Will either of the bets placed on Faraday and Tesla pay off?

There was an interesting quote in this morning’s paper from Steve Hill, executive director of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, the office that gives your money to others in hopes that they will create jobs, improve the economy and generate more tax revenues. Like playing roulette.

“Trying to predict whether a company is going to succeed or flourish, or even say what they’re going to do is … you’re going to be wrong at times, maybe as often as you’re right,” Hill was quoted as saying.

Or perhaps you’re going to be wrong every time?

The story raised questions about whether the Chinese-backed company Faraday Future actually has the wherewithal to build a proposed $1 billion electric car factory at the Apex industrial park.

In a special session lawmakers agreed to dole out $215 million in tax abatements and credits to entice the company to build its factory in Nevada, though at the time it did not even have a prototype vehicle. The state also promised $120 million in infrastructure that includes water, rail and road improvements that may include widening I-15 and improving the freeway interchange near Apex.

It was a replay for the special session in which lawmakers agreed to provide $1.3 billion in tax exemptions and credits to Tesla Motors if it invests $3.5 billion in a new battery factory east of Sparks. The state also agreed to spend $100 million to build a highway linking the site to U.S. Highway 50 in Lyon County.

Today a website called Seeking Alpha has a piece questioning whether that deal too is iffy.

It points out that Tesla had promised to reach agreements with all sub-suppliers by the end of 2014. It has none. Tesla promised to have the first two phases of construction complete by the end of 2015 and have a third phase underway. Only one phase is complete. It had projected spending $1 billion by now but has spent only $400 million. It also said it would employ 700 workers by the end of 2015 and hire another 1,000 in 2016. Only 300 are employed. (That figure was noted by the Nevada Policy Research Institute in mid-December.)

Today’s newspaper story quotes Nevada Treasurer Dan Schwartz’s comment to a Los Angeles business publication on the Chinese backer of Faraday.

“If I were to sum it up, it’s the emperor’s new clothes,” Schwartz told the business journal. “If you look at the financials … he certainly isn’t making any money to fund a billion-dollar car facility.”

But Hill today told the newspaper the risk for taxpayers is minimal, though he admitted the state could have to pay for the promised infrastructure improvements.

The Seeking Alpha piece, under the pseudonym Montana Skeptic, says, “Nevada received no lien on Tesla’s free land. And, under the Incentive Agreement, Nevada has no right to recover any part of the $113 million land and roadway benefit if Tesla fails to meet the promised capital expenditure and employment targets.”

Under that incentive agreement Tesla has until June 30, 2024, to invest its promised $3.5 billion. Skeptic questions whether Tesla will still be a going concern by then.

Whenever lawmakers — at the urging of Gov. Brian Sandoval — gamble with our money, we are the ones left holding the marker.

Tesla Motors battery plant. (Reuters photo)



43 comments on “Will either of the bets placed on Faraday and Tesla pay off?

  1. Barbara says:

    Can anyone think of a reason Brian Sandoval would not be considered the worst governor in Nevada history? Seriously, what has the man accomplished?

  2. Steve says:

    Currently there are 23% investors shorting TSLA.
    StockTwits has 44% Bull 56% Bear sentiment on TSLA (1500 messages)
    Strangely, analysts are bearish on TSLA while bullish on Ford, Chrysler and GM.
    TSLA stock is outperforming all three of the bulls. (I’m long so I will see what the future brings to my F,FCAU, GM and RACE. But TSLA is not on my watch list.)

    The writer of that SA article is short TSLA with some long time puts as well.
    It figures the writer would be negative TSLA. The writer should have covered his shorts, unless they were borrowed and sold very poorly, last week was the optimum time to cover and keep a huge difference, unless the short was lots older than the run up has been.
    I think the writer made a mistake in shorting TSLA and the price didn’t dip far enough to ease the squeeze in the latest volatility plunge.

