Current research has pretty much destroyed the doomsday scenarios
attributed to evil carbon. Turns out carbon is a very weak greenhouse gas which has never exhibited, over millions of years of Earth climate, any significant ability to control Earth temperatures. And the more atmospheric CO2 you ad, the less the effect, sort of like the effect of multiple layers of paint on a wall, in the words of one physicist. So it's amusing to hear folks still all concerned about carbon footprints and other irrelevant things. Global warming has stopped and demonstrably shown that all those climate models (no two of which actually agreed) were roughly 180 degrees out of touch with reality. Of course, true believers won't admit they were fooled.

If India has the same level of govt subsidies for solar that we do, I wouldn't doubt that the company will save money - at the expense of the taxpayers. India the nation is very actively involved, lke China is pursuing a real energy solution, a closed cycle nuclear program. When people realize that a modern Gen 3 nuclear plant is far safer than solar power and twice as cheap, and requires 50 to 100 acres of land, as opposed to the 80,000 acres required by solar to produce the same amount of uncontrolled, low value solar power, we can expect to see the same thing happen in India as Germany solar power discarded in favor of something else (coal in Germany).

The key to getting that govt loan was the time-honored method of
the political payoff, which this administration thrives on : Veep Biden was promised that one of the shuttered GM assembly plants in his state would be re-opened by Fisker. Subsidizing well-heeled EV buyers of ultra-expensive cars by Fisker or Tesla is
not just obscenely unethical : it's also pointless, even for those few still clinging to their cherished carbon-based doomsday
scenario. These tiny numbers of vehicles have, predictably, tiny
effects on anything, no matter the calculus employed.

No news here - after evaluating his company's claims about driving ranges and costs, I pay no attention to anything either he or his company says. I'll wait for a real automaker to offer a practical electric car, whenever a practical battery becomes available. Electric cars at this point are oxymorons for all but the wealthy crowd.

I'd say concerns about "carbon footprints" are pretty much passe at this point, since recent two-decade plus failure to warm has rendered previous estimates of carbon effects totally invalid.
The issue here is mostly cost, all other claims being close to reality, and that means actual lifetime costs,not Tesla Motor company phoney baloney cost claims. At 1000 miles, recharge times are not very important.

Whether EVs are selling as well as hybrids did is a meaningless issue for several reasons. First, you judge a car's sales by , you know, its sales. EVs are not selling well, period. Secondly, comparing EVs and hybrids is invalid because EV sales have received unprecedented govt subsidies and their makers subsidies as well. And some are even then being sold practically at cost. No other vehicles were ever produced and sold in this way. Comparisons here are apples and oranges.

Never has a product been as oversold as current electrics. If these cars had been sold to a random selection of motorists, the complaints would fill the airwaves, and certainly result in numerous class action lawsuits. Fortunately for the EV makers, they are selling to a crowd that will never admit they made a $95,000 mistake, the bad result one always gets when being an early adopter, regardless of the technology.

Battery safety is not the principle obstacle on the road to a practical electric car. We need cheaper,longer lasting (not as pronounced deterioration rates, as evident in the Model S) and
faster recharging batteries. Achieve that and you've got yourself an EV revolution. Without it, sales will be limited to anal types, like it is today.

Only in America could nonsensical bookkeeping like this occur.
Tax dollars are tax dollars - saying that "oil lease taxes" will be used for such and such is total fraud. But the fiscally unintelligent will buy into this.

Just read a review of the scientific literature and now soot is considered more potent a warming agent than CO2. Desertification is the real danger, for a variety of reasons. In Africa they burn brush to allow new growth - burning one hector of land the same emissions as 6000 cars each year, and they burn one BILLION hectors of land each year in Africa. See Allan Savory TED video for a brilliant (and cheap) solution.