I fail to see a problem with local/green energy production. Power distribution infrastructure is terribly vulnerable, horribly inefficient, and more often than not attached to a chimney.

Too many industries have the philosophy of "if it's broke, don't fix it." It's time to develop and employ 21st century technology, join up or stand aside. There's no reason power companies can switch their business model up a bit and adapt. Perhaps add SolarCity style businesses to their portfolio.

Boeing was going to get one of the contracts regardless. They have the favor of Congress and a very long history in aerospace. Sierra Nevada had to compete with SpaceX to which they fail miserably. At this point compared to SpaceX, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little to NASA and are asking for substantially more money. Not only is SpaceX already successfully delivering and returning payloads for NASA but their proposal for manned transport is merely an evolution of their already flying equipment. Sierra Nevada hasn't even gotten to space yet with a test vehicle. That isn't expected to happen until Nov. 2016.

More likely SpaceX bid exactly, and Boeing overbid, but I guess we'll see in a few years.

For Sierra Nevada it costs little to challenge the contracts. For NASA, choosing Boeing and SpaceX made sense. Boeing has the favor of Congress, and a very long history in aerospace. SpaceX is the young upstart with a startling reach that continues to make good on promises yet has zero of the inefficiencies endemic to old fat cats like Boeing. To date, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little with expected costs well more than SpaceX even if not as much as Boeing. That Boeing was going to win a contract was a given for many reasons, Sierra Nevada had to compete not with them but with SpaceX, at which they fail miserably.

That would add inefficiencies to the process as well as limit investment in long term higher capability solutions in favor of playing it safe.

At this point a certain amount of customization is generally required to be made for the payloads going up. Some missions offer more flexibility than others, but generally you have to know the launch system ahead of time, not pick it after the fact.

From the launch company's perspective, they can only reach as far as they can be assured they can afford. From the investor's perspective the chance of ROI is riskier when a company has the promise of one paying job, instead of say ten paying jobs. NASA can be criticized for many things, but I'm not sure this is one of them. It's rather hard to have a buyer's market with out adequate competition. NASA is fostering the creation of that competition with the COTS and C3PO programs.

There seems to be a perception that these contract batches are the only ones that will be offered, they are not. There are plenty more contracts that will be up for bid in the future. I can guess at reasons for which Boeing was chosen over Sierra Nevada for this round but it doesn't mean Sierra Nevada is excluded from future rounds. Call it a hunch but given that SpaceX is offering the same services for almost half the cost of Boeing, Boeing probably isn't going to fare quite so well in the next round should they SpaceX succeed at delivering. Unless politicians intervene, SpaceX will be setting the bar for future contracts.

Iowan law presently prohibits manufactures from obtaining a dealer's license.

The limited scope of government (federal at least) is a primary contributor to much of the bulls**t taking place within the states. Ironically, whenever citizens are grieved by their local governments they expect Mr. Obama (or current) to save them. Not Congress, not their state government, and definitely not their municipal legislators. A quick scan of the "We the People" petition site proves just how little people understand the governments presiding over them.

I cannot say whether they are or are not. However, given that dealerships traditionally make their money from the service side, not sales, it is easy to see why dealers would not want to sell Teslas or other EVs from manufacturers that they're already selling for (think Nissan Leafs, and Chevy Volts). Compared to ICE powered cars, EVs require substantially less maintenance.

In order to sell something in a particular location you need to have a point of presence in that location. When this "Interstate Commerce Clause" was conceived, no one had in mind that Iowans would be prevented from hitching up their wagons and driving to California to buy their plow. They were addressing issues such as the Iowan government baring, imposing tariffs, or otherwise restricting the flow of Californian goods and services in Iowa.

You do not need to provide a complete and better solution before pointing out the flaws in an existing one. While being anti-capitalistic in its own right, elucidating problems, sharing discoveries and ideas is the most efficient means of coming to a solution for any particular challenge. Capitalism is capable of achieving only local maximum. The easiest way to see this is to imagine the nations of the world all comporting themselves as the Western world does. Capitalism by definition is a pyramid wherein each layer stands upon the back of others. With each rise in elevation fewer are able to be supported. Until utopia has been achieved for all, we should not rest with what we have.

I think the most efficient means for Tesla to squash this regulatory capture is probably to focus on building momentum for it's vehicles as well as manufacturer direct sales and maintenance in those states presenting no or minimal obstacles. It's far harder for the entrenched interests to fight ubiquity and "me too" protests than it is to fight a team of lawyers from a start up company with right on their side.

You're missing the point. Their technology isn't solely for the purpose of gaming. They are soon to start pursuing it for games, but this is already being commercially leveraged for a problem domain that was sorely needing the help. Point cloud mapping of real life for engineering and planning.

Convenient but, realistically pirates have no use for a cargo vessel beyond ransom. Nuclear fuel rods aren't exactly something they can walk into a reactor, pluck out and carry off either.

Regardless of what powers the vessel, or its cargo, there's no reason why private security cannot be installed on them. Or as an AC put it less tactfully "Just shoot the damn pirates before they get close enough to come aboard."

Ok. SolarCity then.

They out of sight, out of mind. Further, there's really no one to regulate them. Most ocean going boats are registered in countries with the least stringent of regulations and neither the motivation nor ability to do otherwise.

Frankly, if ever there was a case to be made for nuclear power, it would be these boats.

You have to start some where. Everyone likes to poke at China, but last I checked, per-capita the U.S. is still the world's largest polluter. China carries roughly half the world's solar panel production and is second only to Germany in installed capacity. As an investor in renewables, China is well in the lead of ever other nation.