    From the timing of the articles written, and his disclaimer at the and of the article, I think he shorted TSLA before the run up and is now suffering while hoping it drops way down again.
    And the writers puts are too expensive. (if I understand how puts work…I get shorting a stock and will never do that but puts are out in the weeds to me)

    Bottom line, the writer is predisposed to be negative TSLA and the opinions expressed in the article should be taken with grains of salt.

  3. The facts are the facts.

  4. Steve says:

    Indeed, but I think the facts chosen (as well as those facts left out) were done in support of a particular lean.

    All 7 of that writers articles are decidedly negative TSLA. And that is all that contributor has ever written for SA.

    Faraday Future, on the other hand, is very suspect. All they have ever shown is a concept and they have zero exposure to the automobile industry.
    TSLA actually sells product.

  5. Steve says:

    No doubt. But they are still selling product.

    Faraday is selling dreams.

  6. Pipe dreams … or is that an ethnic slur?

  7. Steve says:

    I think that fits.

    John Lee has a lot invested in this, I actually hope it works or North Las Vegas will be stuck with Tom Collins as mayor!

    shudder…thank goodness I don’t live in that city. We just buy water from them…

  8. nyp says:

    Warmest months ever recorded:
    1. Jan 2016
    2. Dec 2015
    3. Oct. 2015
    4. Nov. 2015
    5. Jan 2007

  9. Rincon says:

    Come on, nyp. Do you really think facts will trump religion? There’s always a good rational for not believing what you don’t want to believe. Either the scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy, or it’s pure, dumb luck that they have correctly predicted a warming Earth since the 1980’s or maybe the measuring techniques are totally defective, because scientists are all dopes The proof is that those fools believe in evolution. Even if man really is creating the warming, reducing our consumption of fossil fuels by even a smidgen will certainly destroy our economy. There’s a reason why most of the countries of the world subsidize fossil fuels, (especially oil). According to Conservative theory, it keeps our economies humming.

  10. Steve says:

    The scientists all say you cannot base single events on the overall picture, nor can they be used to support the theory that AGW is the one and only cause for climate change….which is what you guys are all claiming.

  11. Rincon says:

    I claim that we can’t be sure, but the odds keep getting higher. Conservatives, on the other hand, generally claim to hold the crystal ball and are willing to bet the farm that it’s infallible. A logically indefensible position, but, as with creationism (also a favorite of Conservatives), religion trumps evidence.

  12. Steve says:

    Then answer my (apparently unanswerable) question:

    To what degree does AGW affect the ever changing climate?

    Please cite some authoritative sources.

  13. Patrick says:

    Steve the sad thing is tha you are like so many people who have the answers to the “questions” they pretend to want answers to, but the fact is that they don’t want to know. And then, when the information is provided to them, they deny that the answers are correct.

    But, in a never ending quest, to educate the less able, here’s a couple:



  14. Steve says:

    Yes, Patrick, the consensus is certain AGW is a contributor to the change in climate…that is NOT the question.

    The question is: to what PERCENTAGE is AGW effecting the ever changing climate?

    You have NOT answered that question.

    Now go find a Sham Plea in another attempt to support your claims!

  15. Patrick says:

    Steve, learn to read or have someone that is able, read it to you.

    “The PERCENTAGE (Emphasis added for whomever is reading this to Steve) contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”

    The short answer Steve is 100% of the increase in global warming is caused by humans.

  16. Patrick says:

    And from “Scientific American”

    “AT LEAST 74% of global warming is attributed to man”

    “Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.


    As I said Steve, the answer is there, but you’re either not interested enough, or able enough (I’m going with the latter) to get it.

  17. Patrick says:

    From the study set out n “The Guardian”:

    “Notice that the green and orange bars are both bigger than the black bar. This shows that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed over the past six decades, but some of that was offset by cooling from human aerosol pollution. And the best estimate from the body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence.”

    Did you nderstand that Steve? 100% of the warming that has taken place since the ’50’s is attributable to gumans.


