they fail they're merely unemployed. If the titans of the past failed they were homeless and sometimes lynched by their own workers.<br> <br>If you have an idea and the know-how to get it done you too can write yourself into a job by seeking out a government loan. If it fails you walk away fairly unscathed, if it works you get to glean the benefits. Doesn't sound too bad to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Courage ?
They have n't really invested anything .
In the long-gone-by era of industrial giants who actually owned their company , this kind of thing was ballsy .
Today , living off of government grants , loans and investors , they 're providing themselves with a job on the dime of someone else .
If they fail they 're merely unemployed .
If the titans of the past failed they were homeless and sometimes lynched by their own workers .
If you have an idea and the know-how to get it done you too can write yourself into a job by seeking out a government loan .
If it fails you walk away fairly unscathed , if it works you get to glean the benefits .
Does n't sound too bad to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courage?
They haven't really invested anything.
In the long-gone-by era of industrial giants who actually owned their company, this kind of thing was ballsy.
Today, living off of government grants, loans and investors, they're providing themselves with a job on the dime of someone else.
If they fail they're merely unemployed.
If the titans of the past failed they were homeless and sometimes lynched by their own workers.
If you have an idea and the know-how to get it done you too can write yourself into a job by seeking out a government loan.
If it fails you walk away fairly unscathed, if it works you get to glean the benefits.
Doesn't sound too bad to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974978</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264939980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think ZipCar and Tesla are actually very complementary businesses for this reason - if an electric car meets 90\%-95\% of your driving needs (I wouldn't say it meets 100\% of driving needs for 95\% of the population, as the GP poster suggested - that's just wrong), then the other occasional long distance road trip can be easily handled by driving down to the local ZipCar station to take out a gasoline powered car for the long haul.</p><p>Of course, depending on where you live, a lot of families might have reason to keep both a gas and electric vehicle around as another reply suggests too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think ZipCar and Tesla are actually very complementary businesses for this reason - if an electric car meets 90 \ % -95 \ % of your driving needs ( I would n't say it meets 100 \ % of driving needs for 95 \ % of the population , as the GP poster suggested - that 's just wrong ) , then the other occasional long distance road trip can be easily handled by driving down to the local ZipCar station to take out a gasoline powered car for the long haul.Of course , depending on where you live , a lot of families might have reason to keep both a gas and electric vehicle around as another reply suggests too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think ZipCar and Tesla are actually very complementary businesses for this reason - if an electric car meets 90\%-95\% of your driving needs (I wouldn't say it meets 100\% of driving needs for 95\% of the population, as the GP poster suggested - that's just wrong), then the other occasional long distance road trip can be easily handled by driving down to the local ZipCar station to take out a gasoline powered car for the long haul.Of course, depending on where you live, a lot of families might have reason to keep both a gas and electric vehicle around as another reply suggests too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972396</id>
	<title>Crazy question to the crowd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure someone, somewhere has asked this question: why can they just make the batteries swappable? The time to "refuel" wouldn't be the time spent on adding electricity to the battery, but instead changing the battery in the car. Sure...you'd need some sort of special equipment, and they're probably heavier than hell. But has anyone tried to sort this aspect of the electric car to get these off the ground?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure someone , somewhere has asked this question : why can they just make the batteries swappable ?
The time to " refuel " would n't be the time spent on adding electricity to the battery , but instead changing the battery in the car .
Sure...you 'd need some sort of special equipment , and they 're probably heavier than hell .
But has anyone tried to sort this aspect of the electric car to get these off the ground ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure someone, somewhere has asked this question: why can they just make the batteries swappable?
The time to "refuel" wouldn't be the time spent on adding electricity to the battery, but instead changing the battery in the car.
Sure...you'd need some sort of special equipment, and they're probably heavier than hell.
But has anyone tried to sort this aspect of the electric car to get these off the ground?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971284</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264961220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Forget unit prices, horsepower, yadda yadda, here's the only statistic that matters:</i></p><p><i>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg<br>Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</i></p><p>Vehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them. So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.</p><p>Ooh, but you were <b>so close</b>.  You're right that "energy stored per mass" is the most important metric, but you completely flubbed <i>what</i> energy and <i>what</i> mass.  See, the hypothetical energy contained in the fuel doesn't all go to the tires, and the car doesn't <i>just</i> have to carry around its energy source, it also has to carry the mechanism for turning that potential energy into kinetic energy.</p><p>What matters is <i>delivered energy</i> divided by <i>total mass</i>.</p><p>Once you factor in the weight of the engines, and the inefficiencies of those engines, thing the comparison becomes much closer.  It still favors gas vehicles, but not to the extent that you can say EVs can <i>never</i> compete, especially since they're getting closer and closer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget unit prices , horsepower , yadda yadda , here 's the only statistic that matters : Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kgVehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them .
So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion , and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.Ooh , but you were so close .
You 're right that " energy stored per mass " is the most important metric , but you completely flubbed what energy and what mass .
See , the hypothetical energy contained in the fuel does n't all go to the tires , and the car does n't just have to carry around its energy source , it also has to carry the mechanism for turning that potential energy into kinetic energy.What matters is delivered energy divided by total mass.Once you factor in the weight of the engines , and the inefficiencies of those engines , thing the comparison becomes much closer .
It still favors gas vehicles , but not to the extent that you can say EVs can never compete , especially since they 're getting closer and closer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget unit prices, horsepower, yadda yadda, here's the only statistic that matters:Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kgVehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them.
So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.Ooh, but you were so close.
You're right that "energy stored per mass" is the most important metric, but you completely flubbed what energy and what mass.
See, the hypothetical energy contained in the fuel doesn't all go to the tires, and the car doesn't just have to carry around its energy source, it also has to carry the mechanism for turning that potential energy into kinetic energy.What matters is delivered energy divided by total mass.Once you factor in the weight of the engines, and the inefficiencies of those engines, thing the comparison becomes much closer.
It still favors gas vehicles, but not to the extent that you can say EVs can never compete, especially since they're getting closer and closer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973150</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264929420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they're successful then more Americans start using power from <b>coal</b> power produced in the USA</p></div><p>Fixed that for you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity\_generation for a nice chart.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're successful then more Americans start using power from coal power produced in the USAFixed that for you .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity \ _generation for a nice chart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're successful then more Americans start using power from coal power produced in the USAFixed that for you.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity\_generation for a nice chart.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972188</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1264967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>all the while drawing their salary against the loan.</p></div><p>A few people have mentioned this as though it was something strange or unfair.  The point of a business loan is to pay for wages, salaries, equipment, patents, rent, lunches, electricity,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Why should executives not get paid during this time?  If the company goes bankrupt and runs out of money, those executives keep their salaries.  Just like everyone else.  It's not like they can give it back.</p><p>If you have an issue with executive pay that is fine - but your statement implies that all business loans are bad because executives get paid too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all the while drawing their salary against the loan.A few people have mentioned this as though it was something strange or unfair .
The point of a business loan is to pay for wages , salaries , equipment , patents , rent , lunches , electricity , ... Why should executives not get paid during this time ?
If the company goes bankrupt and runs out of money , those executives keep their salaries .
Just like everyone else .
It 's not like they can give it back.If you have an issue with executive pay that is fine - but your statement implies that all business loans are bad because executives get paid too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all the while drawing their salary against the loan.A few people have mentioned this as though it was something strange or unfair.
The point of a business loan is to pay for wages, salaries, equipment, patents, rent, lunches, electricity, ... Why should executives not get paid during this time?
If the company goes bankrupt and runs out of money, those executives keep their salaries.
Just like everyone else.
It's not like they can give it back.If you have an issue with executive pay that is fine - but your statement implies that all business loans are bad because executives get paid too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972504</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1264968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if they succeed, America's dependence on foreign oil is broken. I'm not so sure you see who is getting the better end of the deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they succeed , America 's dependence on foreign oil is broken .
I 'm not so sure you see who is getting the better end of the deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they succeed, America's dependence on foreign oil is broken.
I'm not so sure you see who is getting the better end of the deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971914</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264965960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</p></div><p>
Your big mistake is not being informed.<br>
<br>
Tesla HAS private investors. The deal with this money is that while the government was <b>already</b> handing out big loans to other auto manufacturers, Tesla raised their hand and said "us too, its only fair."<br>
<br>
There just hasnt been a good argument expressed as to why Tesla shouldn't get this loan. The guys saying that electric vehicles will always be under-performant to ICE's are wrong in practice because the Roadster is one of the best performing street legal car on the road today. The Roadster is a performance MONSTER built on what is still an immature technology: 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.7 seconds, and this year they are upgrading the engine on the Roadster (because they are improving the technology.)<br>
<br>
This is a company that is actually making a profit selling electric vehicles. Know of any others? Hell, the rest of the american automotive industry is barely breaking even, or worse. The only drawbacks right now in Tesla's offerings are price, range, and limited infrastructure for recharging away from home. The next iteration will absolutely improve the first drawback, likely also the second, while we will still have to wait for mass production for the 3rd.<br>
<br>
Tesla's roadmap is for the following iteration, the Model T, for mass production to be practical. People say that Tesla will just be a footnote.. yeah.. the footnote will say "100 years ago Tesla put both GM and Chrysler out of business, and 4 years later merged with Ford's strong hybrid division"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $ 450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers ; 99 \ % of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla ?
Your big mistake is not being informed .
Tesla HAS private investors .
The deal with this money is that while the government was already handing out big loans to other auto manufacturers , Tesla raised their hand and said " us too , its only fair .
" There just hasnt been a good argument expressed as to why Tesla should n't get this loan .
The guys saying that electric vehicles will always be under-performant to ICE 's are wrong in practice because the Roadster is one of the best performing street legal car on the road today .
The Roadster is a performance MONSTER built on what is still an immature technology : 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.7 seconds , and this year they are upgrading the engine on the Roadster ( because they are improving the technology .
) This is a company that is actually making a profit selling electric vehicles .
Know of any others ?
Hell , the rest of the american automotive industry is barely breaking even , or worse .
The only drawbacks right now in Tesla 's offerings are price , range , and limited infrastructure for recharging away from home .
The next iteration will absolutely improve the first drawback , likely also the second , while we will still have to wait for mass production for the 3rd .
Tesla 's roadmap is for the following iteration , the Model T , for mass production to be practical .
People say that Tesla will just be a footnote.. yeah.. the footnote will say " 100 years ago Tesla put both GM and Chrysler out of business , and 4 years later merged with Ford 's strong hybrid division "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?
Your big mistake is not being informed.
Tesla HAS private investors.
The deal with this money is that while the government was already handing out big loans to other auto manufacturers, Tesla raised their hand and said "us too, its only fair.
"

There just hasnt been a good argument expressed as to why Tesla shouldn't get this loan.
The guys saying that electric vehicles will always be under-performant to ICE's are wrong in practice because the Roadster is one of the best performing street legal car on the road today.
The Roadster is a performance MONSTER built on what is still an immature technology: 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.7 seconds, and this year they are upgrading the engine on the Roadster (because they are improving the technology.
)

This is a company that is actually making a profit selling electric vehicles.
Know of any others?
Hell, the rest of the american automotive industry is barely breaking even, or worse.
The only drawbacks right now in Tesla's offerings are price, range, and limited infrastructure for recharging away from home.
The next iteration will absolutely improve the first drawback, likely also the second, while we will still have to wait for mass production for the 3rd.
Tesla's roadmap is for the following iteration, the Model T, for mass production to be practical.
People say that Tesla will just be a footnote.. yeah.. the footnote will say "100 years ago Tesla put both GM and Chrysler out of business, and 4 years later merged with Ford's strong hybrid division"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970788</id>
	<title>I know what this needs...</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1264957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This needs a car anaolgy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This needs a car anaolgy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This needs a car anaolgy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30981860</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To summarize responses to my original post:</p><p>1) What matters is not the energy stored in the fuel, but the energy delivered to the wheels.  Since liquid fuel motors are about 3x less efficient than electric, my "factor of 45" drops to a factor of 15.</p><p>2) We should be considering total power system mass, not just energy-storage-system mass.  True, but *because* batteries have such low energy density, they account for the bulk of the power system mass for current electric vehicles.</p><p>So making these corrections, we still find that electric power systems are an order of magnitude "worse" than liquid fuels.</p><p>3) People don't *need* the amount of power and range they currently get with their current liquid-fueled vehicles: an electric vehicle will suffice for the majority of the population.</p><p>Point 3 is absolutely right, but naive.  One look at the vehicles in the parking lot outside your building will convince you that people don't buy the vehicles they *need*: if they did, they'd all be driving Civics, Hyundais and SMART cars instead of BMWs and Escalades.  If you offer the average customer two vehicles at similar prices, one with 10 times the range and/or power of the other, he or she will choose the more powerful one almost every time.</p><p>I never said that electric vehicles are not a workable transportation option: I said they [b]cannot compete[/b] against liquid fuel vehicles in an open market.</p><p>As some of you noticed, I left some openings in my argument: if liquid fuels become prohibitively expensive due to supply shortage or taxes, or if taxes, credits, or other laws drive the customer's choice, electric vehicles may become a good option for the average joe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To summarize responses to my original post : 1 ) What matters is not the energy stored in the fuel , but the energy delivered to the wheels .
Since liquid fuel motors are about 3x less efficient than electric , my " factor of 45 " drops to a factor of 15.2 ) We should be considering total power system mass , not just energy-storage-system mass .
True , but * because * batteries have such low energy density , they account for the bulk of the power system mass for current electric vehicles.So making these corrections , we still find that electric power systems are an order of magnitude " worse " than liquid fuels.3 ) People do n't * need * the amount of power and range they currently get with their current liquid-fueled vehicles : an electric vehicle will suffice for the majority of the population.Point 3 is absolutely right , but naive .
One look at the vehicles in the parking lot outside your building will convince you that people do n't buy the vehicles they * need * : if they did , they 'd all be driving Civics , Hyundais and SMART cars instead of BMWs and Escalades .
If you offer the average customer two vehicles at similar prices , one with 10 times the range and/or power of the other , he or she will choose the more powerful one almost every time.I never said that electric vehicles are not a workable transportation option : I said they [ b ] can not compete [ /b ] against liquid fuel vehicles in an open market.As some of you noticed , I left some openings in my argument : if liquid fuels become prohibitively expensive due to supply shortage or taxes , or if taxes , credits , or other laws drive the customer 's choice , electric vehicles may become a good option for the average joe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To summarize responses to my original post:1) What matters is not the energy stored in the fuel, but the energy delivered to the wheels.
Since liquid fuel motors are about 3x less efficient than electric, my "factor of 45" drops to a factor of 15.2) We should be considering total power system mass, not just energy-storage-system mass.
True, but *because* batteries have such low energy density, they account for the bulk of the power system mass for current electric vehicles.So making these corrections, we still find that electric power systems are an order of magnitude "worse" than liquid fuels.3) People don't *need* the amount of power and range they currently get with their current liquid-fueled vehicles: an electric vehicle will suffice for the majority of the population.Point 3 is absolutely right, but naive.
One look at the vehicles in the parking lot outside your building will convince you that people don't buy the vehicles they *need*: if they did, they'd all be driving Civics, Hyundais and SMART cars instead of BMWs and Escalades.
If you offer the average customer two vehicles at similar prices, one with 10 times the range and/or power of the other, he or she will choose the more powerful one almost every time.I never said that electric vehicles are not a workable transportation option: I said they [b]cannot compete[/b] against liquid fuel vehicles in an open market.As some of you noticed, I left some openings in my argument: if liquid fuels become prohibitively expensive due to supply shortage or taxes, or if taxes, credits, or other laws drive the customer's choice, electric vehicles may become a good option for the average joe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970906</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's not just about you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's not just about you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's not just about you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970822</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>drgruney</author>
	<datestamp>1264957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called the trickle down effect.

