goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 04, 2012, 08:49:38 AM
-
GM "temporarily suspending" production of the Volt and laying off 1300 workers (http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2012/03/gm_to_stop_chevy_volt_producti.html).
General Motors Co. will suspend production of the Chevrolet Volt at its Detroit-Hamtramck plant for five weeks, temporarily laying off 1,300 employees.
According to the Detroit-based automaker, the idling from March 19 to April 23 is to match production with demand. This means demand was so shitty that they need to seriously lower the production.
"We’re matching our production levels with demand and building to market,” GM spokesman Chris Lee told MLive.com. No crap, Sherlock.
After starting 2012 with lackluster sales of 603 units in January, GM sold 1,023 Volts last month. Most of these cars were purchased by local and state governments, who know a good bargain when they see one.
GM sold 7,671 Volts in 2011, well below Akerson's announced target of 10,000.
GM blamed the lack of sales at the beginning of this year on “exaggerated” media reports and the federal government's investigation into Volt batteries catching fire. The fact that GM is charging $40k for a mid-size sedan that doesn't stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer, or even save much on energy costs, what with skyrocketing electric rates, might also have something to do with the low demand.
Engineers are also starting to second-guess the wisdom of tucking an internal combustion engine under the hood of the Volt, when it serves as nothing but a very heavy and expensive backup generator. "Gosh, if we were gonna include the engine, maybe we should have used it to alternatively power the drivetrain, kind of like the (much more popular) Prius and other parallel hybrids" said a GM janitor who wished to remain nameless.
To boost demand, the Obama Administration is considering a new "Rich Prick Rule" which will require all persons earning over $250,000 dollars to purchase a Volt. When asked about the possible legal hurdles this bill might face, White House Spokesman Jay Carney replied "eff it, we can make people buy health insurance, can't we?"
-
They've spent more on advertising this joke then they'll ever recover in profits. Saw an ad yesterday during the Cats game saying this car was the future. Very dire future indeed.
:lol:
Somebody link Obama saying he'd drive one if the SS would let him. :lol:
Greens unwilling to put their money where their mouth is? Shocking
-
It will be interesting to see if rising gas prices continue to push up sales.
Also while the volt may (prolly will) fail I think much of the ad campaign was presenting a new face for GM.
-
It will be interesting to see if rising gas prices continue to push up sales.
Also while the volt may (prolly will) fail I think much of the ad campaign was presenting a new face for GM.
Doubt it. Very few who are impacted by rising gas prices can afford to shell out another $30-$35k for a new car, especially when it won't save much money given the increasing price of electricity.
-
They've spent more on advertising this joke then they'll ever recover in profits. Saw an ad yesterday during the Cats game saying this car was the future. Very dire future indeed.
The future? Pfft. Electric cars are so 19th century. Ladies and gentlemen, the Roberts electric car (circa 1896):
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic02.mediaite.com%2Fgeekosystem%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2F5406260324_73ab70402c_b-550x412.jpg&hash=a75f136bcb6415a6ea40b5128a0264c4f1cb4d56)
And the money quote (http://www.geekosystem.com/roberts-electric-car/), "A mere 115 years ago, before Ford’s model T or heavier-than-air flight, the one-of-a-kind Roberts could go for an impressive 40 miles on a single charge. Coincidentally, this is the same range advertised for the Chevy Volt, the combination electric-gas plugin hybrid car that much of the restructured General Motor’s hopes are riding on."
:lol:
-
this is a serious question:
why do republicans/conservatives/etc hate electric cars? they laugh at them and even hope they fail. while i'll agree they aren't at a good enough stage yet, some people do enjoy them, but republicans seem to loathe even the premise that we may not be using oil forever.
is it just to be anti pussy-liberals? or because if they were ok with electric cars, someone might think they believed in science? i just never understood the blind hate. :blindfold:
TIA for real answers and not links to the most random unknown blogs ever.
-
who killed the electric car? seriously, who?