  18. Patrick says:

    “Tett et al. (2000)
    Tett et al. (2000) used an “optimal detection methodology” with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data. The inputs into the model included measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere, aerosols from volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, human aerosol emissions, and atmospheric ozone changes (ozone is another greenhouse gas).

    Tett et al. applied their model to global surface temperatures from 1897 to 1997. Their best estimate matched the overall global warming during this period very well; however, it underestimated the warming from 1897 to 1947, and overestimated the warming from 1947 to 1997. For this reason, during the most recent 50 year period in their study (shown in dark blue in Figure 1), the sum of their natural and human global warming contributions is larger than 100%, since their model shows more warming than observed over that period. Over both the 50 and 100 year timeframes, Tett et al. estimated that natural factors have had a slight net cooling effect, and thus human factors have caused more than 100% of the observed global warming.”

    Again Steve, all the studies show (and there are LOTS of them) that humans are responsible for approximately 100% of the warming of the glob during the last 50 years or more. Did you get that Steve?


  19. Patrick says:

    Here Steve, have another, cause in know you just really want to know:

    “Meehl et al. (2004)
    Meehl et al. 2004 used a similar approach to Tett et al., running global climate model simulations using various combinations of the different main factors which influence global temperatures (GHGs, solar activity, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and ozone), and comparing the results to the temperature data from 1890 to 2000. They found that natural factors could account for most of the warming from 1910 to 1940, but simply could not account for the global warming we’ve experienced since the mid-20th Century.

    Meehl et al. estimated that approximately 80% of the global warming from 1890 to 2000 was due to human effects. Over the most recent 50 years in their study (1950-2000), natural effects combined for a net cooling, and thus like Tett et al., Meehl et al. concluded that human caused more than 100% of the global warming over that period. Over the past 25 years, nearly 100% of the warming is due to humans, in their estimate.”

    (Read that last couple sentences again Steve.)

  20. Steve says:

    Let’s accept Patricks latest sham plea for a moment….(leaving aside the nature of the so called “authoritative” sources Patrick has claimed) Note the first claim was 100% then comes the second at 74%….from an old article (2011) newer studies are backpedaling.

    Never the less, accepting Patricks latest sham plea, the question becomes in what direction is AGW forcing the ever changing climate?
    Is it all doom and gloom? O,r could it be a good thing? Or, is it some mixture of both?
    If it’s the mixture, then to what degree is the bad vs the good?

    But why would anyone actually base a legitimate argument on FIVE year old data?
    OH baby, it’s Patrick!

    Sham Plea, pup!

  21. Patrick says:

    Here’s another one Steve, to answer you honest question that you just can’t seem to find:

    “Stone et al. (2007)
    Stone et al. actually published two studies in 2007. The first paper examined a set of 62 climate model simulation runs for the time period of 1940 to 2080 (the Dutch Meteorological Institute’s “Challenge Project”). These simulations utilized measurements of GHGs, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and solar activity from 1940 to 2005, similar to the Tett and Meehl studies discussed above, and then used projected future emissions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project future global warming. Whereas Tett and Meehl examined the climate response to each individual factor (and/or combinaton of factors), Stone compared these 62 climate model runs to a series of energy balance models, each representing the climate’s response to a different effect. Over the 60 year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans caused close to 100% of the observed warming, and the natural factors had a net negative effect. As with Stott, their model did not fit the data perfectly, though they had the opposite result, underestimating the observed warming.”

    Another 100%’er.

  22. Steve says:

    2007….lets go even further backwards!

    New data belays that stuff today.

    Climate is complex, Patrick…not so much.

  23. Patrick says:

    Proving your ignorance once again Steve.

    The article from “Scientific American” is dated from 2011 and states that AT LEAST 74% of global warming since the 1950’s is due to man, and the article from “The Guardian” cites a later study from an article published in 2014, which states that the increase is 100% attributable to man.