When cars were first made they were toys for the wealthy. Now every schmo thinks they are entitled to own 4 wheels and an engine. It doesn't matter how much electric cars cost, if they are made the technology will eventually become common enough for everyone to have it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the trickle down effect .
When cars were first made they were toys for the wealthy .
Now every schmo thinks they are entitled to own 4 wheels and an engine .
It does n't matter how much electric cars cost , if they are made the technology will eventually become common enough for everyone to have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the trickle down effect.
When cars were first made they were toys for the wealthy.
Now every schmo thinks they are entitled to own 4 wheels and an engine.
It doesn't matter how much electric cars cost, if they are made the technology will eventually become common enough for everyone to have it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972002</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264966380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.</i> </p><p>Henry Ford had it right.</p><p>When he began automakers were focused on the luxury market, with most of the purchase price going into custom body work rather than basic engineering.</p><p>Those who did care about the tech - like the Stanley brothers - were only producing a few hundred cars a year. That would never generate enough revenue to do serious, sustained R&amp;D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % ( and that is being very generous ) of Americans will be able to afford this car .
Henry Ford had it right.When he began automakers were focused on the luxury market , with most of the purchase price going into custom body work rather than basic engineering.Those who did care about the tech - like the Stanley brothers - were only producing a few hundred cars a year .
That would never generate enough revenue to do serious , sustained R&amp;D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.
Henry Ford had it right.When he began automakers were focused on the luxury market, with most of the purchase price going into custom body work rather than basic engineering.Those who did care about the tech - like the Stanley brothers - were only producing a few hundred cars a year.
That would never generate enough revenue to do serious, sustained R&amp;D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973786</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264932900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>r wealthy people? If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.</p></div><p>Hey - shut up. Ford got 5.9 billion, and they're not doing anything innovative.</p><p><a href="http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2009/06/23/loan-means-ford-can-retool-midwest-plants/" title="dailyreporter.com">http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2009/06/23/loan-means-ford-can-retool-midwest-plants/</a> [dailyreporter.com]</p><p>(previously covered on slashdot, too)</p><p>Car manufacturing is damn expensive. It's not the price of materials so much as the price of setting up manufacturing plants! I'm glad your government is pushing money towards innovative things for once, rather than just bailouts.</p><p>Can you imagine what Tesla could do if they had the same sized loan as Ford? A lot more assembly lines than we're going to see, and cheaper prices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>r wealthy people ?
If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.Hey - shut up .
Ford got 5.9 billion , and they 're not doing anything innovative.http : //dailyreporter.com/blog/2009/06/23/loan-means-ford-can-retool-midwest-plants/ [ dailyreporter.com ] ( previously covered on slashdot , too ) Car manufacturing is damn expensive .
It 's not the price of materials so much as the price of setting up manufacturing plants !
I 'm glad your government is pushing money towards innovative things for once , rather than just bailouts.Can you imagine what Tesla could do if they had the same sized loan as Ford ?
A lot more assembly lines than we 're going to see , and cheaper prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>r wealthy people?
If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.Hey - shut up.
Ford got 5.9 billion, and they're not doing anything innovative.http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2009/06/23/loan-means-ford-can-retool-midwest-plants/ [dailyreporter.com](previously covered on slashdot, too)Car manufacturing is damn expensive.
It's not the price of materials so much as the price of setting up manufacturing plants!
I'm glad your government is pushing money towards innovative things for once, rather than just bailouts.Can you imagine what Tesla could do if they had the same sized loan as Ford?
A lot more assembly lines than we're going to see, and cheaper prices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971296</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264961280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg</p><p>
Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</p></div><p>
That's a slightly misleading statistic, because it doesn't include the mass of the engine or drive train in the calculation.  Electric cars are much simpler mechanically.  You need to compare the mass of fuel, a fuel tank, engine, gearing, and drive train to the mass of batteries plus electric motors and then see how much power you've got for both.  The electric car comes out a lot closer when you do this.
</p><p>
Then you need to factor in the fact that you can charge an electric car at home.  How many trips does a tank of petrol give you?  A week's worth of typical driving?  Then if your electric car has only half of the range but can be charged overnight then it's competitive.  </p><p>
Finally you need to compare the cost of the energy and the efficiency of generation.  Energy conversion from chemical potential energy a battery to kinetic energy via an electric motor is a lot more efficient than converting hydrocarbon fuel into kinetic energy via an internal combustion engine.  Electricity can come from burning hydrocarbons, but it can also come from things like solar, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric and tidal power.  Technology keeps making these forms of power cheaper, but scarcity keeps making hydrocarbons more expensive.  When 1MJ of petrol costs twice as much as 1MJ of electricity, it makes a difference.  Petrol sold in the USA is about 36.6 kWh/US gal, so at $3/gallon that's 0.08 cents per kWh.  That's pretty close to the cost of electricity.  Once you factor in the relative conversion efficiencies, you pay a bit less per unit of kinetic energy from an electric motor than you do from an internal combustion engine at $3 per US gallon of petrol.  When petrol hits $5 per US gallon (which is cheaper than it is in the UK) then it's a lot more expensive than electricity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kg Energy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kg That 's a slightly misleading statistic , because it does n't include the mass of the engine or drive train in the calculation .
Electric cars are much simpler mechanically .
You need to compare the mass of fuel , a fuel tank , engine , gearing , and drive train to the mass of batteries plus electric motors and then see how much power you 've got for both .
The electric car comes out a lot closer when you do this .
Then you need to factor in the fact that you can charge an electric car at home .
How many trips does a tank of petrol give you ?
A week 's worth of typical driving ?
Then if your electric car has only half of the range but can be charged overnight then it 's competitive .
Finally you need to compare the cost of the energy and the efficiency of generation .
Energy conversion from chemical potential energy a battery to kinetic energy via an electric motor is a lot more efficient than converting hydrocarbon fuel into kinetic energy via an internal combustion engine .
Electricity can come from burning hydrocarbons , but it can also come from things like solar , nuclear , wind , hydroelectric and tidal power .
Technology keeps making these forms of power cheaper , but scarcity keeps making hydrocarbons more expensive .
When 1MJ of petrol costs twice as much as 1MJ of electricity , it makes a difference .
Petrol sold in the USA is about 36.6 kWh/US gal , so at $ 3/gallon that 's 0.08 cents per kWh .
That 's pretty close to the cost of electricity .
Once you factor in the relative conversion efficiencies , you pay a bit less per unit of kinetic energy from an electric motor than you do from an internal combustion engine at $ 3 per US gallon of petrol .
When petrol hits $ 5 per US gallon ( which is cheaper than it is in the UK ) then it 's a lot more expensive than electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg
Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg
That's a slightly misleading statistic, because it doesn't include the mass of the engine or drive train in the calculation.
Electric cars are much simpler mechanically.
You need to compare the mass of fuel, a fuel tank, engine, gearing, and drive train to the mass of batteries plus electric motors and then see how much power you've got for both.
The electric car comes out a lot closer when you do this.
Then you need to factor in the fact that you can charge an electric car at home.
How many trips does a tank of petrol give you?
A week's worth of typical driving?
Then if your electric car has only half of the range but can be charged overnight then it's competitive.
Finally you need to compare the cost of the energy and the efficiency of generation.
Energy conversion from chemical potential energy a battery to kinetic energy via an electric motor is a lot more efficient than converting hydrocarbon fuel into kinetic energy via an internal combustion engine.
Electricity can come from burning hydrocarbons, but it can also come from things like solar, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric and tidal power.
Technology keeps making these forms of power cheaper, but scarcity keeps making hydrocarbons more expensive.
When 1MJ of petrol costs twice as much as 1MJ of electricity, it makes a difference.
Petrol sold in the USA is about 36.6 kWh/US gal, so at $3/gallon that's 0.08 cents per kWh.
That's pretty close to the cost of electricity.
Once you factor in the relative conversion efficiencies, you pay a bit less per unit of kinetic energy from an electric motor than you do from an internal combustion engine at $3 per US gallon of petrol.
When petrol hits $5 per US gallon (which is cheaper than it is in the UK) then it's a lot more expensive than electricity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974054</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy question to the crowd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264934160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"why can they just make the batteries swappable?"</p><p>They could.</p><p>"Sure...you'd need some sort of special equipment, and they're probably heavier than hell."</p><p>If you ever get a chance, take a trip to a warehouse that uses electric equipment.  Battery management can be a pain where they are standardized and designed to be swapped.  Quick charging is a better idea (used in some warehouses instead of battery changing stations).</p><p>But to summarize:<br>-Special equipment to handle heavy batteries.<br>-The ability to handle a large variety of different battery configurations.<br>-The ability to charge these batteries.<br>-A large supply of these batteries (charging takes time, you don't want to run out).<br>-A significant number of locations of these stations.<br>-Cars have to be designed to allow the battery packs to be swapped.  Most don't.  This would be a large undertaking.</p><p>This would be fundamentally different than gas stations.  At best it would be like getting your oil changed. The upfront cost for this network would be impressive.</p><p>A more realistic (affordable) option would be the appearance of fast charging stations at workplaces, stores, restaurants, etc.</p><p>Electric cars will require a shift in behavior.  That behavior will require time to occur.  It will happen the quickest when electric cars are reasonably priced.  After all, why should I buy an expensive electric car when I have a paid off car that gets over 30 mpg when gas is under $3 a gallon....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" why can they just make the batteries swappable ?
" They could .
" Sure...you 'd need some sort of special equipment , and they 're probably heavier than hell .
" If you ever get a chance , take a trip to a warehouse that uses electric equipment .
Battery management can be a pain where they are standardized and designed to be swapped .
Quick charging is a better idea ( used in some warehouses instead of battery changing stations ) .But to summarize : -Special equipment to handle heavy batteries.-The ability to handle a large variety of different battery configurations.-The ability to charge these batteries.-A large supply of these batteries ( charging takes time , you do n't want to run out ) .-A significant number of locations of these stations.-Cars have to be designed to allow the battery packs to be swapped .
Most do n't .
This would be a large undertaking.This would be fundamentally different than gas stations .
At best it would be like getting your oil changed .
The upfront cost for this network would be impressive.A more realistic ( affordable ) option would be the appearance of fast charging stations at workplaces , stores , restaurants , etc.Electric cars will require a shift in behavior .
That behavior will require time to occur .
It will happen the quickest when electric cars are reasonably priced .
After all , why should I buy an expensive electric car when I have a paid off car that gets over 30 mpg when gas is under $ 3 a gallon... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"why can they just make the batteries swappable?
"They could.
"Sure...you'd need some sort of special equipment, and they're probably heavier than hell.
"If you ever get a chance, take a trip to a warehouse that uses electric equipment.
Battery management can be a pain where they are standardized and designed to be swapped.
Quick charging is a better idea (used in some warehouses instead of battery changing stations).But to summarize:-Special equipment to handle heavy batteries.-The ability to handle a large variety of different battery configurations.-The ability to charge these batteries.-A large supply of these batteries (charging takes time, you don't want to run out).-A significant number of locations of these stations.-Cars have to be designed to allow the battery packs to be swapped.
Most don't.
This would be a large undertaking.This would be fundamentally different than gas stations.
At best it would be like getting your oil changed.
The upfront cost for this network would be impressive.A more realistic (affordable) option would be the appearance of fast charging stations at workplaces, stores, restaurants, etc.Electric cars will require a shift in behavior.
That behavior will require time to occur.
It will happen the quickest when electric cars are reasonably priced.
After all, why should I buy an expensive electric car when I have a paid off car that gets over 30 mpg when gas is under $3 a gallon....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</id>
	<title>DoE loan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan. Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxpayer bears the risk of default , Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development , all the while drawing their salary against the loan .
Does n't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan.
Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971082</id>
	<title>A Jim Cramer moment</title>
	<author>jgreco</author>
	<datestamp>1264959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't get Jim Cramer's cameo on Iron Man out of my mind.

"It's a car company... that doesn't make cars!  Sell!  Sell!  Sell!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't get Jim Cramer 's cameo on Iron Man out of my mind .
" It 's a car company... that does n't make cars !
Sell ! Sell !
Sell ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't get Jim Cramer's cameo on Iron Man out of my mind.
"It's a car company... that doesn't make cars!
Sell!  Sell!
Sell!"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971632</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1264963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$50000 is not an excessive price for a luxury car. It puts it on par with comparable sedans, and there are certainly enough Americans prepared to pay $50000 for a car. They wouldn't even have the capacity yet to produce a huge number of cars, so it's important they find a market where they can establish their brand. Even if they were only to gain average market share relative to the price category it would be a spectacular achievement and would be a huge disruption in the industry.</p><p>The reason why they deserve huge loans is because they are now the major driving force behind fully battery-electric vehicles and thus not only have huge potential for future industrial development and job creation but are also working towards our long-term energy policies.<br>Even if the Tesla brand remains a niche or the company becomes bankrupt in ten years time, I will bet you that thirty years from now, when people are driving along in their cheap bottom-line electric vehicles they will be using technology developed by Tesla Motors and it's partners.<br>Compare it to the technological achievements made by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz#Innovations" title="wikipedia.org">another niche brand</a> [wikipedia.org] (which BTW have invested heavily in Tesla Motors) to get an idea of what we're talking about here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 50000 is not an excessive price for a luxury car .
It puts it on par with comparable sedans , and there are certainly enough Americans prepared to pay $ 50000 for a car .
They would n't even have the capacity yet to produce a huge number of cars , so it 's important they find a market where they can establish their brand .
Even if they were only to gain average market share relative to the price category it would be a spectacular achievement and would be a huge disruption in the industry.The reason why they deserve huge loans is because they are now the major driving force behind fully battery-electric vehicles and thus not only have huge potential for future industrial development and job creation but are also working towards our long-term energy policies.Even if the Tesla brand remains a niche or the company becomes bankrupt in ten years time , I will bet you that thirty years from now , when people are driving along in their cheap bottom-line electric vehicles they will be using technology developed by Tesla Motors and it 's partners.Compare it to the technological achievements made by another niche brand [ wikipedia.org ] ( which BTW have invested heavily in Tesla Motors ) to get an idea of what we 're talking about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$50000 is not an excessive price for a luxury car.
It puts it on par with comparable sedans, and there are certainly enough Americans prepared to pay $50000 for a car.
They wouldn't even have the capacity yet to produce a huge number of cars, so it's important they find a market where they can establish their brand.
Even if they were only to gain average market share relative to the price category it would be a spectacular achievement and would be a huge disruption in the industry.The reason why they deserve huge loans is because they are now the major driving force behind fully battery-electric vehicles and thus not only have huge potential for future industrial development and job creation but are also working towards our long-term energy policies.Even if the Tesla brand remains a niche or the company becomes bankrupt in ten years time, I will bet you that thirty years from now, when people are driving along in their cheap bottom-line electric vehicles they will be using technology developed by Tesla Motors and it's partners.Compare it to the technological achievements made by another niche brand [wikipedia.org] (which BTW have invested heavily in Tesla Motors) to get an idea of what we're talking about here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973730</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1264932540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan. Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.</i></p><p>Did you like Chrysler and GM getting bailed out?  Or the banks? Do you like farm subsidies?  How about subsidies for petroleum?  I didn't and don't like any of them but by the government giving Detroit loans but not Tesla the government is picking winners and losers.  Well at least making it harder for those who are not helped.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxpayer bears the risk of default , Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development , all the while drawing their salary against the loan .
Does n't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.Did you like Chrysler and GM getting bailed out ?
Or the banks ?
Do you like farm subsidies ?
How about subsidies for petroleum ?
I did n't and do n't like any of them but by the government giving Detroit loans but not Tesla the government is picking winners and losers .
Well at least making it harder for those who are not helped .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan.
Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.Did you like Chrysler and GM getting bailed out?
Or the banks?
Do you like farm subsidies?
How about subsidies for petroleum?
I didn't and don't like any of them but by the government giving Detroit loans but not Tesla the government is picking winners and losers.