-
this is a serious question:
why do republicans/conservatives/etc hate electric cars? they laugh at them and even hope they fail. while i'll agree they aren't at a good enough stage yet, some people do enjoy them, but republicans seem to loathe even the premise that we may not be using oil forever.
is it just to be anti pussy-liberals? or because if they were ok with electric cars, someone might think they believed in science? i just never understood the blind hate. :blindfold:
TIA for real answers and not links to the most random unknown blogs ever.
We don't hate electric cars. We hate that government subsidized the Volt, which we all knew would be a complete boondoggle based on price and range, and we hate that this was the "moonshot" of GM, which is now owned by the US taxpayer thanks again to idiotic government intervention.
-
this is a serious question:
why do republicans/conservatives/etc hate electric cars? they laugh at them and even hope they fail. while i'll agree they aren't at a good enough stage yet, some people do enjoy them, but republicans seem to loathe even the premise that we may not be using oil forever.
is it just to be anti pussy-liberals? or because if they were ok with electric cars, someone might think they believed in science? i just never understood the blind hate. :blindfold:
TIA for real answers and not links to the most random unknown blogs ever.
Probably the same reason liberals hate affordable energy, Christians, poor people, self reliance, profits, individual success and civil liberty.
KSU nailed it, the right doesn't hate electric cars, they hate the idea of the government spending billions on these types of idiotic boondogles in the name of policy, in the reality of crony capitalism. The money should have been given to the bondholders of GM that had their investment and contractual rights stolen from them in the dark of the night under the cloud of a phony bancruptcy.
-
Probably the same reason liberals hate affordable energy, Christians, poor people, self reliance, profits, individual success and civil liberty.
:facepalm:
-
This is no surprise. People buy fuel efficient cars to save money. It's pretty hard to save money when you have to pay $40,000 for a small sedan.
-
Probably the same reason liberals hate affordable energy, Christians, poor people, self reliance, profits, individual success and civil liberty.
:facepalm:
Pretty awesome when posters don't realize they're being made fun of
-
electric cars won't be viable until there's a leap in battery technology, and the same with solar panel tech. trying to push them too soon is foolish and wasteful. trying to leave oil behind now will only crush the economy.
-
This is no surprise. People buy fuel efficient cars to save money. It's pretty hard to save money when you have to pay $40,000 for a small sedan.
And yet, this is a surprise to some people. Some of these people even get paid a lot of money. Why is that?
-
this is a serious question:
why do republicans/conservatives/etc hate electric cars? they laugh at them and even hope they fail. while i'll agree they aren't at a good enough stage yet, some people do enjoy them, but republicans seem to loathe even the premise that we may not be using oil forever.
is it just to be anti pussy-liberals? or because if they were ok with electric cars, someone might think they believed in science? i just never understood the blind hate. :blindfold:
TIA for real answers and not links to the most random unknown blogs ever.
This is a serious answer:
I'm agnostic as to which particular energy sources power personal transportation so long as market forces unadulterated by the heavy hand of government make the final determination. We use what we use today because our present fuels provide the convenience we want at prices we can tolerate. When something better comes along market forces will shift us towards it and away from our present fuels. I have no hate for electric or hybrid vehicles, only for leftist politics that, more than somewhat incoherently, informs us that we must artificially inflate the cost of hydrocarbon fuels because hydrocarbon fuels are scarce and the prices charged for them will therefore eventually go up causing us great harm.
Purely electric vehicles won't be practical for most drivers until they successfully mimic the convenience provided by hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles. For example: give me a 7-passenger vehicle (ala an MB GL550) that will travel 300-400 miles on a $50-75 charge which can be completed in 3-4 minutes at the price point of the GL and I might buy one (would depend on the availbility of charging stations among other factors).
Considering the Volt as an example note that it fails the practicality test rather heinously when considering its purely electric capabilities: 1) its real-world all-electric range is around 35 miles or roughly 1/10th of what I would find practical; and 2) its full-cycle charge time is 4 hours (220V) or 10 hours (110V) or around 60x - 150x what I would find practical. Those are foundational problems that will prevent the widespread adoption of all electric vehicles until and unless they are solved. The fact that the Roberts, produced over a century ago, had the same range as the Volt, should be a very large clue that range is a rather intractable problem for an electric vehicle.
