If you had bothered to research Solyndra their plan made perfect sense since the cost of silicon was quite high at the time. The problem for them was that the price dropped through the floor and the cost of solar cells dropped by a factor of 20, in part due to Chinese dumping. There was no way that Solyndra could compete with that. If you look at all of the DOE loans that were given out, their success rate was actually quite high. If you're too risk adverse you will never get ahead. That's what's missing today. Look at some of the research that was done in the past by places like Xerox PARK, Bell Laps, IBM, etc. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for the basic research that they did. If it wasn't for the work of John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley at AT&T labs how long would it have taken for the transistor to come about? At the time that sort of research with crystals might be considered risky for a corporation to do, especially when it seems to have nothing in common with making phone calls.

One thing with research is that you have to expect that some things will fail, that's how good research works. If you are so risk adverse that you won't invest in something that might fail then you won't get ahead. That's one reason Silicon Valley has been so successful. For every big name that grows out of the area there are at least ten failures. People are not punished for their failures since they learn from them and move on.

I've had that happen with two different vehicles. The accelerator cable got stuck on my 1991 Ford Probe a couple of times. A dab of oil fixed the problem and it never returned. On a 1966 Pontiac the carbeurator stuck wide open on me a couple of times. On older cars one problem if the accelerator is stuck wide open is you can lose your power brakes since you don't have the vacuum in the intake manifold and the vacuum resivoir can quickly be used up if pumping the brakes.

Interestingly enough, Tesla already has patents covering this hybrid battery approach. According to this patent it was filed back in 2010.

And how toxic is aluminum compared to say that lead acid battery found in most cars? Lithium ion batteries are not considered toxic and may be discarded into municipal waste if not charged. The ones in my Tesla are lithium aluminum cobalt which are not considered very toxic. Despite people complaining about the fire risk of the Li-Ion batteries, regular lead-acid batteries are known to catch fire and sometimes explode when shorted out. Improper charging of lead-acid batteries can also build up hydrogen gas inside the battery which can lead to an explosion. Lithium-ion batteries, on the other hand, cannot explode. Aluminum batteries, like lead acid batteries, can also build up hydrogen gas though presumably the batteries are designed with this in mind.

I could see this being successful for a company like Tesla. They already have hot-swappable batteries. For most driving one would just use the li-ion battery. For long distance travel one could swap it for an aluminum battery then swap back to the original li-ion battery on the return trip.

Companies like Tesla can already do automated battery swaps. I can see them offering this on long trips. You pull in to swap your li-ion battery with an aluminum battery then swap back when you return.

I followed the recommendation of my 1991 Ford Probe which recommended an oil change every 7500 miles. I never had any issues with the engine though I also used synthetic oil.

My father went 80,000 miles without changing the oil in his 1966 Pontiac Sprint-Tempest LeMans which he had converted to run on propane during the gasoline crisis in the 1970s. He ran Mobile 1 and when he drained it the oil was clear and the engine was still at the tight end of the factory spec. He still has the car with over 225,000 miles on the original engine.

Modern engines have much tighter tolerances and many can easily handle 7500 miles between changed since fewer contaminantes make it into the oil. The reason my father was able to go 80K miles without changing it is that propane does not create the contaminates that you get from gasoline or diesel.

Even the Optima batteries, while better than many other batteries, still do not like to be overcharged.

The battery in one of my older cars lasted 10 years, I think because every couple of months I would run a desulfate operation on it with a smart battery charger. I wish they would build that technology in to car charging systems since it only cost pennies and can greatly extend the life.

After I got my Tesla I put the 12v battery in my Prius (an Optima replacement for the OEM when the OEM died) on a battery minder which does this and has proper temperature compensation. I only drove my Prius a couple times a year.

I might add that Tesla has several patents dealing with metal oxide batteries and using them in combination with lithium ion batteries. They already have the automated battery swap technology as well.

Most modern batteries have a catalyst to convert the hydrogen and oxygen back into water.

According to their site they have tested their tiles to be able to handle loads of 250,000lbs. I doubt a 5,500 lbs car would do much to them.

If you read their site one of the things they plan to do is do away with snow plows by having the ability to heat the tiles.

There are many forms of glass. Some types of glass are a lot tougher than other types. They describe the testing that they have done and how it holds up to wear and tear and how they're designed to handle loads as high as 250,000 pounds.

They describe this. A lot of the grime won't stick. Skid marks just brush off. They're also talking about adding a coating of titanium dioxide which would cause a lot of the grime to break up when exposed to sunlight. They also discuss the loses due to dirt and grime and say it's about a 9% loss of power when coated in grime.

Um, you know they talk about heating the tiles to prevent ice buildup so no frozen water.

The article is not all that accurate. Actually Tesla itself isn't making much from government subsidies any longer. The article is full of a lot of what-ifs. Currently there are no cars on the horizon that directly compete with Tesla. The GM Cadillac? It's a huge flop. BMW? It lacks the range (the range extender is a joke, you can't add more gas and continue driving and there's no rapid charging support). The reason Tesla is currently not making a profit is because they are in a rapid expansion phase, which is exactly what they should be doing. They are building out their supercharger network and building out their factory in order to meet the demand for their upcoming Model X. As for tax credits, they don't make much from the CARB credits since that article was written and they don't expect to make much on the CARB credits. Also, the GAAP accounting rules don't make a lot of sense with their lease program and the large investors know this. The lease program depends on the cars holding their value, which they are doing quite well I might add.

Having followed Tesla for quite a while they have done extremely well executing according to plan. They also still have quite a long waiting list of people waiting for cars.

Then again I also invested early at around $35 and am holding long.

Their NRE costs are also dropping. Much of the model X design is based on the model S.