Therefore, I think it might be time for Tesla to take this up as a federal matter.
I believe Tesla's constitutional rights are being violated in the states that do not allow them to operate their own stores.[2]
[1] "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce ... among the several states ..." At the time the constitution was written, the definition of regulate was something like "to keep free of obstruction, to allow to occur without hinderance".
[2] This is completely separate from regulations that require car stores to operate safely, e.g.: if the state required that service departments have barriers around pits to keep people from falling in, that would be fine, and Tesla could comply when they open a service department. But forcing a business model on people is quite different from protecting public safety.
Decent article summarizing why Tesla can't sell directly.
TLDR: Because auto dealers don't want to have to compete directly with manufacturers.
Which makes no sense, seeing as how Tesla doesn't have any dealers that would compete with them, selling their own cars.
I like the guy I bought my car from on one level, but if it saves me money on my next car purchase, well, so long dealerships.
"It is the effect upon commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion." - N.L.R.B. v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/1.html]
I think they took the safest approach
This is not completely correct. Let me expand a little bit even though it is not applicable here. There is something called the "dormant" commerce clause (also referred to as the "negative" commerce clause) doctrine. This doctrine basically prohibits states from favoring in state commercial actors at the expense of out of state actors. Think protectionist legislation. Therefore, there is a lot more to the commerce clause than simply allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.
I think americans believe their government is less corrupt in part because corruption is not identified as such.
Illegal domestic spying is corrupt, and a crime... yet no charges have been filed (for instance). This matter here, is possibly in an area where the law isn't as settled, so corruption is an opinion, rather than a fact, but an opinion I would agree with.
Sigh.
Further, few people in Michigan can afford a new Ford, let alone a $60,000 electric car. If Tesla wants to lobby for free market economics, Michigan is probably the very last state they should be trying to convince.
There are many people in Michigan that think that companies that sell things should be able to sell them to people that want to buy them. There are also many people that can afford a Tesla.
The United Auto Workers gave the DGA about $1 million, according to MCFN. The union was the largest donor from Michigan, followed by the Service Employees International Union, the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, Ford Motor Company and Caidan Management. http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/michigan...
Presumably if the makers had a do-over, they might try direct to the consumer themselves, but the present conditions make that impossible.
Oil burned in a plant is higher efficiency than when burned in individual, smaller-scale engines.
Stated as a corollary: imagine how dirty having per-car coal furnaces would be...
Coal yes, nat gas sure, hyrdo (which is where alot of MI power comes from) you bet yea but I have not seen a oil powered electric plant.
further even is such a thing does exist, generating electricity has a much high efficiency then the IC engine which is by for one of the least efficient systems there is
At least, these constant rip-offs of every n month this fluid change will go away.
Well, it's been 40 years since that movie was made. Alas, a solar powered car may still be many years off... but the elegance of it is certainly extremely appealing.
One problem: I love the Tesla's expansive sunroof. Would want solar collectors that are at least semi-transparent to light.
Also, while Michigan has a lot of hydroelectric stations, they don't account for more than a few percent of the state's electricity.
Not really. I lived in Michigan for several years.
So find a way to build a nuclear reactor with non-radioactive outputs, built with materials that do not corrode due to the radiation, and we have a deal!
Oh, and the final result needs to have a higher EROEI than current state-of-the-art solar panels.
The dealerships do not benefit the manufacturer.
Now taking the rated specs from a Model S, a 60 kWh battery gets you 200 miles. So .3 kWh per mile. Therefore, leaving you car to recharge in the sun for 8 hours while you are at work, will get you home if you live within 25 miles. Assuming maximum efficiency of course. Note, that you can't put 60 sq feet of solar panels on the Model S, due to the long slope of the front and back windows, and redesigning it so that it has the non-window surface areas of my old 85 Chevy would make it less aerodynamic. But this gives you a good upper bound if I did my math right.
The best way to build a solar-powered car would be to have a battery-powered car that gets recharged from solar energy. Basically, a Model S and a home solar generating system.
I do have a propane-powered electrical generator for emergency/backup home power. Some day I'll try charging the Leaf with it.
Ad verbiage for the allegedly 3250 running watts generator states "engine run time of 10 hours at 50% on a common 20Lb (gas grill type) cylinder". So that's under $2 for 1.625kWh, which is roughly the power draw for recharging the Nissan Leaf in question, which takes 20 hours - costing upwards of $40. More to your point, that's about $1.23/kWh. Not cheap, but a 10x markup is appropriate and acceptable for emergency needs.