Hybrids, whether of the plug-in variety or otherwise, don't make sense for most consumers today. The redundant drive systems add weight, cost & complexity the cost of which very few consumers will recover in energy savings in the real world. Some yes but nearly everyone buying these types of vehicles today would experience a lower cost of owership if they simply selected a moderately to very efficient gasoline or diesel fueled vehicle. I have no problem with people buying hybrids as fashion or political statements, but I do have a problem with tax credits / deductions available for hybrids that are unavailable for other types of vehicles and the subsidization of the production of hybrids or their components. It's wasteful, we simply can't afford the vanity of it right now.
-
Hybrids make great economic sense if you buy them at the right price. I own two of them. Neither is a Prius, by the way, which just makes too many sacrifices and is too darn ugly.
The Volt was just a terrible concept. As I noted in my slightly-modified article above, a "series hybrid" may work great for diesel locomotives, but it is stupid for cars. If you're going to add the weight and expense of an internal combustion engine, don't just use it as a backup generator - connect it to the drive train just like more conventional "parallel hybrids" such as the Prius do. Or, get rid of the ICE completely for a cheaper, short range EV such as the Nissan Leaf.
Ironically, after insisting that the ICE only generates electricity for the Volt's batteries, GM engineers later admitted that the ICE actually does power the drive train in very limited circumstances. Why limit it? Perhaps some bureaucrat or marketing whiz suggested that it wouldn't be "electric" enough.
At the end of the day, you get a very expensive mid-size sedan which doesn't save any money. The heater sucks. So does the AC. And, of course, nearly all of the electricity used to charge the car comes from oil and coal-burning power plants, so you're not even "saving the environment."
-
hey dorks water is wet and gasoline is old neither of which you should really be worried about I am told
-
GM is effing worthless.
-
This is no surprise. People buy fuel efficient cars to save money. It's pretty hard to save money when you have to pay $40,000 for a small sedan.
And yet, this is a surprise to some people. Some of these people even get paid a lot of money. Why is that?
Income level is not necessarily a sign of intelligence or even competence. Anybody who runs out and buys a $40,000 vehicle because of $5/gallon gasoline is just not good at math. Even if the Chevy Volt ran on some kind of free energy source and gasoline were $5 per gallon, you would have to drive a $20,000 vehicle that gets 35 miles per gallon 140,000 miles before you spend $20,000 on fuel. This completely ignores the fact that the Volt is not actually free to drive. The break even point is probably closer to 200,000 miles.
-
So if I get this right, the right wants lower energy prices by any pollution means necessary (aka gas go down plz), but they in no way want the government to help companies devolp alternative sources.
-
the government has subsidized the auto industry for a long time. Like, way before the Volt. But that was good subsidization.
-
in fairness to the actual vehicle, its not that bad. The article misses the biggest problem with the cars. It has nothing to do with design or MSRP. It more to do with GM allowing their dealers to rape customers by charging huge surcharges like "market demand" on these things. Lots of people were scared away when dealers started to put a 5k to 20 rough ridin' K markup on these cars.
-
So if I get this right, the right wants lower energy prices by any pollution means necessary (aka gas go down plz), but they in no way want the government to help companies devolp alternative sources.
Yes, that's right. Expanded oil and gas permitting and exploration will create jobs, revenue, and lower prices. Companies should be free to develop alternative energy on their own dime. This is the true "all of the above approach." You should read the IBD article linked above regarding wind and solar energy, by the way.
-
So if I get this right, the right wants lower energy prices by any pollution means necessary (aka gas go down plz), but they in no way want the government to help companies devolp alternative sources.
Yes, that's right. Expanded oil and gas permitting and exploration will create jobs, revenue, and lower prices. Companies should be free to develop alternative energy on their own dime. This is the true "all of the above approach." You should read the IBD article linked above regarding wind and solar energy, by the way.
The oil and gas industry doesn't develop its energy "on its own dime" either.
