Tesla to make electric vehicles with Toyota, buy NUMMI

Mark MUST be joking...

Another Mark (Weiss) is a stock market guru who has called a number of the big movement in the market.. Last night, he was cautioning investor to go to cash.. Claims another crash of hobbling proportions is in the wind.

The way I see this, the US Goverment is giving Tesla half a billion dollars and Tesla is forking some of this money over to Toyota. For this Tesla is getting the old NUMMI Plant and Toyota gets to claim they are investing 50 million in Tesla. My real question is - which way is the cash flowing? Is Toyota giving Tesla 50 million in cash, or is it really the other way - Tesla giving Toyota some cash for the NUMMI Plant, and that Toyota is claiming that the net difference between what they wish they could get for the old NUMMI Plant and what Tesla actual pays for it is equal to a 50 million dollar investment in Tesla? I suppose if Tesla is successful, Toyota will end up owning the company

After reading about the sort of dishonest crap that goes on in the world of big finance, I trust nothing I read about "investments." I have a real fear that this really represents a sneaky way of shifting additional millions of US Government dollars to Toyota. Hopefully I am wrong. But then the cash for clunkers and the rebate for hybrids programs were previous gifts of billions to Toyota. And people whine about GM....at least GM pretends to be a US company.

Ed

Well, you and I are exactly on the same page about this "investments" crap.

I am highly suspect of the GM plant to make CNG and LPG vans, for the same reason. I, now old and cynical, smell a skunk.

Tesla, at least, had some fairly advanced technology and models which were exciting and almost practical.

I am always waiting for the next BOHICA whenever our government gets involved.

You know what they say,,, Follow The Money. cuhulin

It is a shame, but true. "Cherchez la femme" was a heck of a lot more fun.

The NUMMI plant may be old, but the equipment is modern.

Gee, let's see: NUMMI is in Silicon Valley which has a bunch of well-motivated workers who understand technology and cars. They are also motivated to help the environment (this is CA, after all). Gee, sounds like using the plant is a good idea.

Toyota is investing $50,000,000 in Telsa. So that's where the money is going: Toyota --> Tesla. Tesla is going to buy the plant for an undisclosed sum.

Toyota is investing in Tesla, which means Tesla will be part owned by Toyota.

Gee, they don't provide details like what percent of the company will own.

Billions? Actually, they were our gifts to car buyers.

I think the problem with some of those Li-On/Lithium Ion/whatever batteries was impure substance or whatever when those batteries were manufactured.Regardless, I don't own anything that uses those batteries.I don't ever want them either. cuhulin

They can be very good batteries..Nothing is perfect, but they gave a little shot in the arm to computers when the hardware and operating systems left us hanging with machines that would not hold a charge for more than an hour or two.

There is not, at this point, a superbattery that will do all things for all people.

----- Original Message ----- From: "dr_jeff" Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:10 PM Subject: Re: Tesla to make electric vehicles with Toyota, buy NUMMI

I am not disputing that. But if using this plant was so great, why did Toyota abandon it? Where they just trying to lose the UAW?

I hope you are right, but I am skeptical. I think it far more likely that Tulsa is paying Toyota a bundle for the plant using the US Government money and that the 50 million dollar Toyota "investment" is effectively a mark down in the cost of the plant. Maybe not. But I think Tulsa likes the deal because they gain instant credibility (and it solidifies their hold on a half of billion dollars of US Government cash). Toyota likes the deal because they gain some good publicity, they gain access to Tulsa technology (although I wonder how valuable that technology really is), and if Tulsa is eventually successful, they own a piece of the pie.

Personally I doubt Tulsa can be successful unless a major automaker, like Toyota, gets involved. So for Tulsa, this is probably a make or break deal.