    Again, Steve, all information available to you, at any time, which apparently, up to now, you’ve been unwilling or unable to find for yourself.


  24. Patrick says:

    “Gillett et al. (2012)
    Similar to S10, Gillett et al. applied a statistical multiple linear regression approach to a climate model – the second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2). They used data for human greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, land use changes, solar activity, ozone, and volcanic aerosol emissions. In their attribution they grouped some of the effects together into ‘natural’, ‘greenhouse gas’, and ‘other’. The authors estimated the effects of each over three timeframes: 1851-2010, 1951-2000, and 1961-2010. For their attributions over the most recent 50 years, we took the average of the latter two, and used their ‘other’ category as an estimate for the influence of human aerosol emissions (which will result in somewhat of an underestimate, since most ‘other’ effects are in the warming direction).”

    Now, as of this study, and since 2012, the PERCENTAGE of warming, caused by man is MORE than 100%.

    I’m glad I could contribute to your education Steve, I know how you must appreciate information that up nail now you had no idea existed.

  25. Patrick says:

    Read this closely Steve (or have someone read it, and explain it in one syllable words that you can understand)

    “Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4)”


  26. Steve says:

    I have never tried to say climate is not changing.
    In fact, I have clearly stated climate is changing, has been changing, always will change and the one thing climate does best is change.

    AGW influences climate. That too, is not the argument.
    To what percentage and in what direction does AGW influence climate are the questions.

    You have cherry picked old articles to make your claim that over 100% is due to AGW…but you do not show in what direction this effect is forcing climate, good? Bad? Mix? no answer.

    Old articles do not support new data, Patrick.

    Try to cite new stuff or continue to be a sham.

  27. Patrick says:

    Steve, the percentage is 100%. The evidence is above. Don’t say no one knows, or that no one would tell you anymore.

  28. Steve says:

    The evidence is disputed by new data..nevertheless, taking your cherry picked evidence and extrapolating what solutions do you now demand of the human race?

    100% in means 100% out.

  29. Steve says:

    I note you carefully avoided the second part of my challenging question…

  30. Anyone willing to consider that global warming might be good thing? Longer growing season for crops, fewer deaths from freezing.

  31. Patrick says:

    Thomas I’m sure that’s being considered, are you considering the adverse consequences?

    Lots of people are, and those include water shortages, crop failures, mass migrations to find both, flooding of costal areas where the masses of people in the world live, civil disturbances because people don’t have either, and wars because countries are being overrun by people looking for them.

    Heck, some people are considering all of these things, and they are warning the world about them, but because of the tactics practiced by people with the most to gain by confusing people, those messages are getting lost in a sea of (mis)information.

  32. Steve says:

    There are lots of potentially good things, even great things, coming out of all this.

    Here are two.
    One is smart roads and parking lots, maybe even snow free roof’s.
    The other envisions harvesting C02 from the atmosphere and turning it back into fuel, while keeping back a percentage that would effectively lower the concentration in the atmosphere making carbon a net zero footprint worldwide while also supplying emerging economies with a very reliable and low cost energy source.
    Both are in start up stages with fully functional active installations now.



  33. Patrick says:

    Steve define cherry picking for me in the context of information. Since it’s impossible to post EVERY bit of information about ANYTHING, posting ANY information, REQUIRES that something less than ALL information be posted, which means “cherry picking”

    You dunce.

    And Steve, with regard to educating yourself about things, I’m reminded of a line from “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” spoken by John Huston:

    “Here’s another peso, but now on, you’ll have to try and make your way through life without my assistance”.

  34. Steve says:

    “You dunce.”

    Patrick is so enamored with his politics he forgets it is not supposed to be an emotional effort.

    I note Patrick offers zero in the way of solutions, preferring to focus on the doom and gloom today’s liberals so love to embed in their political speech.

    Heal thyself, Patrick. that will be the only way you might find a way to begin to think outside that echoing cube you seem to love living in.