-
Is this issue a right/left Dem/Rep thing?
Does anyone believe for a second that a McCain White House would have treated GM differently?
So all the self righteous Libs just want free green stuff and are stupid and lazy and have never worked for nuttin and hate mercia talk is pretty wothless here IMO.
-
So if I get this right, the right wants lower energy prices by any pollution means necessary (aka gas go down plz), but they in no way want the government to help companies devolp alternative sources.
Yes, that's right. Expanded oil and gas permitting and exploration will create jobs, revenue, and lower prices. Companies should be free to develop alternative energy on their own dime. This is the true "all of the above approach." You should read the IBD article linked above regarding wind and solar energy, by the way.
The oil and gas industry doesn't develop its energy "on its own dime" either.
Nailed it. This is the biggest problem I have with the current idiocy in the Republican party. Why don't we stop giving away tax dollars to the largest most profitable companies in the world. All the talking points fall flat on their face in the real world. There is no reason that we shouldn't as a society encourage our government to leverage these companies into clean energy.
-
The oil and gas industry doesn't develop its energy "on its own dime" either.
Nailed it. This is the biggest problem I have with the current idiocy in the Republican party. Why don't we stop giving away tax dollars to the largest most profitable companies in the world. All the talking points fall flat on their face in the real world. There is no reason that we shouldn't as a society encourage our government to leverage these companies into clean energy.
These are some of the dumber talking points from the left. Where subsidies really go:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1-ps.googleusercontent.com%2Fh%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2012%2F03%2F800x599xScreen-Shot-2012-03-02-at-2.43.27-PM.png.pagespeed.ic.4DfaL0dy7-.jpg&hash=040415a677d8a2e67dd1c4b126ff08197ad91286)
Measured on their "real world" (favorite lefty phrase) utility wind & solar are subsidized at a level roughly 100x that of oil & natural gas. But the real stupidity happens when regulatory authorities mandate use of certain types of energy. E.g., "X% of this state's electricity shall be generated by renewable sources by YYYY." Renewable mandates are as stupid & damaging as ethanol mandates. *ALL* subsidies and regulatory mandates need to die.
If oil majors don't develop resources on their own dime what, precisely, do you think Exxon did with that $12B in capital expenditures last year? Or the $19B that includes production expenses? And do be sure to note the 55.5% effective tax rate while you're screaming about them not paying their fair share:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.exxonmobilperspectives.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FExxonMobil-2011-US-Economic-Contributions.png&hash=aa64a64602183068527f213a8444a3c6933d527e)
-
These are some of the dumber talking points from the left. Where subsidies really go:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1-ps.googleusercontent.com%2Fh%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2012%2F03%2F800x599xScreen-Shot-2012-03-02-at-2.43.27-PM.png.pagespeed.ic.4DfaL0dy7-.jpg&hash=040415a677d8a2e67dd1c4b126ff08197ad91286)
does that chart include federal highway $$$?
-
Is this issue a right/left Dem/Rep thing?
Does anyone believe for a second that a McCain White House would have treated GM differently?
So all the self righteous Libs just want free green stuff and are stupid and lazy and have never worked for nuttin and hate mercia talk is pretty wothless here IMO.
I think the difference would have been that McCain would have let GM and Chrysler go through a normal chapter 11 bankruptcy in which they would have been able to renegotiate labor contracts and be much stronger today. The only reason Obama stepped in was to save the union jobs. People still need cars and GM and Chrysler would still be making them.
-
The bailout formula had been established before Barry and the people that were pushing it would still have been in place for McCain.
-
does that chart include federal highway $$$?
Rather extraordinarily stupid lefty talking point there. Those benefit pretty much the entire US economy, not oil businesses. And those should go away as well. Time to kick all of the regulation & funding of transportation back to the states.
-
does that chart include federal highway $$$?
Rather extraordinarily stupid lefty talking point there. Those benefit pretty much the entire US economy, not oil businesses. And those should go away as well. Time to kick all of the regulation & funding of transportation back to the states.