Well at least making it harder for those who are not helped.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970914</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.</p></div><p>We're talking about a group of people who tend to buy luxury cars with poor mileage, so it's a good idea to get them into something efficient. These are also the people that others want to emulate; if the roadster is any indication, the Model S will be driven by celebrities first. Cigarettes became popular in the USA only after the smoking industry paid Hollywood to include smoking scenes in movies. The same is true of Diamonds, which are a semi-precious stone whose supply is controlled to make it precious.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.</p></div><p>ESL?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?</p></div><p>They shouldn't be. However, taxpayers have actually financed limits on emission controls: California had a master plan for forcing automakers to produce less-polluting cars, and the federal government threatened to sue California if we did so. As a kid I used to be against smog laws. Then I grew up a little and woke up to the fact that everything we do affects someone else, and that my convenience or taste in autos should not impact another's breathing. Right now I'm in Panama, where there are no emissions controls. Cars with 2.5 liter or even smaller diesels put out <em>dramatically</em> more unburned hydrocarbons (and presumably, every other kind of pollution) than my 7.3 liter IDI diesel, in my 1992 F250. I've had a low-grade persistent cough since I got here, and it has only gone away since coming to Bocas town, on an island peninsula. The big difference here is the lack of cars; there's hardly any here because nothing is very far from anything. Another big difference of course is the lack of burning; it's not so agricultural here, and what there is isn't handled in the "green revolution" factory farming manner, it's more natives picking [naturally] organic fruit. Now I love emissions laws, even the periodic retesting.</p><p>Where does this rant lead? The benefits from Tesla motors are twofold. One, we're getting EV research at what is probably the bottom dollar. Two, we're getting EVs into the hands of some of the most influential people in the world; those persons who the whole world sees in the media. This will necessarily have the result of increasing demand for EVs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.</p></div><p>The public has never demanded accountability for subsidies before, why would they start now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % ( and that is being very generous ) of Americans will be able to afford this car.We 're talking about a group of people who tend to buy luxury cars with poor mileage , so it 's a good idea to get them into something efficient .
These are also the people that others want to emulate ; if the roadster is any indication , the Model S will be driven by celebrities first .
Cigarettes became popular in the USA only after the smoking industry paid Hollywood to include smoking scenes in movies .
The same is true of Diamonds , which are a semi-precious stone whose supply is controlled to make it precious.Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.ESL ? Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people ? They should n't be .
However , taxpayers have actually financed limits on emission controls : California had a master plan for forcing automakers to produce less-polluting cars , and the federal government threatened to sue California if we did so .
As a kid I used to be against smog laws .
Then I grew up a little and woke up to the fact that everything we do affects someone else , and that my convenience or taste in autos should not impact another 's breathing .
Right now I 'm in Panama , where there are no emissions controls .
Cars with 2.5 liter or even smaller diesels put out dramatically more unburned hydrocarbons ( and presumably , every other kind of pollution ) than my 7.3 liter IDI diesel , in my 1992 F250 .
I 've had a low-grade persistent cough since I got here , and it has only gone away since coming to Bocas town , on an island peninsula .
The big difference here is the lack of cars ; there 's hardly any here because nothing is very far from anything .
Another big difference of course is the lack of burning ; it 's not so agricultural here , and what there is is n't handled in the " green revolution " factory farming manner , it 's more natives picking [ naturally ] organic fruit .
Now I love emissions laws , even the periodic retesting.Where does this rant lead ?
The benefits from Tesla motors are twofold .
One , we 're getting EV research at what is probably the bottom dollar .
Two , we 're getting EVs into the hands of some of the most influential people in the world ; those persons who the whole world sees in the media .
This will necessarily have the result of increasing demand for EVs.If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.The public has never demanded accountability for subsidies before , why would they start now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.We're talking about a group of people who tend to buy luxury cars with poor mileage, so it's a good idea to get them into something efficient.
These are also the people that others want to emulate; if the roadster is any indication, the Model S will be driven by celebrities first.
Cigarettes became popular in the USA only after the smoking industry paid Hollywood to include smoking scenes in movies.
The same is true of Diamonds, which are a semi-precious stone whose supply is controlled to make it precious.Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.ESL?Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?They shouldn't be.
However, taxpayers have actually financed limits on emission controls: California had a master plan for forcing automakers to produce less-polluting cars, and the federal government threatened to sue California if we did so.
As a kid I used to be against smog laws.
Then I grew up a little and woke up to the fact that everything we do affects someone else, and that my convenience or taste in autos should not impact another's breathing.
Right now I'm in Panama, where there are no emissions controls.
Cars with 2.5 liter or even smaller diesels put out dramatically more unburned hydrocarbons (and presumably, every other kind of pollution) than my 7.3 liter IDI diesel, in my 1992 F250.
I've had a low-grade persistent cough since I got here, and it has only gone away since coming to Bocas town, on an island peninsula.
The big difference here is the lack of cars; there's hardly any here because nothing is very far from anything.
Another big difference of course is the lack of burning; it's not so agricultural here, and what there is isn't handled in the "green revolution" factory farming manner, it's more natives picking [naturally] organic fruit.
Now I love emissions laws, even the periodic retesting.Where does this rant lead?
The benefits from Tesla motors are twofold.
One, we're getting EV research at what is probably the bottom dollar.
Two, we're getting EVs into the hands of some of the most influential people in the world; those persons who the whole world sees in the media.
This will necessarily have the result of increasing demand for EVs.If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.The public has never demanded accountability for subsidies before, why would they start now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976582</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1264951080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't start by making a $2,000 car. You start by making a $100,000 car, then a $50,000 car, then a $35,000 car....</p></div><p>Quick, somebody tell Toyota, because they've just screwed up the last 60 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't start by making a $ 2,000 car .
You start by making a $ 100,000 car , then a $ 50,000 car , then a $ 35,000 car....Quick , somebody tell Toyota , because they 've just screwed up the last 60 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't start by making a $2,000 car.
You start by making a $100,000 car, then a $50,000 car, then a $35,000 car....Quick, somebody tell Toyota, because they've just screwed up the last 60 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971112</id>
	<title>I can't wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>until 2012 to see the S car go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>until 2012 to see the S car go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>until 2012 to see the S car go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976484</id>
	<title>Quite a gamble</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264950000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its quite gamble, leaving a company without a product for any length of
time, it could be the end of them. However there Model S is a big
step ahead of any other electric vehicle around, look at the specs:
<p>
300 Miles per charge
</p><p>
Quick charge in 45 minutes
</p><p>
0-60 Mph in 5.6 seconds
</p><p>
Seats 5 adults and 2 children.
</p><p>
Half the price of the roadstar, 50,000
</p><p>
.
</p><p>
All that and it still has a funky looking shape.
</p><p>
Given much lower price and the better performance
it seem worth cancelling the roadstar. Telsa cars
are still to expensive though, $20,000 is a good
price for a high range, family car, and Telsa's model S
is two and a half times that. I hope they are
sucessful, then the economies of scale with move
the price of there cars, down to the price of ordinary
cars. Replace petrol in cars, is the key step to reducing
global warming.
</p><p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Electric\%20Vehicles/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Electric Vehicles</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its quite gamble , leaving a company without a product for any length of time , it could be the end of them .
However there Model S is a big step ahead of any other electric vehicle around , look at the specs : 300 Miles per charge Quick charge in 45 minutes 0-60 Mph in 5.6 seconds Seats 5 adults and 2 children .
Half the price of the roadstar , 50,000 .
All that and it still has a funky looking shape .
Given much lower price and the better performance it seem worth cancelling the roadstar .
Telsa cars are still to expensive though , $ 20,000 is a good price for a high range , family car , and Telsa 's model S is two and a half times that .
I hope they are sucessful , then the economies of scale with move the price of there cars , down to the price of ordinary cars .
Replace petrol in cars , is the key step to reducing global warming .
--- Electric Vehicles [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its quite gamble, leaving a company without a product for any length of
time, it could be the end of them.
However there Model S is a big
step ahead of any other electric vehicle around, look at the specs:

300 Miles per charge

Quick charge in 45 minutes

0-60 Mph in 5.6 seconds

Seats 5 adults and 2 children.
Half the price of the roadstar, 50,000

.
All that and it still has a funky looking shape.
Given much lower price and the better performance
it seem worth cancelling the roadstar.
Telsa cars
are still to expensive though, $20,000 is a good
price for a high range, family car, and Telsa's model S
is two and a half times that.
I hope they are
sucessful, then the economies of scale with move
the price of there cars, down to the price of ordinary
cars.
Replace petrol in cars, is the key step to reducing
global warming.
---

Electric Vehicles [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Haven't we covered this myth already? I think the rebuttal goes like this: Oh, shucks, EVs will only suit the needs of 95\% of the population</i></p><p>But they won't, and that's the problem.  Everyone looks at daily commutes and says, hey, that's all people need to do to drive, but they always leave out the weekends, where people tend to drive much, much more, than on weekdays.</p><p>And, even the daily commute thing is a bit of a joke, because a lot of people have to run errands after they leave work.</p><p>There is a reason that 350 miles is the range of a car - and that's because its about how much range you need for driving for a day.  Once fully electric cars can go 300 - 400 miles on a charge, they'll be a drop in replacement for the auto for genuinely most people. But, they won't, and so what's well have is hybrid vehicles.</p><p>Really, if daily commuting was all Americans used transportation for, rail would be everywhere.  But Americans are not utilitarian drivers, they drive because they enjoy it.</p><p>What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.  I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't we covered this myth already ?
I think the rebuttal goes like this : Oh , shucks , EVs will only suit the needs of 95 \ % of the populationBut they wo n't , and that 's the problem .
Everyone looks at daily commutes and says , hey , that 's all people need to do to drive , but they always leave out the weekends , where people tend to drive much , much more , than on weekdays.And , even the daily commute thing is a bit of a joke , because a lot of people have to run errands after they leave work.There is a reason that 350 miles is the range of a car - and that 's because its about how much range you need for driving for a day .
Once fully electric cars can go 300 - 400 miles on a charge , they 'll be a drop in replacement for the auto for genuinely most people .
But , they wo n't , and so what 's well have is hybrid vehicles.Really , if daily commuting was all Americans used transportation for , rail would be everywhere .
But Americans are not utilitarian drivers , they drive because they enjoy it.What 's really nutty about the whole thing is that , we have n't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like .
I mean , what if you could get gasoline to " burn " but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity , rather than heat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't we covered this myth already?
I think the rebuttal goes like this: Oh, shucks, EVs will only suit the needs of 95\% of the populationBut they won't, and that's the problem.
Everyone looks at daily commutes and says, hey, that's all people need to do to drive, but they always leave out the weekends, where people tend to drive much, much more, than on weekdays.And, even the daily commute thing is a bit of a joke, because a lot of people have to run errands after they leave work.There is a reason that 350 miles is the range of a car - and that's because its about how much range you need for driving for a day.
Once fully electric cars can go 300 - 400 miles on a charge, they'll be a drop in replacement for the auto for genuinely most people.
But, they won't, and so what's well have is hybrid vehicles.Really, if daily commuting was all Americans used transportation for, rail would be everywhere.
But Americans are not utilitarian drivers, they drive because they enjoy it.What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.
I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977128</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you're missing here is that the Model S is a premium product, so it can command a premium price.  Therefore it is not competing against average cars, so I do think it will be successful.</p><p>With regard to electric cars in general, well, the technology certainly has some way to go, but it will get there eventually since as others have pointed out that the energy density problem is not as bad as you make out.  But for the near-term the best solution to that issue would be the series plug-in hybrids, like the Chevy Volt, where the battery pack can handle day-to-day usage and the gas engine just kicks in to provide electricity when the batteries run low.  This method of operating has advantages in that the gas engine can be made to run much more efficiently when not connected directly to the wheels and being able to run on pure electric for most of the cars usage, while still maintaining the easy refuel and distance provided by gas when needed, with disadvantages being needing to carry extra weight, and higher production costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're missing here is that the Model S is a premium product , so it can command a premium price .
Therefore it is not competing against average cars , so I do think it will be successful.With regard to electric cars in general , well , the technology certainly has some way to go , but it will get there eventually since as others have pointed out that the energy density problem is not as bad as you make out .
But for the near-term the best solution to that issue would be the series plug-in hybrids , like the Chevy Volt , where the battery pack can handle day-to-day usage and the gas engine just kicks in to provide electricity when the batteries run low .
This method of operating has advantages in that the gas engine can be made to run much more efficiently when not connected directly to the wheels and being able to run on pure electric for most of the cars usage , while still maintaining the easy refuel and distance provided by gas when needed , with disadvantages being needing to carry extra weight , and higher production costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're missing here is that the Model S is a premium product, so it can command a premium price.
Therefore it is not competing against average cars, so I do think it will be successful.With regard to electric cars in general, well, the technology certainly has some way to go, but it will get there eventually since as others have pointed out that the energy density problem is not as bad as you make out.
But for the near-term the best solution to that issue would be the series plug-in hybrids, like the Chevy Volt, where the battery pack can handle day-to-day usage and the gas engine just kicks in to provide electricity when the batteries run low.
This method of operating has advantages in that the gas engine can be made to run much more efficiently when not connected directly to the wheels and being able to run on pure electric for most of the cars usage, while still maintaining the easy refuel and distance provided by gas when needed, with disadvantages being needing to carry extra weight, and higher production costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970858</id>
	<title>All of their eggs, into one mobile basket....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to give 'em credit for courage.  Moving away from the incremental change model transforms the consumer's unacknowledged secondary role of beta tester into that of alpha tester, so they either get it right the first time or they likely become a blip in automotive history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to give 'em credit for courage .
Moving away from the incremental change model transforms the consumer 's unacknowledged secondary role of beta tester into that of alpha tester , so they either get it right the first time or they likely become a blip in automotive history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to give 'em credit for courage.
Moving away from the incremental change model transforms the consumer's unacknowledged secondary role of beta tester into that of alpha tester, so they either get it right the first time or they likely become a blip in automotive history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971378</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1264962060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't start by making a $2,000 car. You start by making a $100,000 car, then a $50,000 car, then a $35,000 car....</p><p>If you do enough of something, then you get good at it.  Costs like engineering can be spread over a line of cars.</p><p>If there were only one \_\_\_\_\_ car it would be outrageously expensive; however, there are many.</p><p>--</p><p>Paper tape calculator with keys taped down.  The boss walks in.  "What is that?"<br>The answer:  "Its calculating my salary in real time."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't start by making a $ 2,000 car .
You start by making a $ 100,000 car , then a $ 50,000 car , then a $ 35,000 car....If you do enough of something , then you get good at it .
Costs like engineering can be spread over a line of cars.If there were only one \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ car it would be outrageously expensive ; however , there are many.--Paper tape calculator with keys taped down .
The boss walks in .
" What is that ?
" The answer : " Its calculating my salary in real time .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't start by making a $2,000 car.
You start by making a $100,000 car, then a $50,000 car, then a $35,000 car....If you do enough of something, then you get good at it.
Costs like engineering can be spread over a line of cars.If there were only one \_\_\_\_\_ car it would be outrageously expensive; however, there are many.--Paper tape calculator with keys taped down.
The boss walks in.
"What is that?
"The answer:  "Its calculating my salary in real time.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971692</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should not fund these guys.  Their cars are crap, have you read the independent reviews.  They defrauded their customers as their cars don't deliver.  All of their competent engineer have left.  Almost all of the private venture capital has pulled out.  The gov should pull the plug at once. What moron buys an over priced niche car a lotus no less and converts, to electric for twice the cost. You can give them money if you choose not my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should not fund these guys .
Their cars are crap , have you read the independent reviews .
They defrauded their customers as their cars do n't deliver .
All of their competent engineer have left .
Almost all of the private venture capital has pulled out .
The gov should pull the plug at once .
What moron buys an over priced niche car a lotus no less and converts , to electric for twice the cost .
You can give them money if you choose not my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should not fund these guys.
Their cars are crap, have you read the independent reviews.