  35. Rincon says:

    “To what percentage and in what direction does AGW influence climate are the questions.”

    It is an unanswerable question, just as whether you’re going to get creamed in an auto accident. Steve’s position is equivalent to a driver refusing to use a seat belt because no one can prove that his life will be saved by using one.

    “Anyone willing to consider that global warming might be good thing? Longer growing season for crops, fewer deaths from freezing.”

    Global warming could actually be a good thing if it plays out slowly. It may prevent the next ice age. Ah, but that’s the conclusion of scientists and of course, all good Conservatives agree that most scientists are either corrupt or incompetent.

    Suffice it to say that slow enough warming isn’t a big problem. Very rapid warming would be catastrophic. And no one knows how fast it will be. Do you feel lucky?

  36. Steve says:

    “It is an unanswerable question, just as whether you’re going to get creamed in an auto accident. ”
    Wrong. Apples/Oranges. And another doomsday loving statement to boot.

    What is with today’s liberals? None of you appear willing to look for the positives, let alone solutions. All you guys seem to want to do is bellyache and groan.

    I offered two very viable options and none of you even acknowledge them. Let alone offer up any of your own.

  37. Rincon says:

    Apples and oranges? Nice try, but just saying it doesn’t make it so. It’s a reasonable analogy. In both cases, you require absolute proof and ignore the concept of risk management before taking prudent action.

    I ignored your “options” because you only advocate passivity with warming. You’ve merely pointed two technological developments that might have a positive effect. Just crossing your fingers and hoping it’ll all turn out OK

    BTW, from what I can glean, the using CO2 as fuel requires an energy input far greater than the expected output. It won’t go far.

  38. Steve says:

    A car crash has zero predictability.
    Wearing seat belts is simple and costs nothing.

    Supposedly, allowing for your peeps doom and gloom, the ever changing climate is totally predictable and totally due to human activity (see Patrick’s cheery posts).

    As you peeps all say the same thing, 100 years out even if all human activity were halted today….the end of the planet is coming…100 years from whenever the discussion takes place.

    My links show two examples of real thing being done in response to all your bellyaching, moaning and groaning that nothing is ever enough!
    Then you dourly cry about all the nothing being done and continue to claim all the things shown are “passive”

    wow, just wow.
    Go get an all day sucker and sooth yourselves. The adults will handle things and the planet has a good future.

  39. Rincon says:

    Steve: “To what percentage and in what direction does AGW influence climate are the questions.”
    Rincon: “It is an unanswerable question”
    Steve: “Supposedly, allowing for your peeps doom and gloom, the ever changing climate is totally predictable”

    When I say the question is unanswerable, you conclude that I’m calling climate change predictable. Care to tell me what rule of logic you are applying – and whether or not it is from planet Earth? I have clearly stated over and over again that NO ONE KNOWS how climate change will play out (this means NOT predictable) and all of those Liberals and Conservatives who claim to have crystal balls are completely unjustified.

    “nothing is ever enough” You said yourself, “Both (of your great advances) are in start up stages with fully functional active installations now.” Start up stages? We’ve known about global warming for 35 years and we have a couple of start up technologies that may, if we’re lucky, have a minor impact, and I’m supposed to cheer and clap for our great progress as the CO2 level tops 400, accelerating all of the time? And one of your pies in the sky doesn’t save energy; it is a net energy consumer. And you think I’m impossible to satisfy.

    I’ll read your reply, but I think I’m done discussing this. Not interested in playing silly games.

  40. Steve says:

    I also told you to read Patrick’s “cheery” posts.
    Apparently you also suffer from selective reading syndrome.

    35 whole years out of the 40,000 humans have in their history as the species most closely resembling what we are today…..


    You also seem to suffer from false authority syndrome.

    The future of the planet is good. And it’s human activity that makes it so.

  41. […] Then there were millions in similar credits for Chinese-financed Faraday Future, which says it will build an electric car manufacturing plant, though it does not even have a prototype. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s