I do find it ironic that people rant and rave about the billions the US Government has sunk into GM which is now effectively owned by the US and Canadian governments, while no one seems at all upset that the US Government is granting Tulsa a half a billion dollars free and clear. On the basis of dollars per US job, or dollars per car, or the potential impact on the US economy, the money spent on GM looks like a bargain if you use the Tulsa give away as a yardstick. And now that Toyota is swooping in, the half a billion dollars given to Tulsa has a good chance of being essentially R&D money given to Toyota.

Correct. And we don't know if they have options to buy more of Tulsa at some predetermined price. I think Tulsa needs the deal to have any chance of "making it." I worry Toyota is taking advantage of a desperate company to unload a plant they don't want and gain access to some potentially valuable technology mostly at the expense of the US taxpayer. I hope I am wrong.

Ed

Likewise, though, computers made the lithium ion batteries possible. The chemistry has been around for fifty years, but as noted the cells are extremely delicate and easy to damage. Computer-controlled charging systems allow them to be charged and discharged very precisely with very tightly controlled load balancing. Without the fancy charging systems, they'd be quickly destroyed.

As the charging systems get better, so do the batteries.

And there's nothing out there with energy density as good as gasoline. But it's getting better.

--scott

Bitten by the spell checker - Tesla, NOT Tulsa.

I dont think there was ever any secret about this.. This California plant was the most expensive to operate in this hemisphere. When GM ducked out, the reason for it to even exist disappeared. It was cheaper to shut this dynosaur down than to try to operate it.

Toyota is not dumb.

At least, that is the story as I remember it.

Again very true. Charging rates and levels are critical to long battery life. But, IMHO, no car will be a success if it cant go substantially more than 40 miles per day on a charge. That is a no-brainer, non-starter, as much as I hate those phrases.

Absolutely... Other liquid fuels or compresses gases can come close, considering that rather rigid technologies and economies must be taken into account.

Agreed, although I would actually more than double that to 100 miles per charge.

But I also think people need to stop insisting on cars that weigh a couple tons.

Yes, but most of those are expensive in comparison to gasoline... even diesel has become so.

We also have had more than a century of technology development in handling gasoline, which is inherently unsafe, in a safe manner. When oil refineries were new, and cars were new, they both exploded a lot.

We have a lot of development to be done in safety for batteries and for pressurized gases to get to the point where gasoline is.

Still, I have seen gasoline tanks ignite and it is pretty amazing how much energy is in a tank of gas, especially when it all comes out at once.

--scott

"C. E. White" wrote in news:ZYKdnfGEwNTEsmrWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I was just waiting for the tonguetwister myself .

snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:ht7a8e$q3r$ snipped-for-privacy@panix2.panix.com:

Um. No. They were used in ELT's (the emergency locator transmitters that allow them to find a plane when it crashes) for airplanes before that. And before you say *very* limited market, Everything down tosingle engine Cessna's are required to have them onboard. I have no idea about ultralights, but then again, I figure they deserve what they get for owning one.

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:

You don't own a computer? Take a look on the motherboard.

I think that was part of it. The plant doesn't have a lot of other auto parts plants around, so auto parts had to be sent in from farther away. In addition, Toyota, like other car makers had too many plants.

Why would someone want technology from Oklahoma?

So do a lot of other companies, including Diamler AG.

Diamler is one of the automakers with an interest in them.

And Diamler AG.

I think they would have made it without them. Telsa gets a plant near HQ that is up and near running, which will decrease the lead time. It a win-win situation for everyone. Well, except Ford, GM and Chrysler.

I don't think they were as desperate as you might think. They were about to sign a deal to build a new plant near LA, when Mr. Toyoda stopped for a drive (literally). They hit it off and made a deal.

Jeff

No, those are lithium primary cells, no real relation to lithium-ion batteries, which are rechargeable. The lithium primary cells were actually a WWII development and they remain very popular for applications where the extremely low self-discharge is important. You can leave them on the shelf for decades and they'll still be fine, which is important for something like an ELT. Not rechargeable, though. Different chemistry entirely.

--scott