They defrauded their customers as their cars don't deliver.
All of their competent engineer have left.
Almost all of the private venture capital has pulled out.
The gov should pull the plug at once.
What moron buys an over priced niche car a lotus no less and converts, to electric for twice the cost.
You can give them money if you choose not my money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972112</id>
	<title>get a girlfriend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little bit of a troll, but slashdotters need to get girlfriends to make this work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  Seriously though, what married couple doesn't have at least two cars?  My Civic really fits my commute well, but it would certainly not fit my family comfortably for a long trip (we've tried).  If we're going long, we can pile everybody and everything into the barge.  A limited range electric car would replace my commuter pretty well.</p><p>I commute round trip 25 miles per day plus occasional errands.  I don't trust what age and New England cold would do to mileage estimates, but if the manufacturer claims 100 miles, I'd buy that for my commute!</p><p>Of course up front cost is another issue, plus the approach taken by the Volt sounds like an excellent possibility, but we'll see in another 5+ years when I next need to replace a car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little bit of a troll , but slashdotters need to get girlfriends to make this work ; - ) Seriously though , what married couple does n't have at least two cars ?
My Civic really fits my commute well , but it would certainly not fit my family comfortably for a long trip ( we 've tried ) .
If we 're going long , we can pile everybody and everything into the barge .
A limited range electric car would replace my commuter pretty well.I commute round trip 25 miles per day plus occasional errands .
I do n't trust what age and New England cold would do to mileage estimates , but if the manufacturer claims 100 miles , I 'd buy that for my commute ! Of course up front cost is another issue , plus the approach taken by the Volt sounds like an excellent possibility , but we 'll see in another 5 + years when I next need to replace a car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little bit of a troll, but slashdotters need to get girlfriends to make this work ;-)  Seriously though, what married couple doesn't have at least two cars?
My Civic really fits my commute well, but it would certainly not fit my family comfortably for a long trip (we've tried).
If we're going long, we can pile everybody and everything into the barge.
A limited range electric car would replace my commuter pretty well.I commute round trip 25 miles per day plus occasional errands.
I don't trust what age and New England cold would do to mileage estimates, but if the manufacturer claims 100 miles, I'd buy that for my commute!Of course up front cost is another issue, plus the approach taken by the Volt sounds like an excellent possibility, but we'll see in another 5+ years when I next need to replace a car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977086</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's called the trickle down effect. When cars were first made they were toys for the wealthy.</p></div></blockquote><p>But once the government subsidized them, they became widely availa...oh, wait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the trickle down effect .
When cars were first made they were toys for the wealthy.But once the government subsidized them , they became widely availa...oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the trickle down effect.
When cars were first made they were toys for the wealthy.But once the government subsidized them, they became widely availa...oh, wait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974470</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1264936440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like. I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?</i></p><p>You would still have two problems.  By using petroleum you're supporting terrorists.  And petroleum will run out.</p><p>I think the biggest problem is that most of those thinking about this has a "1 size fits all" mentality.  Transportation like energy should be broken down, use what's available in a given area for a given task.  Use plug-in EVs in cities where drivers do not drive far.  Use hybrids in suburbia.  And use trains for longer distances.  And those trains can be electric, like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV#Power\_supply" title="wikipedia.org">TGV</a> [wikipedia.org] in France.  Heck even fossil fueled trains have better fuel economy when fully loaded than road vehicles.  The problem there is that people will not willingly give up their cars.  I care about the environment and I won't give up mine.  I just try not to drive when I don't need to.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's really nutty about the whole thing is that , we have n't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like .
I mean , what if you could get gasoline to " burn " but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity , rather than heat ? You would still have two problems .
By using petroleum you 're supporting terrorists .
And petroleum will run out.I think the biggest problem is that most of those thinking about this has a " 1 size fits all " mentality .
Transportation like energy should be broken down , use what 's available in a given area for a given task .
Use plug-in EVs in cities where drivers do not drive far .
Use hybrids in suburbia .
And use trains for longer distances .
And those trains can be electric , like the TGV [ wikipedia.org ] in France .
Heck even fossil fueled trains have better fuel economy when fully loaded than road vehicles .
The problem there is that people will not willingly give up their cars .
I care about the environment and I wo n't give up mine .
I just try not to drive when I do n't need to .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.
I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?You would still have two problems.
By using petroleum you're supporting terrorists.
And petroleum will run out.I think the biggest problem is that most of those thinking about this has a "1 size fits all" mentality.
Transportation like energy should be broken down, use what's available in a given area for a given task.
Use plug-in EVs in cities where drivers do not drive far.
Use hybrids in suburbia.
And use trains for longer distances.
And those trains can be electric, like the TGV [wikipedia.org] in France.
Heck even fossil fueled trains have better fuel economy when fully loaded than road vehicles.
The problem there is that people will not willingly give up their cars.
I care about the environment and I won't give up mine.
I just try not to drive when I don't need to.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971868</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264965720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg<br>Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</p></div></blockquote><p>You forgot a few things:</p><p>a) Electric engines are on average about 4 times as efficient as petrol ones. If we use your numbers that then implies you need 11kg of battery to replace a kg of petrol.</p><p>b) Electric engines are much lighter than ICEs, so some of the weight gain is compensated for this way.</p><p>c) Electric cars in principle needs no transmission, gearbox, catalyst, exhaust system, raidator, starter engine etc... that knocks off a heck of a lot of weight.</p><p>Basically when you take into consideration the weight reduction from the much simpler drive train of an EV it is ore than enough to add in hundreds of kilograms of batteries. The problem is cost, not weight/energy ratio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kgYou forgot a few things : a ) Electric engines are on average about 4 times as efficient as petrol ones .
If we use your numbers that then implies you need 11kg of battery to replace a kg of petrol.b ) Electric engines are much lighter than ICEs , so some of the weight gain is compensated for this way.c ) Electric cars in principle needs no transmission , gearbox , catalyst , exhaust system , raidator , starter engine etc... that knocks off a heck of a lot of weight.Basically when you take into consideration the weight reduction from the much simpler drive train of an EV it is ore than enough to add in hundreds of kilograms of batteries .
The problem is cost , not weight/energy ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kgYou forgot a few things:a) Electric engines are on average about 4 times as efficient as petrol ones.
If we use your numbers that then implies you need 11kg of battery to replace a kg of petrol.b) Electric engines are much lighter than ICEs, so some of the weight gain is compensated for this way.c) Electric cars in principle needs no transmission, gearbox, catalyst, exhaust system, raidator, starter engine etc... that knocks off a heck of a lot of weight.Basically when you take into consideration the weight reduction from the much simpler drive train of an EV it is ore than enough to add in hundreds of kilograms of batteries.
The problem is cost, not weight/energy ratio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971436</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>floodo1</author>
	<datestamp>1264962420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the market doesn't always operate in the best interests of the people. Environmental issues show this to be the case.
In other words, the market isn't the solution to every problem, and "saving the environment" is a prime example of where it's going to take subsidies in order to counteract the market, so as to secure the public interest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the market does n't always operate in the best interests of the people .
Environmental issues show this to be the case .
In other words , the market is n't the solution to every problem , and " saving the environment " is a prime example of where it 's going to take subsidies in order to counteract the market , so as to secure the public interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the market doesn't always operate in the best interests of the people.
Environmental issues show this to be the case.
In other words, the market isn't the solution to every problem, and "saving the environment" is a prime example of where it's going to take subsidies in order to counteract the market, so as to secure the public interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971844</id>
	<title>Sounds underhanded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I was interested in buying Tesla stock when their IPO occurs, I think I would rather short it or not even touch it now. This company feels like it has "Scam" written all over it. Don't get me wrong I think they make great products, but this company reminds me of a dotcom where its all PR and no actual progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I was interested in buying Tesla stock when their IPO occurs , I think I would rather short it or not even touch it now .
This company feels like it has " Scam " written all over it .
Do n't get me wrong I think they make great products , but this company reminds me of a dotcom where its all PR and no actual progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I was interested in buying Tesla stock when their IPO occurs, I think I would rather short it or not even touch it now.
This company feels like it has "Scam" written all over it.
Don't get me wrong I think they make great products, but this company reminds me of a dotcom where its all PR and no actual progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977390</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264959660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We the taxpayers should finance this company because they're proving that they can make something revolutionary that will work its way down to being affordable to everyone.</i> <p>
Henry Ford worked his way <b>up</b> by <b>beginning</b> with a car that was within reach of almost anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We the taxpayers should finance this company because they 're proving that they can make something revolutionary that will work its way down to being affordable to everyone .
Henry Ford worked his way up by beginning with a car that was within reach of almost anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We the taxpayers should finance this company because they're proving that they can make something revolutionary that will work its way down to being affordable to everyone.
Henry Ford worked his way up by beginning with a car that was within reach of almost anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30982240</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1265044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You also got to take into account the affect of dumping exhaust into the atmosphere.  It is a public resource by default since everyone has access to due to the difficulty in limiting peoples access I mean it's everywhere.  Since access is free people will overuse it, I mean why pay to dispose of something when you can dump for free.  You don't even have to agree with global warming just think with all those cars driving all those miles dumping all that exhaust  into the atmosphere there will reach a saturation point, this amounts to a major advantage for combustion engines.  This is where the government steps in and levels the playing field, one of the basic laws of economics is that less government intervention is usually good not always or never but usually and this is the classic example,  so we either tax gasoline more to remove this advantage since if access could more easily be controlled it would and there would be a price or we provide an equal advantage to energy sources that don't take advantage of this little loop hole.  For now however I ride a motorcycle which is relatively fuel efficient compared to an SUV, note while I still use gas I use much closer to what I need I don't ride a 4k lb SUV or construction crew truck around when even a 2k lb sedan would do since I only need to move one person which is doing plenty of good itself.  Yes price needs to come down and range needs to increase but those were both concerns about combustion engines when they first came out for the wealthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You also got to take into account the affect of dumping exhaust into the atmosphere .
It is a public resource by default since everyone has access to due to the difficulty in limiting peoples access I mean it 's everywhere .
Since access is free people will overuse it , I mean why pay to dispose of something when you can dump for free .
You do n't even have to agree with global warming just think with all those cars driving all those miles dumping all that exhaust into the atmosphere there will reach a saturation point , this amounts to a major advantage for combustion engines .
This is where the government steps in and levels the playing field , one of the basic laws of economics is that less government intervention is usually good not always or never but usually and this is the classic example , so we either tax gasoline more to remove this advantage since if access could more easily be controlled it would and there would be a price or we provide an equal advantage to energy sources that do n't take advantage of this little loop hole .
For now however I ride a motorcycle which is relatively fuel efficient compared to an SUV , note while I still use gas I use much closer to what I need I do n't ride a 4k lb SUV or construction crew truck around when even a 2k lb sedan would do since I only need to move one person which is doing plenty of good itself .
Yes price needs to come down and range needs to increase but those were both concerns about combustion engines when they first came out for the wealthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also got to take into account the affect of dumping exhaust into the atmosphere.
It is a public resource by default since everyone has access to due to the difficulty in limiting peoples access I mean it's everywhere.
Since access is free people will overuse it, I mean why pay to dispose of something when you can dump for free.
You don't even have to agree with global warming just think with all those cars driving all those miles dumping all that exhaust  into the atmosphere there will reach a saturation point, this amounts to a major advantage for combustion engines.
This is where the government steps in and levels the playing field, one of the basic laws of economics is that less government intervention is usually good not always or never but usually and this is the classic example,  so we either tax gasoline more to remove this advantage since if access could more easily be controlled it would and there would be a price or we provide an equal advantage to energy sources that don't take advantage of this little loop hole.
For now however I ride a motorcycle which is relatively fuel efficient compared to an SUV, note while I still use gas I use much closer to what I need I don't ride a 4k lb SUV or construction crew truck around when even a 2k lb sedan would do since I only need to move one person which is doing plenty of good itself.
Yes price needs to come down and range needs to increase but those were both concerns about combustion engines when they first came out for the wealthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971426</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish I had mod points for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971910</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Kneo24</author>
	<datestamp>1264965960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People travel... over 300 miles each day? I call bullshit on this. I can see a hundred, maybe even 200 in some extreme cases, but to consider that the <b>average person</b> travels 300 miles or more a day is bullshit. They may do that once in a while, and in those cases they could just rent a gas powered vehicle for their weekend road trip.</p><p>I would think people would buy a vehicle based on their needs, and there are plenty of people who travel 100 miles or less each day of their normal routines. If your needs are such that you spend 4 hours or more each day driving, then no, an EV may not be for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People travel... over 300 miles each day ?
I call bullshit on this .
I can see a hundred , maybe even 200 in some extreme cases , but to consider that the average person travels 300 miles or more a day is bullshit .
They may do that once in a while , and in those cases they could just rent a gas powered vehicle for their weekend road trip.I would think people would buy a vehicle based on their needs , and there are plenty of people who travel 100 miles or less each day of their normal routines .
If your needs are such that you spend 4 hours or more each day driving , then no , an EV may not be for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People travel... over 300 miles each day?
I call bullshit on this.
I can see a hundred, maybe even 200 in some extreme cases, but to consider that the average person travels 300 miles or more a day is bullshit.
They may do that once in a while, and in those cases they could just rent a gas powered vehicle for their weekend road trip.I would think people would buy a vehicle based on their needs, and there are plenty of people who travel 100 miles or less each day of their normal routines.
If your needs are such that you spend 4 hours or more each day driving, then no, an EV may not be for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976916</id>
	<title>465 MILLION? MILLION?! DAMN.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My air+steam Wind Engine is a canned tornado explosion and will travel 465 million miles before it needs a tune-up... and they got $465,000,000.00 for a measly crap few miles?! What a crying dang shame. Stupid damn Dept. of Energy nuthin' better to do than sling cash like it's Waffle House hash browns. In my enginewow.htm engine design the hot steam cancels out the liquid supercold air so the metal doesn't suffer wear from expand/contract (plus the oil never suffers heat breakdown viscosity. OK, I give up, I give up here. Hush Percy. Stupid Stupid Stupid D.O.E. eat my grits fools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My air + steam Wind Engine is a canned tornado explosion and will travel 465 million miles before it needs a tune-up... and they got $ 465,000,000.00 for a measly crap few miles ? !
What a crying dang shame .
Stupid damn Dept .
of Energy nuthin ' better to do than sling cash like it 's Waffle House hash browns .
In my enginewow.htm engine design the hot steam cancels out the liquid supercold air so the metal does n't suffer wear from expand/contract ( plus the oil never suffers heat breakdown viscosity .
OK , I give up , I give up here .
Hush Percy .
Stupid Stupid Stupid D.O.E .
eat my grits fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My air+steam Wind Engine is a canned tornado explosion and will travel 465 million miles before it needs a tune-up... and they got $465,000,000.00 for a measly crap few miles?!
What a crying dang shame.
Stupid damn Dept.
of Energy nuthin' better to do than sling cash like it's Waffle House hash browns.
In my enginewow.htm engine design the hot steam cancels out the liquid supercold air so the metal doesn't suffer wear from expand/contract (plus the oil never suffers heat breakdown viscosity.
OK, I give up, I give up here.
Hush Percy.
Stupid Stupid Stupid D.O.E.
eat my grits fools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30994288</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a gamble</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1265121600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except when was the last time you bought a sedan that fit those kind of specifications for $20,000 brand new? Considering that the Model S is a luxury car the price tag is pretty reasonable. And judging by the number of people that I see driving luxury sedans every day I don't think their market is really all that small. Look at how many people have bought Prius's, it's not like those are a good bargain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except when was the last time you bought a sedan that fit those kind of specifications for $ 20,000 brand new ?
Considering that the Model S is a luxury car the price tag is pretty reasonable .
And judging by the number of people that I see driving luxury sedans every day I do n't think their market is really all that small .
Look at how many people have bought Prius 's , it 's not like those are a good bargain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except when was the last time you bought a sedan that fit those kind of specifications for $20,000 brand new?