LOL
-
does that chart include federal highway $$$?
Rather extraordinarily stupid lefty talking point there. Those benefit pretty much the entire US economy, not oil businesses. And those should go away as well. Time to kick all of the regulation & funding of transportation back to the states.
:facepalm: wtf is wrong with people
-
Does anyone believe for a second that a McCain White House would have treated GM differently?
Not sure about McCain. Romney would have, as would any conservative.
Also, I'm in favor of cutting all energy subsidies, including to oil and gas producers. However, as pointed out above, these subsidies don't even come close to wind and solar, and at least oil and gas is useful.
-
The bailout formula had been established before Barry and the people that were pushing it would still have been in place for McCain.
Aren't you talking about TARP?
-
Does anyone believe for a second that a McCain White House would have treated GM differently?
Not sure about McCain. Romney would have, as would any conservative.
Also, I'm in favor of cutting all energy subsidies, including to oil and gas producers. However, as pointed out above, these subsidies don't even come close to wind and solar, and at least oil and gas is useful.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecopolitology.org%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F03%2Ffederal_energy_subsidies-600x580.jpg&hash=1e9c327860f60c392002b4d913fe32aa72f0eff7)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecopolitology.org%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F03%2Ffederal_energy_subsidies-600x580.jpg&hash=1e9c327860f60c392002b4d913fe32aa72f0eff7)
Uh huh. Not: (http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/the-difference-between-a-tax-b)
Just one problem. Those "subsidies" are not subsidies. They are tax breaks. Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies. Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes. Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.
Maybe these are dumb rules. Maybe they need changing. But in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.
The greenies want to count normal tax deductions available to every company, or exactly analagous to those available to every company in other sectors, as subsidies comparable to checks actually written to failed & failing "green energy" companies. Apples & oranges folks.
-
Does anyone believe for a second that a McCain White House would have treated GM differently?
Not sure about McCain. Romney would have, as would any conservative.
McCain might or might not have bailed out GM & Chrysler but had he gone the bailout route he'd likely have at least have addressed some of the long-term issues that caused them to go underwater in the first place. Said issues being, of course, the very unaffordable union contracts that Obama left wholly in place. In doing so Obama kicked the can down the road a few years but that's it. GM and Chrysler are still union pension & benefit delivery systems that, on occasion, produce cars. As such they'll fail again and for precisely the same reason.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecopolitology.org%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F03%2Ffederal_energy_subsidies-600x580.jpg&hash=1e9c327860f60c392002b4d913fe32aa72f0eff7)
Uh huh. Not: (http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/the-difference-between-a-tax-b)
Just one problem. Those "subsidies" are not subsidies. They are tax breaks. Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies. Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes. Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.
Maybe these are dumb rules. Maybe they need changing. But in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.
The greenies want to count normal tax deductions available to every company, or exactly analagous to those available to every company in other sectors, as subsidies comparable to checks actually written to failed & failing "green energy" companies. Apples & oranges folks.
That is why the graph is broken down by "direct spending" and "tax breaks". The direct spending comparison is $18.3 billion for fossil fuels vs. $11 billion for renewables (if you consider corn ethanol to be renewable). Also, saying tax breaks shouldn't count because they are available to everyone is somewhat disingenuous. They are only available if you meet certain criteria to qualify, and obviously the system is set up to provide a whole lot of tax breaks to the fossil fuels industry.
-
Does anyone believe for a second that a McCain White House would have treated GM differently?
Not sure about McCain. Romney would have, as would any conservative.
McCain might or might not have bailed out GM & Chrysler but had he gone the bailout route he'd likely have at least have addressed some of the long-term issues that caused them to go underwater in the first place. Said issues being, of course, the very unaffordable union contracts that Obama left wholly in place. In doing so Obama kicked the can down the road a few years but that's it. GM and Chrysler are still union pension & benefit delivery systems that, on occasion, produce cars. As such they'll fail again and for precisely the same reason.
JFC are you actually this stupid? The labor contracts were changed significantly to create a new tier of workers (making about half of their former counterparts) and reductions in retiree benefits (something that was even more pressing than wages).
