SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Former BMW designer Henrik Fisker announced plans Tuesday to relaunch his electric vehicle efforts three years after a bankruptcy with his venture that made high-priced cars popular with celebrities.
Fisker's effort aims to revive his rivalry with Tesla, promising a premium, all-electric successor to his 2012 Fisker Karma with "a patented battery that will deliver a significantly longer life and range than any battery currently on the market," a statement from the reconstituted company Fisker Inc. said.
The relaunch comes after a high-profile bankruptcy by Fisker Automotive, which received $192 million in US government loans and left $139 million of that unpaid.
[...] In addition, Fisker is developing a "mass-market, affordable electric vehicle that will retail for less than its competitors, but will feature a longer electric range," it added.
Now that the bigger car companies are getting into the electric vehicle (EV) market, has Fisker missed its window?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday October 07 2016, @10:07PM
If the $21.6 billion in oil subsidies in 2013 is corruption, why isn't it part of every story about oil the same way these government loans - which as others here have pointed about has resulted in a $5 billion profit overall - are a part of every single story about renewable energy?
You may be forgiven for not noticing. A quick Google search for "US oil subsidies" turns up two [priceofoil.org] articles [oilprice.com] from obviously partisan sources and an article about why it's complicated [forbes.com]. There doesn't appear to be much moderate discussion of the subsidies at all. And yet we all know about Solyndra, which actually had a really cool product that was overshadowed by massive price cuts in more traditional solar panels coming out of China.
It's a double standard. People talk about the renewable energy loans because they want to make renewable energy look like a) government waste and b) failure after failure. It doesn't have to be true. Much like the double standards in our presidential election, being accused of scandal after scandal can ultimately be more damaging than actually committing crime after crime. Just be aware of the double standard so you don't fall prey to the partisans pretending to be objective.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @03:49AM
Show me the first person here arguing for fossil fuel subsidies, and you may have a point.
Since there is none, beat that strawman.