Considering that the Model S is a luxury car the price tag is pretty reasonable.
And judging by the number of people that I see driving luxury sedans every day I don't think their market is really all that small.
Look at how many people have bought Prius's, it's not like those are a good bargain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975120</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Zobeid</author>
	<datestamp>1264941060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analysis is simple-minded and flawed. . .</p><p>For one thing, electric vehicles are considerably more energy-efficient than gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles.  Even though they don't carry as much energy on board, a much greater percentage of the energy they carry does, in fact, reach the wheels.</p><p>For another thing, you take no account of how much range is actually required for a car to be practical and attractive to buyers.  Gas cars don't have 300 miles range because everybody requires 300 miles range.  They have 300 miles range because that's easy to do with gasoline.  The question of how short a range people are willing to accept is largely unknown, because the issue rarely comes up with gasoline.</p><p>Finally, you yourself hinted at the reason why electric cars could replace gas cars, when ". .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.liquid fuel is no longer a readily available competitor. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."    If you get up one morning and gas is $10/gallon, and you have to search for a gas station that is still open and has some to sell, and then wait in line for a couple of hours, and then discover you don't have the proper ration card allowing you to buy a few gallons. . .   Then you might just develop a sudden burning desire for an electric car.</p><p>If the Peak Oil faction is right, such scenario could be only a few years away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analysis is simple-minded and flawed .
. .For one thing , electric vehicles are considerably more energy-efficient than gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles .
Even though they do n't carry as much energy on board , a much greater percentage of the energy they carry does , in fact , reach the wheels.For another thing , you take no account of how much range is actually required for a car to be practical and attractive to buyers .
Gas cars do n't have 300 miles range because everybody requires 300 miles range .
They have 300 miles range because that 's easy to do with gasoline .
The question of how short a range people are willing to accept is largely unknown , because the issue rarely comes up with gasoline.Finally , you yourself hinted at the reason why electric cars could replace gas cars , when " .
. .liquid fuel is no longer a readily available competitor .
. .
" If you get up one morning and gas is $ 10/gallon , and you have to search for a gas station that is still open and has some to sell , and then wait in line for a couple of hours , and then discover you do n't have the proper ration card allowing you to buy a few gallons .
. .
Then you might just develop a sudden burning desire for an electric car.If the Peak Oil faction is right , such scenario could be only a few years away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analysis is simple-minded and flawed.
. .For one thing, electric vehicles are considerably more energy-efficient than gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles.
Even though they don't carry as much energy on board, a much greater percentage of the energy they carry does, in fact, reach the wheels.For another thing, you take no account of how much range is actually required for a car to be practical and attractive to buyers.
Gas cars don't have 300 miles range because everybody requires 300 miles range.
They have 300 miles range because that's easy to do with gasoline.
The question of how short a range people are willing to accept is largely unknown, because the issue rarely comes up with gasoline.Finally, you yourself hinted at the reason why electric cars could replace gas cars, when ".
. .liquid fuel is no longer a readily available competitor.
. .
"    If you get up one morning and gas is $10/gallon, and you have to search for a gas station that is still open and has some to sell, and then wait in line for a couple of hours, and then discover you don't have the proper ration card allowing you to buy a few gallons.
. .
Then you might just develop a sudden burning desire for an electric car.If the Peak Oil faction is right, such scenario could be only a few years away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971624</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>ak3ldama</author>
	<datestamp>1264963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.</p></div><p>Huge government loans, on effectively no interest, are gifts. Hold no illusions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And besides , it 's not a gift , it 's a loan.Huge government loans , on effectively no interest , are gifts .
Hold no illusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.Huge government loans, on effectively no interest, are gifts.
Hold no illusions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975466</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you need to step away from the text books.</p><p>I would question most of the foundations on which you build your arguments. For starters I don't think it is obvious that a good investment for the private sector is any different than one for the public. Do we (society) really benefit from government run schools?</p><p>A private sector investment has to produce a result. A government investment only has to please a constituency. Hoping that something good will rub off from the investment is not sound policy.</p><p>The picking of winners and losers may be a 'meme' as you say (nice word - I had to look it up) but it trades the power of the constituency for the profit driven motives of the market.</p><p>I would much rather the money be channelled based on the hopes and dreams of the individual taxpayers via the open market than some policy based on the political equation of the group in power at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to step away from the text books.I would question most of the foundations on which you build your arguments .
For starters I do n't think it is obvious that a good investment for the private sector is any different than one for the public .
Do we ( society ) really benefit from government run schools ? A private sector investment has to produce a result .
A government investment only has to please a constituency .
Hoping that something good will rub off from the investment is not sound policy.The picking of winners and losers may be a 'meme ' as you say ( nice word - I had to look it up ) but it trades the power of the constituency for the profit driven motives of the market.I would much rather the money be channelled based on the hopes and dreams of the individual taxpayers via the open market than some policy based on the political equation of the group in power at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to step away from the text books.I would question most of the foundations on which you build your arguments.
For starters I don't think it is obvious that a good investment for the private sector is any different than one for the public.
Do we (society) really benefit from government run schools?A private sector investment has to produce a result.
A government investment only has to please a constituency.
Hoping that something good will rub off from the investment is not sound policy.The picking of winners and losers may be a 'meme' as you say (nice word - I had to look it up) but it trades the power of the constituency for the profit driven motives of the market.I would much rather the money be channelled based on the hopes and dreams of the individual taxpayers via the open market than some policy based on the political equation of the group in power at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971736</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>ak3ldama</author>
	<datestamp>1264964640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ford received a bunch of money to fund experimental development of an engine I believe they call the Bobcat. It is a twin-turbo gasoline engine, with E85 directly injected in. It develops massive power. It's a sink hole. Too expensive to utilize and just a reason for Ford to get some of that government teet. Ford fans are making fun of GM fans these days but it's not entirely fair. Figured slashdotters <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/14/fords-direct-ethanol-injected-bobcat-engine-not-based-on-new-5/" title="autoblog.com" rel="nofollow">may or may not be aware...</a> [autoblog.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>For the Bobcat experimental engine, the longer-stroked 5.4 was used in combination with a smaller bore that provided thicker cylinder walls needed to withstand the high internal pressures of the boosted 750 pound-foot engine. According to Harrison, the Bobcat was part of a Department of Energy funded research project and there are no current plans for a production engine based on the technology. He also tells us that the extra cost of the dual injection systems and more robust block and heads negates much of the savings from not needing a diesel after-treatment system.</p></div><p>Other than that I do believe they got some government loans, effectively gifts, to fund restructuring. The difference between Ford and GM was timing, Ford figured out sooner what the fuck was going on and they're reaping the benefits now.</p><p>Now, the discussion of governments helping companies, as being socialistic in nature is probably a fair discussion - and also a fair analysis. However, the better discussion is why we have not punished our civil leaders for putting us into this system where there is NO protectionism of the American economy and production system. Taking down tariffs at every turn is very harmful. We are bowing to the pressure of libertarian think-tanks that live in a dream world. Granted, we may need to have "free-er" trade than we had in the 1800s, but to just take tariffs away completely? This is especially harmful when other countries keep their tariffs up or somewhat up. Also, what happens to our "neighbours"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... our FUCKING neighbours! Flooding Mexico with our governments subsidized corn has repurcussions. We cannot turn our back from these issues, and we cannot remain silent.</p><p>It is my viewpoint, that so many of the current ills of the world are being "funded" by cheap petroleum. Once shipping costs go back up we should once again return to some basic and appropriate levels of protectionism, local food production, etc. The powers that be just saw an easy way to further widen the wealth and power gap and proceeded to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ford received a bunch of money to fund experimental development of an engine I believe they call the Bobcat .
It is a twin-turbo gasoline engine , with E85 directly injected in .
It develops massive power .
It 's a sink hole .
Too expensive to utilize and just a reason for Ford to get some of that government teet .
Ford fans are making fun of GM fans these days but it 's not entirely fair .
Figured slashdotters may or may not be aware... [ autoblog.com ] For the Bobcat experimental engine , the longer-stroked 5.4 was used in combination with a smaller bore that provided thicker cylinder walls needed to withstand the high internal pressures of the boosted 750 pound-foot engine .
According to Harrison , the Bobcat was part of a Department of Energy funded research project and there are no current plans for a production engine based on the technology .
He also tells us that the extra cost of the dual injection systems and more robust block and heads negates much of the savings from not needing a diesel after-treatment system.Other than that I do believe they got some government loans , effectively gifts , to fund restructuring .
The difference between Ford and GM was timing , Ford figured out sooner what the fuck was going on and they 're reaping the benefits now.Now , the discussion of governments helping companies , as being socialistic in nature is probably a fair discussion - and also a fair analysis .
However , the better discussion is why we have not punished our civil leaders for putting us into this system where there is NO protectionism of the American economy and production system .
Taking down tariffs at every turn is very harmful .
We are bowing to the pressure of libertarian think-tanks that live in a dream world .
Granted , we may need to have " free-er " trade than we had in the 1800s , but to just take tariffs away completely ?
This is especially harmful when other countries keep their tariffs up or somewhat up .
Also , what happens to our " neighbours " ... our FUCKING neighbours !
Flooding Mexico with our governments subsidized corn has repurcussions .
We can not turn our back from these issues , and we can not remain silent.It is my viewpoint , that so many of the current ills of the world are being " funded " by cheap petroleum .
Once shipping costs go back up we should once again return to some basic and appropriate levels of protectionism , local food production , etc .
The powers that be just saw an easy way to further widen the wealth and power gap and proceeded to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ford received a bunch of money to fund experimental development of an engine I believe they call the Bobcat.
It is a twin-turbo gasoline engine, with E85 directly injected in.
It develops massive power.
It's a sink hole.
Too expensive to utilize and just a reason for Ford to get some of that government teet.
Ford fans are making fun of GM fans these days but it's not entirely fair.
Figured slashdotters may or may not be aware... [autoblog.com] For the Bobcat experimental engine, the longer-stroked 5.4 was used in combination with a smaller bore that provided thicker cylinder walls needed to withstand the high internal pressures of the boosted 750 pound-foot engine.
According to Harrison, the Bobcat was part of a Department of Energy funded research project and there are no current plans for a production engine based on the technology.
He also tells us that the extra cost of the dual injection systems and more robust block and heads negates much of the savings from not needing a diesel after-treatment system.Other than that I do believe they got some government loans, effectively gifts, to fund restructuring.
The difference between Ford and GM was timing, Ford figured out sooner what the fuck was going on and they're reaping the benefits now.Now, the discussion of governments helping companies, as being socialistic in nature is probably a fair discussion - and also a fair analysis.
However, the better discussion is why we have not punished our civil leaders for putting us into this system where there is NO protectionism of the American economy and production system.
Taking down tariffs at every turn is very harmful.
We are bowing to the pressure of libertarian think-tanks that live in a dream world.
Granted, we may need to have "free-er" trade than we had in the 1800s, but to just take tariffs away completely?
This is especially harmful when other countries keep their tariffs up or somewhat up.
Also, what happens to our "neighbours" ... our FUCKING neighbours!
Flooding Mexico with our governments subsidized corn has repurcussions.
We cannot turn our back from these issues, and we cannot remain silent.It is my viewpoint, that so many of the current ills of the world are being "funded" by cheap petroleum.
Once shipping costs go back up we should once again return to some basic and appropriate levels of protectionism, local food production, etc.
The powers that be just saw an easy way to further widen the wealth and power gap and proceeded to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974346</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We built our product because we couldn't find a solution that met our budget.  Everything was built for the big boys and if you couldn't afford to drop $20k, they didn't want to talk to you.  Well, we ended up building our own solution and selling it to other businesses our size at a price they could afford.  In fact we ended up with a product that did more and was simpler for the end user to grasp and use.  We aren't selling to the rich of our industry and we're profitable and growing.</p><p>It's the same reason that Edward Jones has been successful.  Honestly, if you want to be rich, sell to the poor.  The rich have too many people trying to get a piece of their pie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We built our product because we could n't find a solution that met our budget .
Everything was built for the big boys and if you could n't afford to drop $ 20k , they did n't want to talk to you .
Well , we ended up building our own solution and selling it to other businesses our size at a price they could afford .
In fact we ended up with a product that did more and was simpler for the end user to grasp and use .
We are n't selling to the rich of our industry and we 're profitable and growing.It 's the same reason that Edward Jones has been successful .
Honestly , if you want to be rich , sell to the poor .
The rich have too many people trying to get a piece of their pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We built our product because we couldn't find a solution that met our budget.
Everything was built for the big boys and if you couldn't afford to drop $20k, they didn't want to talk to you.
Well, we ended up building our own solution and selling it to other businesses our size at a price they could afford.
In fact we ended up with a product that did more and was simpler for the end user to grasp and use.
We aren't selling to the rich of our industry and we're profitable and growing.It's the same reason that Edward Jones has been successful.
Honestly, if you want to be rich, sell to the poor.
The rich have too many people trying to get a piece of their pie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972324</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>gtbritishskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264967880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.</p></div><p>Yes, there has already been research done on using gasoline in fuel cells (you basically heat it up to crack it apart and extract its component hydrogen, then feed that through the fuel cell).  You can get a little more efficiency, but in the end you are still using gasoline, except you are making the system more complex by converting it to electricity (which needs to be stored, probably in batteries) before using it to produce motion.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?</p></div><p>
I won't even start on how wrong this statement was.  Just go on wikipedia and educate yourself on what combustion is, what a photon is, and the different methods of producing electricity from fuel and their associated efficiencies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's really nutty about the whole thing is that , we have n't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.Yes , there has already been research done on using gasoline in fuel cells ( you basically heat it up to crack it apart and extract its component hydrogen , then feed that through the fuel cell ) .
You can get a little more efficiency , but in the end you are still using gasoline , except you are making the system more complex by converting it to electricity ( which needs to be stored , probably in batteries ) before using it to produce motion .
I mean , what if you could get gasoline to " burn " but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity , rather than heat ?
I wo n't even start on how wrong this statement was .
Just go on wikipedia and educate yourself on what combustion is , what a photon is , and the different methods of producing electricity from fuel and their associated efficiencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like.Yes, there has already been research done on using gasoline in fuel cells (you basically heat it up to crack it apart and extract its component hydrogen, then feed that through the fuel cell).
You can get a little more efficiency, but in the end you are still using gasoline, except you are making the system more complex by converting it to electricity (which needs to be stored, probably in batteries) before using it to produce motion.
I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?
I won't even start on how wrong this statement was.
Just go on wikipedia and educate yourself on what combustion is, what a photon is, and the different methods of producing electricity from fuel and their associated efficiencies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't we covered this myth already? I think the rebuttal goes like this: Oh, shucks, EVs will only suit the needs of 95\% of the population. If I need to expound, let me know, and I will just ignore you because you're just a troll; if you really cared about this issue, you'd get this already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't we covered this myth already ?
I think the rebuttal goes like this : Oh , shucks , EVs will only suit the needs of 95 \ % of the population .
If I need to expound , let me know , and I will just ignore you because you 're just a troll ; if you really cared about this issue , you 'd get this already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't we covered this myth already?
I think the rebuttal goes like this: Oh, shucks, EVs will only suit the needs of 95\% of the population.
If I need to expound, let me know, and I will just ignore you because you're just a troll; if you really cared about this issue, you'd get this already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971182</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1264960440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government isn't supposed to invest in these things to make a profit.  It's supposed to invest in them, like DARPA projects, because the overall benefits might be good for the state.</p><p>If it were a good deal in strictly financial terms for the government, then it'd be a good deal for private investors, and the government shouldn't be involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is n't supposed to invest in these things to make a profit .
It 's supposed to invest in them , like DARPA projects , because the overall benefits might be good for the state.If it were a good deal in strictly financial terms for the government , then it 'd be a good deal for private investors , and the government should n't be involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government isn't supposed to invest in these things to make a profit.