The UAW played a big part in the near collapse of of GM and Chrysler, they also played a big part in saving both through wage and benefit concessions. The UAW also accepted a stake in the company (held in trust) to take over the health care of retired blue-collar workers.
But yeah, the contracts are wholly unchanged :facepalm:
-
Damaging or Climate Protecting :facepalm:
It's quite obvious the left, who are incapable of understanding 1) basic arithmetic, and 2) the concept that the government takes, it doesn't permit you to keep, have no idea what actual oil subsidies are. As pointed out, most are available to all u.s. corps, not just oil. Denying oil corps that tax benefit just because they are profitable would, of course, be unfair and bad policy. The remainder being how oil reserves are taxed and exploration expensed/depreciated, neither of which are unreasonable given the recognition realization principles the IRS uses in setting such schedules. In any event, they actually pay about 1/5 of all Corp tax collected, while so-called green energy pays ZERO, NONE, NIL, and is actually a burden on the potemkin coffers of the us treasury, as the government gives them money regardless of whether the ever make a product worth purchasing (thereby destroying any real incentive, but that's another argument) .
As for the highways argument, I cant address it, because I do not know what it is.
Most importantly however, the chevy's dolt is an asinine, poorly thought out boondoggle that would not exist but for the delusions of our faux academic administration. It's like they sit around saying "you know what would be groovy. . .[a bridge to the moon]".
-
It's science!!! :lol: Another hater of electric cars and the environment no doubt. :lol:
Electric cars and liberals’ refusal to accept science
By Charles Lane, Published: March 5
President Obama boasted at a United Auto Workers conference last week that General Motors was back in business, producing cutting-edge vehicles like the plug-in electric Chevrolet Volt. He even promised to buy one when his time in office ends “five years from now.”
Whoops! Just three days later, GM announced that it would suspend Volt production for five weeks this spring, idling 1,300 workers at a Hamtramck, Mich., factory.
Alas, Obama’s endorsements notwithstanding, there’s not much of a market for this little bitty car, at least not at the price of almost $32,000 — after a $7,500 federal tax rebate.
GM fell 2,300 units short of its sales target (10,000) for 2011. It is not on pace to hit 2012’s goal of 45,000 units.
So much for Obama’s goal of 1 million all-electrics and plug-ins on the road by 2015.
A123 Systems, a maker of electric-car batteries that has received $374 million in state and federal loans, announced 125 layoffs last fall. The cause: problems at its main customer, Fisker Automotive, which builds expensive plug-in electric cars. Fisker got a half-billion in loans from the Energy Department, though the money was recently frozen because of the company’s failure to meet production targets.
These events confirm the wasteful folly of allocating capital according to the dictates of politicians, such as when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in November 2008: “A business model based on gas — a gas-guzzling past — is unacceptable. We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car.” :lol:
The electric vehicle flop also illuminates a point about science — or the politics of science.
Democrats and liberals are fond of calling their conservative and Republican adversaries “anti-science.” To the extent that the right espouses “creation science,” or disputes established facts about environmental degradation, it’s an appropriate label.
But progressives’ fascination with electric cars and other alternative-energy schemes reflects their own refusal to face the practical limitations of alternative energy — limitations that themselves reflect stubborn scientific facts.
Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.
By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt.
It costs a fortune to pump, refine and ship crude oil. Yet even accounting for all that, gas-powered cars are a better value than electric vehicles and will be for some time. Gas savings on the Volt would take nine years at $5 per gallon to offset its higher price over the Cruze, an Edmunds.com analysis found last month.
Gas consumption creates “negative externalities” — instability in the Middle East, carbon emissions — not fully reflected in its price. But another fact about electric vehicles is that their juice comes from the fossil-fuel-burning grid in the first place.
Oh, and how are you supposed to resell your electric vehicle once you’ve driven it five years and the battery is depleted?
Advocates insist that the government should help them crank up mass production of electric vehicles. Once economies of scale kick in, they argue, electric vehicles can compete.