It's supposed to invest in them, like DARPA projects, because the overall benefits might be good for the state.If it were a good deal in strictly financial terms for the government, then it'd be a good deal for private investors, and the government shouldn't be involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970860</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't start by making a $2,000 car. You start by making a $100,000 car, then a $50,000 car, then a $35,000 car....</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't start by making a $ 2,000 car .
You start by making a $ 100,000 car , then a $ 50,000 car , then a $ 35,000 car... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't start by making a $2,000 car.
You start by making a $100,000 car, then a $50,000 car, then a $35,000 car....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973970</id>
	<title>Re:How much energy gets to the wheels?</title>
	<author>NonSequor</author>
	<datestamp>1264933800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg<br>Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</p></div><p>Is that with or without lithium's fivefold advantage in how much of the energy actually gets to the wheels? When you recharge the lithium, all the thermodynamic inefficiencies of an Otto cycle heat engine are already paid for at the power plant. In addition, as Anonymous Coward pointed out, you don't need to lug around the heat engine itself.</p></div><p>After accounting for that, you still have an order of magnitude of advantage for liquid fuel.</p><p>Can you make batteries that are 10 times more energy dense? Maybe, but I'm guessing it would take more expensive materials and manufacturing technologies. You always need to consider that in saving something one place, you're always increasing a cost somewhere else. It's just a question of which cost you can live with.</p><p>I think there are fundamentally different strengths between electrical and chemical energy sources. Electrical energy is more fluid and can be transported easily and converted to mechanical forms easily, but it's a poor for storage. Chemical energy is more durable and suited for storage, but there's a heavy loss on conversion to other forms of energy.</p><p>Which is better for transportation depends on whether or not chemical's handicap at conversion to mechanical work is worse than electrical's handicap for storage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kgIs that with or without lithium 's fivefold advantage in how much of the energy actually gets to the wheels ?
When you recharge the lithium , all the thermodynamic inefficiencies of an Otto cycle heat engine are already paid for at the power plant .
In addition , as Anonymous Coward pointed out , you do n't need to lug around the heat engine itself.After accounting for that , you still have an order of magnitude of advantage for liquid fuel.Can you make batteries that are 10 times more energy dense ?
Maybe , but I 'm guessing it would take more expensive materials and manufacturing technologies .
You always need to consider that in saving something one place , you 're always increasing a cost somewhere else .
It 's just a question of which cost you can live with.I think there are fundamentally different strengths between electrical and chemical energy sources .
Electrical energy is more fluid and can be transported easily and converted to mechanical forms easily , but it 's a poor for storage .
Chemical energy is more durable and suited for storage , but there 's a heavy loss on conversion to other forms of energy.Which is better for transportation depends on whether or not chemical 's handicap at conversion to mechanical work is worse than electrical 's handicap for storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kgIs that with or without lithium's fivefold advantage in how much of the energy actually gets to the wheels?
When you recharge the lithium, all the thermodynamic inefficiencies of an Otto cycle heat engine are already paid for at the power plant.
In addition, as Anonymous Coward pointed out, you don't need to lug around the heat engine itself.After accounting for that, you still have an order of magnitude of advantage for liquid fuel.Can you make batteries that are 10 times more energy dense?
Maybe, but I'm guessing it would take more expensive materials and manufacturing technologies.
You always need to consider that in saving something one place, you're always increasing a cost somewhere else.
It's just a question of which cost you can live with.I think there are fundamentally different strengths between electrical and chemical energy sources.
Electrical energy is more fluid and can be transported easily and converted to mechanical forms easily, but it's a poor for storage.
Chemical energy is more durable and suited for storage, but there's a heavy loss on conversion to other forms of energy.Which is better for transportation depends on whether or not chemical's handicap at conversion to mechanical work is worse than electrical's handicap for storage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971196</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264960560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're successful then more Americans start using power from hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, and so on power produced in the USA, instead of oil imported from the middle east.  More money stays in the US economy and the government takes its cut every time it changes hands, so it's not like there's no benefit to the taxpayer if it's successful.  It would be nice if the execs shared a bit more of the risk though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're successful then more Americans start using power from hydroelectric , nuclear , wind , solar , and so on power produced in the USA , instead of oil imported from the middle east .
More money stays in the US economy and the government takes its cut every time it changes hands , so it 's not like there 's no benefit to the taxpayer if it 's successful .
It would be nice if the execs shared a bit more of the risk though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're successful then more Americans start using power from hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, and so on power produced in the USA, instead of oil imported from the middle east.
More money stays in the US economy and the government takes its cut every time it changes hands, so it's not like there's no benefit to the taxpayer if it's successful.
It would be nice if the execs shared a bit more of the risk though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973298</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>JM78</author>
	<datestamp>1264930380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...until society sees the eventual benefits of a fantastic technology which allowed pure electric vehicles to fully replace traditional combustion engines.
<br> <br>
In the global picture, the world is more complex than that. This isn't the same thing as subsidizing a product or industry in which we are already enslaved (*cough* big oil...).
<br> <br>
Just because someone gets rich from taxpayer money doesn't mean the action won't benefit us. Even if the company fails, their efforts have potentially ushered-in a new era which will benefit us all. That effort should be nurtured and encouraged; period.
<br> <br>
Its about progress; not perfection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...until society sees the eventual benefits of a fantastic technology which allowed pure electric vehicles to fully replace traditional combustion engines .
In the global picture , the world is more complex than that .
This is n't the same thing as subsidizing a product or industry in which we are already enslaved ( * cough * big oil... ) .
Just because someone gets rich from taxpayer money does n't mean the action wo n't benefit us .
Even if the company fails , their efforts have potentially ushered-in a new era which will benefit us all .
That effort should be nurtured and encouraged ; period .
Its about progress ; not perfection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...until society sees the eventual benefits of a fantastic technology which allowed pure electric vehicles to fully replace traditional combustion engines.
In the global picture, the world is more complex than that.
This isn't the same thing as subsidizing a product or industry in which we are already enslaved (*cough* big oil...).
Just because someone gets rich from taxpayer money doesn't mean the action won't benefit us.
Even if the company fails, their efforts have potentially ushered-in a new era which will benefit us all.
That effort should be nurtured and encouraged; period.
Its about progress; not perfection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972872</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264971000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.<br>The next car they develop after the Model S will be more like $30,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.The next car they develop after the Model S will be more like $ 30,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.The next car they develop after the Model S will be more like $30,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971400</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1264962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, GM with it GM Volt is on to something...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , GM with it GM Volt is on to something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, GM with it GM Volt is on to something...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971572</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan."</p><p>And if they fail to repay the loan? Us poor suckers foot the bill again.</p><p>I am sick of this f***ing administration giving my taxes to the wealthy (Wall Street, Tesla/GM/Chrysler execs) and lazy (GM/Chrysler unionized workers). I can't wait for November.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And besides , it 's not a gift , it 's a loan .
" And if they fail to repay the loan ?
Us poor suckers foot the bill again.I am sick of this f * * * ing administration giving my taxes to the wealthy ( Wall Street , Tesla/GM/Chrysler execs ) and lazy ( GM/Chrysler unionized workers ) .
I ca n't wait for November .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.
"And if they fail to repay the loan?
Us poor suckers foot the bill again.I am sick of this f***ing administration giving my taxes to the wealthy (Wall Street, Tesla/GM/Chrysler execs) and lazy (GM/Chrysler unionized workers).
I can't wait for November.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30978176</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because if you havent noticed, VCs only want easy money with short turn arounds.  cars are not websites, you cant hack up a car design overnight.  The big three were in the same shoes many many years ago but didn't have to worry because people were willing to spend 500 dollars (100,000 adjusted) on a claptrap that had a starter that would break your arm.  and its development was government funded, see the first world war.<br>I swear some people expect technological progress to be all blowjobs and honey that will cost less than a hamburger and be in a sexy case and not require any sort of higher brain function then "ooohh shiny"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because if you havent noticed , VCs only want easy money with short turn arounds .
cars are not websites , you cant hack up a car design overnight .
The big three were in the same shoes many many years ago but did n't have to worry because people were willing to spend 500 dollars ( 100,000 adjusted ) on a claptrap that had a starter that would break your arm .
and its development was government funded , see the first world war.I swear some people expect technological progress to be all blowjobs and honey that will cost less than a hamburger and be in a sexy case and not require any sort of higher brain function then " ooohh shiny "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because if you havent noticed, VCs only want easy money with short turn arounds.
cars are not websites, you cant hack up a car design overnight.
The big three were in the same shoes many many years ago but didn't have to worry because people were willing to spend 500 dollars (100,000 adjusted) on a claptrap that had a starter that would break your arm.
and its development was government funded, see the first world war.I swear some people expect technological progress to be all blowjobs and honey that will cost less than a hamburger and be in a sexy case and not require any sort of higher brain function then "ooohh shiny"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971016</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264959180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So their first car retails for &gt;$100,000, and their second will be around $50,000 (which, after tax rebates, will be in the 40's) and they have stated that they will have an even cheaper car in the future, and your not seeing how the price declines relate very much to how technology drops in price?<br><br>Little things like once they build a plant, they can make their own cars, instead of buying a LOTUS, ripping it apart, and then putting there parts in could really, really drop the price.  Look at the volt.  Its not that far off in the price range.  Is GM a boutique manufacturer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So their first car retails for &gt; $ 100,000 , and their second will be around $ 50,000 ( which , after tax rebates , will be in the 40 's ) and they have stated that they will have an even cheaper car in the future , and your not seeing how the price declines relate very much to how technology drops in price ? Little things like once they build a plant , they can make their own cars , instead of buying a LOTUS , ripping it apart , and then putting there parts in could really , really drop the price .
Look at the volt .
Its not that far off in the price range .
Is GM a boutique manufacturer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So their first car retails for &gt;$100,000, and their second will be around $50,000 (which, after tax rebates, will be in the 40's) and they have stated that they will have an even cheaper car in the future, and your not seeing how the price declines relate very much to how technology drops in price?Little things like once they build a plant, they can make their own cars, instead of buying a LOTUS, ripping it apart, and then putting there parts in could really, really drop the price.
Look at the volt.
Its not that far off in the price range.
Is GM a boutique manufacturer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30981972</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a gamble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not cancelling the roadster's production. Lotus, which makes the whole car except the drivetrain, is retooling their factory to stop production of the model that Tesla uses. This means Tesla will have to either stop production of their roadster, or divert precious engineering resources from the model S to re-engineer the roadster for Lotus's new chassis.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not cancelling the roadster 's production .
Lotus , which makes the whole car except the drivetrain , is retooling their factory to stop production of the model that Tesla uses .
This means Tesla will have to either stop production of their roadster , or divert precious engineering resources from the model S to re-engineer the roadster for Lotus 's new chassis.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not cancelling the roadster's production.
Lotus, which makes the whole car except the drivetrain, is retooling their factory to stop production of the model that Tesla uses.
This means Tesla will have to either stop production of their roadster, or divert precious engineering resources from the model S to re-engineer the roadster for Lotus's new chassis.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975368</id>
	<title>Re:DoE loan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan. Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.</p></div><p>I would rather loan cash to a company and risk losing it while still getting worthwhile research out of it regardless and furthering the development of our nation and its people as a whole than to use it to pay for a war on oil or some other war that does nothing for our nation, its people or the world as a whole and basically just blow the losses out my butt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxpayer bears the risk of default , Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development , all the while drawing their salary against the loan .
Does n't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.I would rather loan cash to a company and risk losing it while still getting worthwhile research out of it regardless and furthering the development of our nation and its people as a whole than to use it to pay for a war on oil or some other war that does nothing for our nation , its people or the world as a whole and basically just blow the losses out my butt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan.
Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.I would rather loan cash to a company and risk losing it while still getting worthwhile research out of it regardless and furthering the development of our nation and its people as a whole than to use it to pay for a war on oil or some other war that does nothing for our nation, its people or the world as a whole and basically just blow the losses out my butt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971128</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1264960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, there are those who can afford and will buy such an electric vehicle if only to offset their guilt about the amount of crud their factory on the other side of the planet is pumping out.</p><p>I.e., pure cost analysis may not be applicable - with the long-term result that research is being done to change that cost analysis result.  Not to mention, gasoline is indeed a finite resource; substitutes such as ethanol, in turn, require that growing space remains available which in turn relies upon the assumption that humans will show some sense and quit breeding at faster than replacement rates - which is not a good bet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , there are those who can afford and will buy such an electric vehicle if only to offset their guilt about the amount of crud their factory on the other side of the planet is pumping out.I.e. , pure cost analysis may not be applicable - with the long-term result that research is being done to change that cost analysis result .
Not to mention , gasoline is indeed a finite resource ; substitutes such as ethanol , in turn , require that growing space remains available which in turn relies upon the assumption that humans will show some sense and quit breeding at faster than replacement rates - which is not a good bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, there are those who can afford and will buy such an electric vehicle if only to offset their guilt about the amount of crud their factory on the other side of the planet is pumping out.I.e., pure cost analysis may not be applicable - with the long-term result that research is being done to change that cost analysis result.
Not to mention, gasoline is indeed a finite resource; substitutes such as ethanol, in turn, require that growing space remains available which in turn relies upon the assumption that humans will show some sense and quit breeding at faster than replacement rates - which is not a good bet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973230</id>
	<title>it's, you know, annoying</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1264930020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do journalists try to reuse some annoying device over and over again? Can't they, you know, see how terrible it is?<br>If I knew I wouldn't be fucking reading your article, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do journalists try to reuse some annoying device over and over again ?
Ca n't they , you know , see how terrible it is ? If I knew I would n't be fucking reading your article , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do journalists try to reuse some annoying device over and over again?
Can't they, you know, see how terrible it is?If I knew I wouldn't be fucking reading your article, you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971050</id>
	<title>The Roadster is too heavy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the batteries, and placement, add too much weight to the Roadster.... And the recharge time is currently too long.<br> <br> Both of these things would be solved if they used a hydrogen fuel cell, to generate the power for the electric car. Very efficient, will allow people to fuel as they go, and eventually the power source can be switched to a battery when one is produced that is competitive... Its win-win, and as an added plus would significantly decrease the cost of production, so more of us can afford it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the batteries , and placement , add too much weight to the Roadster.... And the recharge time is currently too long .
Both of these things would be solved if they used a hydrogen fuel cell , to generate the power for the electric car .
Very efficient , will allow people to fuel as they go , and eventually the power source can be switched to a battery when one is produced that is competitive... Its win-win , and as an added plus would significantly decrease the cost of production , so more of us can afford it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the batteries, and placement, add too much weight to the Roadster.... And the recharge time is currently too long.
Both of these things would be solved if they used a hydrogen fuel cell, to generate the power for the electric car.
Very efficient, will allow people to fuel as they go, and eventually the power source can be switched to a battery when one is produced that is competitive... Its win-win, and as an added plus would significantly decrease the cost of production, so more of us can afford it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</id>
	<title>More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car. Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche. The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers. Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people? If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles. If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % ( and that is being very generous ) of Americans will be able to afford this car .
Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche .
The best that they ( and the taxpayers ) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers .
Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people ?
If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles .
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $ 450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers ; 99 \ % of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.
Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.
The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers.
Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?
If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972814</id>
	<title>Meaningless comparisons</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1264970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg<br>Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</p><p>Vehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them. So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.</p></div><p>You are neglecting some pretty important facts.  The first fact you are neglecting is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy\_conversion\_efficiency" title="wikipedia.org">energy conversion efficiency</a> [wikipedia.org].  Electric motors have FAR higher energy conversion efficiency - something like 90\% versus 10-40\%.  The energy density of the fuels source itself is a factor but not meaningful by itself.  Uranium has a far higher energy density than gasoline but we're not likely to put it in an automobile anytime soon.</p><p>Second, you are ignoring the weight of the equipment required to convert that energy into motion.  Internal combustion engines are heavy and gasoline isn't much use for transportation by itself without a vehicle.  What you should be comparing is the weight of the *entire* vehicle and those weights are demonstrably comparable.  The Telsa Roadster is pretty similar in weight and performance to the Lotus that shares the same frame.  It is the power per weight for the whole vehicle that matters, not just for the fuel source.</p><p>Third, you are assuming that current battery technology will never be improved upon.  While batteries are not improving as fast as we would like, that doesn't mean they won't continue to improve.  A breakthrough is still a realistic possibility with batteries whereas gasoline engines are unlikely to get significantly more utility from a liter of gasoline than they currently do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kgVehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them .