Four decades after the 1973 oil crisis, this logic is wearing thin. Any company that figured out how to build a practical mass-market electric car would be swimming in cash. That no one has done so suggests we are bumping up against the limits of nature, not just politics or economics.
Certainly the many hundreds of millions of dollars that the U.S. government, GM and GM’s competitors have poured into the effort might have been better spent on more plausible energy-efficiency efforts, such as advanced internal combustion engines.
Instead, Big Government and Big Business have focused on the Volt, the Fisker Karma or the Tesla Roadster, none of which is remotely affordable for the “99 percent” of Americans. And yet in his 2013 budget, Obama proposes to boost the tax credit for electric vehicle buyers to $10,000. :facepalm:
What’s “progressive” about that, I’ll never understand.
[email protected]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electric-cars-and-the-liberal-war-with-science/2012/03/05/gIQA7SpYtR_story.html
-
good thing oil will be around forever and electric cars will never become affordable.
jesus christ you are so short sighted.
-
good thing oil will be around forever and electric cars will never become affordable.
jesus christ you are so short sighted.
We will one day use alternative (non-fossil) energy for power, but, so far, there is not a viable alternative. Spending money on a failed platform (batteries) is just foolish when we should be working on making the successful platform (gasoline) more efficient while working in the background on new platforms (hydrogen, natural gas). And where is all of this electricity going to come from? The EPA is working every day to shut down coal fired plants, and it's obvious the left is not going to allow any more nuclear plants, the one clean power source that is available and proven.
-
good thing oil will be around forever and electric cars will never become affordable.
jesus christ you are so short sighted.
You've given up on the nuclear skateboard and the (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjimmyakin.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F21feb-jetsons-flying-car.jpg&hash=d72c64c6fe97ea6c01d52b195c5ad8dd9b00d687). Jeez, talk about short sighted :nono:
Meh, 7 is right, we should all willfully overpay for a car that goes 35 miles in anticipation of oil running out, some day. Clearly it takes the mandate of government to get past all this short sightedness, as evidenced by its long-term, far-sighted policies such as deficit spending, new/bulletproof entitlement programs, and no budget fiscal gross negligence . . .
-
the first nuclear plant since the 70's is already under construction, or is about to be. i saw a piece about it a few weeks ago on the news. which is a good thing imo. they are 3 or 4 nuclear plant "generations" ahead in europe and asia, and have made them extremely safe now.
i guess where we differ here though, is i don't place number 1 priority on continuing fossil fuels, and instead would prefer we develop alternative energies primarily. and i have no problem with the government helping that along.
-
good thing oil will be around forever and electric cars will never become affordable.
jesus christ you are so short sighted.
You've given up on the nuclear skateboard and the (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjimmyakin.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F21feb-jetsons-flying-car.jpg&hash=d72c64c6fe97ea6c01d52b195c5ad8dd9b00d687). Jeez, talk about short sighted :nono:
Meh, 7 is right, we should all willfully overpay for a car that goes 35 miles in anticipation of oil running out, some day. Clearly it takes the mandate of government to get past all this short sightedness, as evidenced by its long-term, far-sighted policies such as deficit spending, new/bulletproof entitlement programs, and no budget fiscal gross negligence . . .
once again you completely side step anything i'm talking about.
i've never said everyone should be made to buy electric cars, or that the volt is some amazing machine. i know nothing about the volt except what you have posted on it, and yeah it sounds pretty terrible. but you view this bad car as proof that the government shouldn't be helping companies develop electric as a viable alternative. you act like everything should be perfect all the time. obviously this is a difficult problem, and i hardly think cutting funding to anyone trying to solve it would help.
-
Seven, ever heard of the phrase "throwing good money after bad"?
The government doesn't innovate, it mandates. This should be quite obvious to anyone in a non-vegetative state. We aren't disagreeing, you're operating under a false premise, that electric cars are the only long term viable solution to personal transportation needs. Open your mind, you're thinking like a bureaucrat, think like a scientist.