So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion , and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.You are neglecting some pretty important facts .
The first fact you are neglecting is energy conversion efficiency [ wikipedia.org ] .
Electric motors have FAR higher energy conversion efficiency - something like 90 \ % versus 10-40 \ % .
The energy density of the fuels source itself is a factor but not meaningful by itself .
Uranium has a far higher energy density than gasoline but we 're not likely to put it in an automobile anytime soon.Second , you are ignoring the weight of the equipment required to convert that energy into motion .
Internal combustion engines are heavy and gasoline is n't much use for transportation by itself without a vehicle .
What you should be comparing is the weight of the * entire * vehicle and those weights are demonstrably comparable .
The Telsa Roadster is pretty similar in weight and performance to the Lotus that shares the same frame .
It is the power per weight for the whole vehicle that matters , not just for the fuel source.Third , you are assuming that current battery technology will never be improved upon .
While batteries are not improving as fast as we would like , that does n't mean they wo n't continue to improve .
A breakthrough is still a realistic possibility with batteries whereas gasoline engines are unlikely to get significantly more utility from a liter of gasoline than they currently do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kgVehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them.
So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.You are neglecting some pretty important facts.
The first fact you are neglecting is energy conversion efficiency [wikipedia.org].
Electric motors have FAR higher energy conversion efficiency - something like 90\% versus 10-40\%.
The energy density of the fuels source itself is a factor but not meaningful by itself.
Uranium has a far higher energy density than gasoline but we're not likely to put it in an automobile anytime soon.Second, you are ignoring the weight of the equipment required to convert that energy into motion.
Internal combustion engines are heavy and gasoline isn't much use for transportation by itself without a vehicle.
What you should be comparing is the weight of the *entire* vehicle and those weights are demonstrably comparable.
The Telsa Roadster is pretty similar in weight and performance to the Lotus that shares the same frame.
It is the power per weight for the whole vehicle that matters, not just for the fuel source.Third, you are assuming that current battery technology will never be improved upon.
While batteries are not improving as fast as we would like, that doesn't mean they won't continue to improve.
A breakthrough is still a realistic possibility with batteries whereas gasoline engines are unlikely to get significantly more utility from a liter of gasoline than they currently do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972286</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264967640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure energy density in matter doesn't corelate with torque on the asphalt. Combusting it seems like a really good way to waste energy in to useless heath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure energy density in matter does n't corelate with torque on the asphalt .
Combusting it seems like a really good way to waste energy in to useless heath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure energy density in matter doesn't corelate with torque on the asphalt.
Combusting it seems like a really good way to waste energy in to useless heath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971154</id>
	<title>How much energy gets to the wheels?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg
Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</p></div><p>Is that with or without lithium's fivefold advantage in how much of the energy actually gets to the wheels? When you recharge the lithium, all the thermodynamic inefficiencies of an Otto cycle heat engine are already paid for at the power plant. In addition, as Anonymous Coward pointed out, you don't need to lug around the heat engine itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kg Energy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kgIs that with or without lithium 's fivefold advantage in how much of the energy actually gets to the wheels ?
When you recharge the lithium , all the thermodynamic inefficiencies of an Otto cycle heat engine are already paid for at the power plant .
In addition , as Anonymous Coward pointed out , you do n't need to lug around the heat engine itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg
Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kgIs that with or without lithium's fivefold advantage in how much of the energy actually gets to the wheels?
When you recharge the lithium, all the thermodynamic inefficiencies of an Otto cycle heat engine are already paid for at the power plant.
In addition, as Anonymous Coward pointed out, you don't need to lug around the heat engine itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971690</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>blindseer</author>
	<datestamp>1264964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also more than just $/mile for fuel.  If it takes 15 minutes to fill up a hydrocarbon tank and 15 hours to fill up a lithium-ion battery then a vehicle's effective range is quite limited.  The limited range might not be much of a concern for 90\% of commuters but if one is in the business of long distance trucking then the downtime for refuel is going to become an issue.</p><p>Some of the issues of lengthy recharge times can be addressed by swapping batteries but that would require an infrastructure to exist.</p><p>To anyone that want to point out that one could merely recharge the battery at a faster rate so that it is comparable to dumping gasoline into a tank I suggest you do some math first.  My car, for example has a 16 gallon as tank.  I timed the refueling time at a gas station at about five minutes.  Compute that power in megawatts and then compute the voltage and current required to match that.  Consider such minutia as the breakdown voltage of air and the NEC recommendations for the sizing of conductors.</p><p>Pure electric vehicles will remain in the realm of curiosities, luxuries, and niches unless we find some unobtainium to recharge the batteries.  I see a brighter future in synthesized hydrocarbons than for electric vehicles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also more than just $ /mile for fuel .
If it takes 15 minutes to fill up a hydrocarbon tank and 15 hours to fill up a lithium-ion battery then a vehicle 's effective range is quite limited .
The limited range might not be much of a concern for 90 \ % of commuters but if one is in the business of long distance trucking then the downtime for refuel is going to become an issue.Some of the issues of lengthy recharge times can be addressed by swapping batteries but that would require an infrastructure to exist.To anyone that want to point out that one could merely recharge the battery at a faster rate so that it is comparable to dumping gasoline into a tank I suggest you do some math first .
My car , for example has a 16 gallon as tank .
I timed the refueling time at a gas station at about five minutes .
Compute that power in megawatts and then compute the voltage and current required to match that .
Consider such minutia as the breakdown voltage of air and the NEC recommendations for the sizing of conductors.Pure electric vehicles will remain in the realm of curiosities , luxuries , and niches unless we find some unobtainium to recharge the batteries .
I see a brighter future in synthesized hydrocarbons than for electric vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also more than just $/mile for fuel.
If it takes 15 minutes to fill up a hydrocarbon tank and 15 hours to fill up a lithium-ion battery then a vehicle's effective range is quite limited.
The limited range might not be much of a concern for 90\% of commuters but if one is in the business of long distance trucking then the downtime for refuel is going to become an issue.Some of the issues of lengthy recharge times can be addressed by swapping batteries but that would require an infrastructure to exist.To anyone that want to point out that one could merely recharge the battery at a faster rate so that it is comparable to dumping gasoline into a tank I suggest you do some math first.
My car, for example has a 16 gallon as tank.
I timed the refueling time at a gas station at about five minutes.
Compute that power in megawatts and then compute the voltage and current required to match that.
Consider such minutia as the breakdown voltage of air and the NEC recommendations for the sizing of conductors.Pure electric vehicles will remain in the realm of curiosities, luxuries, and niches unless we find some unobtainium to recharge the batteries.
I see a brighter future in synthesized hydrocarbons than for electric vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971446</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1264962480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car. Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche. The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers. Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people? If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles. If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</p></div><p>I have a general comment: Porche makes and always has made sport cars. They've been steadily increasing profits, year after year. They steadily also increased their holdings of VolksWagen Group (to somewhat over 35\%) until they merged. So, even if you "only" make luxury cars, you can make profits that are in the same order of magnitude, or even better than, the traditional manufacturers. In fact, Porsche was arguably more solvent than some US car manufacturers have ever been.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % ( and that is being very generous ) of Americans will be able to afford this car .
Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche .
The best that they ( and the taxpayers ) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers .
Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people ?
If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles .
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $ 450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers ; 99 \ % of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla ? I have a general comment : Porche makes and always has made sport cars .
They 've been steadily increasing profits , year after year .
They steadily also increased their holdings of VolksWagen Group ( to somewhat over 35 \ % ) until they merged .
So , even if you " only " make luxury cars , you can make profits that are in the same order of magnitude , or even better than , the traditional manufacturers .
In fact , Porsche was arguably more solvent than some US car manufacturers have ever been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.
Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.
The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers.
Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?
If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles.
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?I have a general comment: Porche makes and always has made sport cars.
They've been steadily increasing profits, year after year.
They steadily also increased their holdings of VolksWagen Group (to somewhat over 35\%) until they merged.
So, even if you "only" make luxury cars, you can make profits that are in the same order of magnitude, or even better than, the traditional manufacturers.
In fact, Porsche was arguably more solvent than some US car manufacturers have ever been.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971640</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264963920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We the taxpayers should finance this company...</p><p>Yes, it's a good thing the US government financed Cadillac luxery cars early in the twentieth century, isn't it?  Otherwise cars might never have caught on.</p><p>Oh.  Wait...</p><p>If you think Tesla should be financed you go right ahead and do so, with your money.</p><p>&gt; And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.</p><p>If it was a good investment someone other than the government would make it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We the taxpayers should finance this company...Yes , it 's a good thing the US government financed Cadillac luxery cars early in the twentieth century , is n't it ?
Otherwise cars might never have caught on.Oh .
Wait...If you think Tesla should be financed you go right ahead and do so , with your money. &gt; And besides , it 's not a gift , it 's a loan.If it was a good investment someone other than the government would make it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We the taxpayers should finance this company...Yes, it's a good thing the US government financed Cadillac luxery cars early in the twentieth century, isn't it?
Otherwise cars might never have caught on.Oh.
Wait...If you think Tesla should be financed you go right ahead and do so, with your money.&gt; And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.If it was a good investment someone other than the government would make it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971194</id>
	<title>duke nukem forever paint job</title>
	<author>AFormalEvent</author>
	<datestamp>1264960500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i hope it comes with a duke nukem forever paint job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hope it comes with a duke nukem forever paint job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hope it comes with a duke nukem forever paint job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971210</id>
	<title>And this guy wants to build a spaceship?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically, here's the career guide for you.  Take all the credit for PayPal at the right time, with the right partner, sell for a ton of money, build a car company that rarely makes any cars, a space ship company that can't launch anything, write a big check to Obama, and the next thing you, the Democrat's Bernie Madoff will wind up with a contract for all manned space flight.</p><p>What a joke!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , here 's the career guide for you .
Take all the credit for PayPal at the right time , with the right partner , sell for a ton of money , build a car company that rarely makes any cars , a space ship company that ca n't launch anything , write a big check to Obama , and the next thing you , the Democrat 's Bernie Madoff will wind up with a contract for all manned space flight.What a joke !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, here's the career guide for you.
Take all the credit for PayPal at the right time, with the right partner, sell for a ton of money, build a car company that rarely makes any cars, a space ship company that can't launch anything, write a big check to Obama, and the next thing you, the Democrat's Bernie Madoff will wind up with a contract for all manned space flight.What a joke!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970698</id>
	<title>Uh oh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's hope they don't screw the pooch... We need companies like Tesla to prove electric cars can be viable alternatives to prevalent gasoline vehicles...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope they do n't screw the pooch... We need companies like Tesla to prove electric cars can be viable alternatives to prevalent gasoline vehicles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope they don't screw the pooch... We need companies like Tesla to prove electric cars can be viable alternatives to prevalent gasoline vehicles...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971698</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you add in all the taxes, delivery charges etc.   electricity is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15c per KWh (BTW, not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.08 cents but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.08 dollars) nearly double your estimate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you add in all the taxes , delivery charges etc .
electricity is .15c per KWh ( BTW , not .08 cents but .08 dollars ) nearly double your estimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you add in all the taxes, delivery charges etc.
electricity is .15c per KWh (BTW, not .08 cents but .08 dollars) nearly double your estimate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</id>
	<title>Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Model S will fail not because Tesla Motors is staffed by idiots (it isn't), and not because the gubmint won't support electric vehicles, but because <b>fully electric vehicles cannot be competitive with liquid-fuel vehicles.</b></p><p>Forget unit prices, horsepower, yadda yadda, here's the only statistic that matters:</p><p>Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg<br>Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg</p><p>Vehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them.  So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.</p><p>To compensate for that factor of 45, serious sacrifices have to be made: either you accept a huge reduction in vehicle range, a huge reduction in vehicle performance, or you spend ridiculous amounts of money reducing drag and friction -- spending that shows up in the final price of the vehicle.</p><p>I predict that electric vehicles will never be able to overcome the energy density barrier and become popular, until either liquid fuel is no longer a readily available competitor, or vehicles no longer have to carry their own energy supply (think electric trains.)</p><p>And if you think you'll be able to convince the public to stop using gasoline "for the good of the planet", or for any reason other than prohibitive cost, I think you're probably naive.  I've been trying to think of times when humans gave up an energy source for any reason other than cost vs performance.  The only example I can think of is human slavery, and we had to destroy half of a nation to convince them to give it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm gon na go out on a limb here and say that the Model S will fail not because Tesla Motors is staffed by idiots ( it is n't ) , and not because the gubmint wo n't support electric vehicles , but because fully electric vehicles can not be competitive with liquid-fuel vehicles.Forget unit prices , horsepower , yadda yadda , here 's the only statistic that matters : Energy density of lithium batteries : 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline : 45 megajoules/kgVehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them .
So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion , and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.To compensate for that factor of 45 , serious sacrifices have to be made : either you accept a huge reduction in vehicle range , a huge reduction in vehicle performance , or you spend ridiculous amounts of money reducing drag and friction -- spending that shows up in the final price of the vehicle.I predict that electric vehicles will never be able to overcome the energy density barrier and become popular , until either liquid fuel is no longer a readily available competitor , or vehicles no longer have to carry their own energy supply ( think electric trains .
) And if you think you 'll be able to convince the public to stop using gasoline " for the good of the planet " , or for any reason other than prohibitive cost , I think you 're probably naive .
I 've been trying to think of times when humans gave up an energy source for any reason other than cost vs performance .
The only example I can think of is human slavery , and we had to destroy half of a nation to convince them to give it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Model S will fail not because Tesla Motors is staffed by idiots (it isn't), and not because the gubmint won't support electric vehicles, but because fully electric vehicles cannot be competitive with liquid-fuel vehicles.Forget unit prices, horsepower, yadda yadda, here's the only statistic that matters:Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kgEnergy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kgVehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them.
So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.To compensate for that factor of 45, serious sacrifices have to be made: either you accept a huge reduction in vehicle range, a huge reduction in vehicle performance, or you spend ridiculous amounts of money reducing drag and friction -- spending that shows up in the final price of the vehicle.I predict that electric vehicles will never be able to overcome the energy density barrier and become popular, until either liquid fuel is no longer a readily available competitor, or vehicles no longer have to carry their own energy supply (think electric trains.
)And if you think you'll be able to convince the public to stop using gasoline "for the good of the planet", or for any reason other than prohibitive cost, I think you're probably naive.
I've been trying to think of times when humans gave up an energy source for any reason other than cost vs performance.
The only example I can think of is human slavery, and we had to destroy half of a nation to convince them to give it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970852</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if it was generally that easy, I'm sure they would have done it sooner. The fact of the matter is, for any startup, you need to target the rich to not only bring down the price of economies of scale, but to pay off for the R&amp;D initially. Yes, there's still R&amp;D going on, but their biggest hurdles are out of the way.</p><p>To suggest that they're just a boutique manufacturer for only the wealthy shows ignorance on your part. That isn't their primary goal. Their primary goal is eventually make an affordable electric car for everyone that has style, performance, and still have the vehicle give a good range. They've done the really expensive car. Now they're doing the sort of expensive car. Next they'll do the even cheaper version. This has been their stated road-map for quite some time.</p><p>Besides, the government subsidizes all sorts of things, some things I'm sure you couldn't initially afford until cheaper variants came out. Are you against that too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if it was generally that easy , I 'm sure they would have done it sooner .
The fact of the matter is , for any startup , you need to target the rich to not only bring down the price of economies of scale , but to pay off for the R&amp;D initially .
Yes , there 's still R&amp;D going on , but their biggest hurdles are out of the way.To suggest that they 're just a boutique manufacturer for only the wealthy shows ignorance on your part .
That is n't their primary goal .
Their primary goal is eventually make an affordable electric car for everyone that has style , performance , and still have the vehicle give a good range .
They 've done the really expensive car .
Now they 're doing the sort of expensive car .
Next they 'll do the even cheaper version .
This has been their stated road-map for quite some time.Besides , the government subsidizes all sorts of things , some things I 'm sure you could n't initially afford until cheaper variants came out .
Are you against that too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if it was generally that easy, I'm sure they would have done it sooner.
The fact of the matter is, for any startup, you need to target the rich to not only bring down the price of economies of scale, but to pay off for the R&amp;D initially.
Yes, there's still R&amp;D going on, but their biggest hurdles are out of the way.To suggest that they're just a boutique manufacturer for only the wealthy shows ignorance on your part.
That isn't their primary goal.
Their primary goal is eventually make an affordable electric car for everyone that has style, performance, and still have the vehicle give a good range.
They've done the really expensive car.
Now they're doing the sort of expensive car.
Next they'll do the even cheaper version.
This has been their stated road-map for quite some time.Besides, the government subsidizes all sorts of things, some things I'm sure you couldn't initially afford until cheaper variants came out.
Are you against that too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973852</id>
	<title>You are wrong and short sighted.</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1264933260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV" title="wikipedia.org">modern rail systems</a> [wikipedia.org] have more than solved, but actually reversed, the energy density issue.</p><p>A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level\_power\_supply" title="wikipedia.org">ground-level power supply</a> [wikipedia.org] could easily extend the range of electric cars well beyond all gasoline powered vehicles, such systems have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway\_de\_Bordeaux" title="wikipedia.org">already been deployed</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>We need not incorporate the ground level power supply into surface streets either, just the major highways, because the electric cars have enough range for driving around town already.  We might however find the funds for converting even major surface streets once enough people were driving electrics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All modern rail systems [ wikipedia.org ] have more than solved , but actually reversed , the energy density issue.A ground-level power supply [ wikipedia.org ] could easily extend the range of electric cars well beyond all gasoline powered vehicles , such systems have already been deployed [ wikipedia.org ] .We need not incorporate the ground level power supply into surface streets either , just the major highways , because the electric cars have enough range for driving around town already .
We might however find the funds for converting even major surface streets once enough people were driving electrics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All modern rail systems [wikipedia.org] have more than solved, but actually reversed, the energy density issue.A ground-level power supply [wikipedia.org] could easily extend the range of electric cars well beyond all gasoline powered vehicles, such systems have already been deployed [wikipedia.org].We need not incorporate the ground level power supply into surface streets either, just the major highways, because the electric cars have enough range for driving around town already.
We might however find the funds for converting even major surface streets once enough people were driving electrics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970988</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1264959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?</p></div></blockquote><p>If the banks are such good investments, why can't they raise their billions and billions dollars instead of completely unconditional loans and gifts from the government?</p><p>The biggest difference I see, is that Tesla has a viable business model, whereas the banks' business models seem to be "<i>siphon money into CEO's pockets</i>". Granted, that's a pretty viable business model for the CEOs, but not really for anyone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $ 450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers ; 99 \ % of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla ? If the banks are such good investments , why ca n't they raise their billions and billions dollars instead of completely unconditional loans and gifts from the government ? The biggest difference I see , is that Tesla has a viable business model , whereas the banks ' business models seem to be " siphon money into CEO 's pockets " .
Granted , that 's a pretty viable business model for the CEOs , but not really for anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99\% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?If the banks are such good investments, why can't they raise their billions and billions dollars instead of completely unconditional loans and gifts from the government?The biggest difference I see, is that Tesla has a viable business model, whereas the banks' business models seem to be "siphon money into CEO's pockets".
Granted, that's a pretty viable business model for the CEOs, but not really for anyone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970786</id>
	<title>Chapter 11 ahead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They better not share crucial suppliers with the big manufacturers.<br>Here's what's going to happen otherwise:<br>Launch gets delayed multiple time because components are not ready. Tesla skidding towards Chap 11. Daimler or another real player snatch up Tesla at a bargain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They better not share crucial suppliers with the big manufacturers.Here 's what 's going to happen otherwise : Launch gets delayed multiple time because components are not ready .
Tesla skidding towards Chap 11 .
Daimler or another real player snatch up Tesla at a bargain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They better not share crucial suppliers with the big manufacturers.Here's what's going to happen otherwise:Launch gets delayed multiple time because components are not ready.
Tesla skidding towards Chap 11.
Daimler or another real player snatch up Tesla at a bargain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30978230</id>
	<title>Re:Quixotic business plan</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1265056680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OMFG you are right!<br>The clear winner here from that reasoning is the horse drawn omnibus which doesn't have to carry any energy source with it at all!<br>Reality is of course more complex and factors such as shifting pollution so that it doesn't occur in busy city streets get considered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OMFG you are right ! The clear winner here from that reasoning is the horse drawn omnibus which does n't have to carry any energy source with it at all ! Reality is of course more complex and factors such as shifting pollution so that it does n't occur in busy city streets get considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMFG you are right!The clear winner here from that reasoning is the horse drawn omnibus which doesn't have to carry any energy source with it at all!Reality is of course more complex and factors such as shifting pollution so that it doesn't occur in busy city streets get considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971004</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1264959120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.</p></div><p>True, but a "sports car" is not what everybody wants anyway. And, have you priced a full-sized SUV recently? Saddly, many people spend close to 50k for conventional gas / disel "family" vehicles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % ( and that is being very generous ) of Americans will be able to afford this car.True , but a " sports car " is not what everybody wants anyway .
And , have you priced a full-sized SUV recently ?
Saddly , many people spend close to 50k for conventional gas / disel " family " vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car.True, but a "sports car" is not what everybody wants anyway.
And, have you priced a full-sized SUV recently?
Saddly, many people spend close to 50k for conventional gas / disel "family" vehicles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970918</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news is that the $450 million cost the average taxpayer about $0.30</p><p>(I'm assuming ~ 150 million taxpayers, and using the middle quintile from this page as 'average':</p><p><a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml" title="cbo.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml</a> [cbo.gov]</p><p>And I say that more in the spirit of not worrying about individual programs than I do in the spirit of thinking there is anything reasonable about current levels of government spending vs tax revenues (and when I say current, I mean the last 40 years more than I mean this particular, particularly egregious, year)</p><p>)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is that the $ 450 million cost the average taxpayer about $ 0.30 ( I 'm assuming ~ 150 million taxpayers , and using the middle quintile from this page as 'average ' : http : //www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml [ cbo.gov ] And I say that more in the spirit of not worrying about individual programs than I do in the spirit of thinking there is anything reasonable about current levels of government spending vs tax revenues ( and when I say current , I mean the last 40 years more than I mean this particular , particularly egregious , year ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is that the $450 million cost the average taxpayer about $0.30(I'm assuming ~ 150 million taxpayers, and using the middle quintile from this page as 'average':http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml [cbo.gov]And I say that more in the spirit of not worrying about individual programs than I do in the spirit of thinking there is anything reasonable about current levels of government spending vs tax revenues (and when I say current, I mean the last 40 years more than I mean this particular, particularly egregious, year))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975402</id>
	<title>If EVs suck, why does Renault make 4 of them?</title>
	<author>Spovednik</author>
	<datestamp>1264942740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.renault-ze.com/" title="renault-ze.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.renault-ze.com/</a> [renault-ze.com]

i still think Tesla might survive. Even big automakers are dipping into EV market, and not lightly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.renault-ze.com/ [ renault-ze.com ] i still think Tesla might survive .
Even big automakers are dipping into EV market , and not lightly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.renault-ze.com/ [renault-ze.com]

i still think Tesla might survive.
Even big automakers are dipping into EV market, and not lightly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971102</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>MpVpRb</author>
	<datestamp>1264959840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?</p></div><p>Because the only way to lower prices is to increase production.

</p><p>In the early days of gasoline cars, they were made by by "boutique manufacturers for wealthy people".

</p><p>Little by little, as the industry matures, electric cars will get more affordable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people ? Because the only way to lower prices is to increase production .
In the early days of gasoline cars , they were made by by " boutique manufacturers for wealthy people " .
Little by little , as the industry matures , electric cars will get more affordable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people?Because the only way to lower prices is to increase production.
In the early days of gasoline cars, they were made by by "boutique manufacturers for wealthy people".
Little by little, as the industry matures, electric cars will get more affordable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971970</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1264966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\%</p></div><p>It may be a niche but that price in an electric car is likely to be like purchasing a $35,000 - $40,000 vehicle which burns fossil fuels, once you include savings of fuel of oil over a reasonable lifespan. That does help a bit, especially if leasing these become an option.</p><p>Just some quick math, assuming 15k miles/year and 16mpg and $3.00/g. Plus, ~$200 in oil changes per year, assuming 2000 miles between. Over five years that's a fuel cost of roughly $15,000 over five years. Compare that to an electric vehicle's cost of ~$0.02 per mile, or roughly $1500 over five years. The difference in ownership is ~13,500 over five years. So buying a fossil car worth $50,000 is roughly the same as buying an all electric car worth $36,500. While that's still a low of money, that suddenly puts it into price range for a lot more people, especially if they becomes available on lease.</p><p>Granted, at the end of that five years, you may need a new battery pack, but from what I read that's likely to be several thousand dollars and likely an improved pack with additional range and capacity.</p><p>Again, those are just some fun numbers and not meant to be taken as hard number to bank on. Just the same, I hope it shows that the higher expense associated with an all electric vehicle can be significantly offset by fossil fuel savings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $ 50,000 + which means that less than 20 \ % It may be a niche but that price in an electric car is likely to be like purchasing a $ 35,000 - $ 40,000 vehicle which burns fossil fuels , once you include savings of fuel of oil over a reasonable lifespan .
That does help a bit , especially if leasing these become an option.Just some quick math , assuming 15k miles/year and 16mpg and $ 3.00/g .
Plus , ~ $ 200 in oil changes per year , assuming 2000 miles between .
Over five years that 's a fuel cost of roughly $ 15,000 over five years .
Compare that to an electric vehicle 's cost of ~ $ 0.02 per mile , or roughly $ 1500 over five years .
The difference in ownership is ~ 13,500 over five years .
So buying a fossil car worth $ 50,000 is roughly the same as buying an all electric car worth $ 36,500 .
While that 's still a low of money , that suddenly puts it into price range for a lot more people , especially if they becomes available on lease.Granted , at the end of that five years , you may need a new battery pack , but from what I read that 's likely to be several thousand dollars and likely an improved pack with additional range and capacity.Again , those are just some fun numbers and not meant to be taken as hard number to bank on .
Just the same , I hope it shows that the higher expense associated with an all electric vehicle can be significantly offset by fossil fuel savings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20\%It may be a niche but that price in an electric car is likely to be like purchasing a $35,000 - $40,000 vehicle which burns fossil fuels, once you include savings of fuel of oil over a reasonable lifespan.
That does help a bit, especially if leasing these become an option.Just some quick math, assuming 15k miles/year and 16mpg and $3.00/g.
Plus, ~$200 in oil changes per year, assuming 2000 miles between.
Over five years that's a fuel cost of roughly $15,000 over five years.
Compare that to an electric vehicle's cost of ~$0.02 per mile, or roughly $1500 over five years.
The difference in ownership is ~13,500 over five years.
So buying a fossil car worth $50,000 is roughly the same as buying an all electric car worth $36,500.
While that's still a low of money, that suddenly puts it into price range for a lot more people, especially if they becomes available on lease.Granted, at the end of that five years, you may need a new battery pack, but from what I read that's likely to be several thousand dollars and likely an improved pack with additional range and capacity.Again, those are just some fun numbers and not meant to be taken as hard number to bank on.
Just the same, I hope it shows that the higher expense associated with an all electric vehicle can be significantly offset by fossil fuel savings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970880</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Walter White</author>
	<datestamp>1264958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tesla is a niche and it will <b>always be niche<b>.</b></b></p> </div><p>I do not agree. They started business as a niche product with the aim of introducing products at a lower price point that could sell in larger volume. That cannot be done in one huge step. If they succeed with the S model, the next model will be higher volume and lower cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche .
I do not agree .
They started business as a niche product with the aim of introducing products at a lower price point that could sell in larger volume .
That can not be done in one huge step .
If they succeed with the S model , the next model will be higher volume and lower cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.
I do not agree.
They started business as a niche product with the aim of introducing products at a lower price point that could sell in larger volume.
That cannot be done in one huge step.
If they succeed with the S model, the next model will be higher volume and lower cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971616</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>" Luxury cars are a niche, people will always ride horses for transportation."</p><p>" Super computers are a niche, they take up a whole room, there isn't really demand for more than six or so of them."</p><p>"Private jets are a niche, they're useful in war but that's about it."</p></div><p>Tesla's target market isnt the average person, they are going after the more affluent customer. they arent the Ford of the electric auto. they are one of the long line of boutique manufactures that were already around catering to the affluent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like : " Luxury cars are a niche , people will always ride horses for transportation .
" " Super computers are a niche , they take up a whole room , there is n't really demand for more than six or so of them .
" " Private jets are a niche , they 're useful in war but that 's about it .
" Tesla 's target market isnt the average person , they are going after the more affluent customer .
they arent the Ford of the electric auto .
they are one of the long line of boutique manufactures that were already around catering to the affluent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like:" Luxury cars are a niche, people will always ride horses for transportation.
"" Super computers are a niche, they take up a whole room, there isn't really demand for more than six or so of them.
""Private jets are a niche, they're useful in war but that's about it.
"Tesla's target market isnt the average person, they are going after the more affluent customer.
they arent the Ford of the electric auto.
they are one of the long line of boutique manufactures that were already around catering to the affluent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848</id>
	<title>Re:More Publicly Financed Toys for the Wealthy</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1264957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Agree, and strongly disagree.</p><p>"Cars are a niche, people will always ride horses for transportation."</p><p>"Computers are a niche, they take up a whole room, there isn't really demand for more than six or so of them."</p><p>"Planes are a niche, they're useful in war but that's about it."</p><p>We the taxpayers should finance this company, and <b>not</b> bail out the "big 3" (two, really, Ford didn't need as much help), because they're proving that they can make something revolutionary that will work its way down to being affordable to everyone.  The big 3 are just doing more of the same.  And slower.</p><p>And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche .
Agree , and strongly disagree .
" Cars are a niche , people will always ride horses for transportation .
" " Computers are a niche , they take up a whole room , there is n't really demand for more than six or so of them .
" " Planes are a niche , they 're useful in war but that 's about it .
" We the taxpayers should finance this company , and not bail out the " big 3 " ( two , really , Ford did n't need as much help ) , because they 're proving that they can make something revolutionary that will work its way down to being affordable to everyone .
The big 3 are just doing more of the same .
And slower.And besides , it 's not a gift , it 's a loan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche.
Agree, and strongly disagree.
"Cars are a niche, people will always ride horses for transportation.
""Computers are a niche, they take up a whole room, there isn't really demand for more than six or so of them.
""Planes are a niche, they're useful in war but that's about it.
"We the taxpayers should finance this company, and not bail out the "big 3" (two, really, Ford didn't need as much help), because they're proving that they can make something revolutionary that will work its way down to being affordable to everyone.
The big 3 are just doing more of the same.
And slower.And besides, it's not a gift, it's a loan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30994288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30978230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30982240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30981972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30981860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30978176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1437210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30981972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30994288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30978176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30976582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1437210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30970974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30978230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30977128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30973852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30975120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30981860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30982240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974470
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30972324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30974978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1437210.30971910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