More importantly, lets all laugh at B.O. touting the Chevy Volt's success three days before they quit making it. It's soviet satire in the mainstream! :lol:
-
electric is a possible solution. not the only one.
most likely, the best solution hasn't even been discovered yet, though hydrogen would be amazing.
you think we shouldn't even be researching anything, which seems like the stupidest course of action.
-
you think we shouldn't even be researching anything, which seems like the stupidest :nono: course of action.
link?
Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of technological advances weren't mandated by the government, they were created by people who wanted to make money.
-
We aren't disagreeing, you're operating under a false premise, that electric cars are the only long term viable solution to personal transportation needs.
link?
make :jerk: statements about what i think, i'll do the same about what you think.
-
I think the Leaf has been selling ok.
-
I think the Leaf has been selling ok.
I had no idea they were so expensive.
-
I think the Leaf has been selling ok.
I had no idea they were so expensive.
The Leaf is a much better deal than the Volt and a much better car. It's still too expensive, though. These electric cars should only get cheaper moving forward, but the Leaf's 30 minute charge time (with a quick charger that only charges the battery 80%) is still way too long for me to ever buy one, regardless of price.
-
I think the Leaf has been selling ok.
I had no idea they were so expensive.
The Leaf is a much better deal than the Volt and a much better car. It's still too expensive, though. These electric cars should only get cheaper moving forward, but the Leaf's 30 minute charge time (with a quick charger that only charges the battery 80%) is still way too long for me to ever buy one, regardless of price.
A 30 minute charge time for a pure commuter car is no big deal. You charge it when you get home, and it is ready to go when you need it. Because it is only intended as a commuter car, there really is no realistic situation where you're gonna be charging up "on the road" like at a gas station.
The Leaf is certainly more promising than the Volt, but I agree that it is still too expensive for a pure commuter car, when you have to own another for longer trips.
-
http://i.mitsubishicars.com/
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c66d6bfc-67aa-11e1-978e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oSGHniS5
But Barry W. hates hydrogen.
Go figure.
-
the same people that preach "self reliance" and "civil liberty" are the same ones that consume the most energy.
but you wont' see a right winger who claims a "pull it up by the bootstraps" mentality volunteering to put in the effort to ride a bike, or cut down on consumption.
Nope, those concepts are STRICTLY for "liberal communist bleeding hearts" that dont' know anything about why gas prices are climbing.
Enjoy your SUV. We're all paying for it.
-
the same people that preach "self reliance" and "civil liberty" are the same ones that consume the most energy.
Nice fact
California consumes nearly 40% of the gasoline sold in this country. A real bastion of right wingers that state.
-
the same people that preach "self reliance" and "civil liberty" are the same ones that consume the most energy.
Nice fact
California consumes nearly 40% of the gasoline sold in this country. A real bastion of right wingers that state.
LOL wut
-
the same people that preach "self reliance" and "civil liberty" are the same ones that consume the most energy.
Nice fact
California consumes nearly 40% of the gasoline sold in this country. A real bastion of right wingers that state.
LOL wut
Look it up dolt.
-
the same people that preach "self reliance" and "civil liberty" are the same ones that consume the most energy.
Nice fact
California consumes nearly 40% of the gasoline sold in this country. A real bastion of right wingers that state.
LOL wut
Look it up dolt.
can't believe I did this, but...
The five largest states by total fuel consumption – California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas – consume 56 billion gallons of fuel, which is 33 percent of total vehicle fuel consumption nationwide. The five states consuming the most diesel fuel – California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas – consume 11 billion gallons of diesel fuel, which is 30 percent of diesel vehicle fuel consumption nationwide.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter5.cfm
:shakesfist:
-
ya, but i bet CA is 99.9 percent of that 33 percent.
-
Sorry, I complqetely made that up to be ironical. I thought that was rather obvious.
-
Is this your modus operandi for all of your posts? :dunno:
-
Sorry, I complqetely made that up to be ironical. I thought that was rather obvious.
SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO TELL WITH YOU
-
Sorry, I complqetely made that up to be ironical. I thought that was rather obvious.
hahahaha!....and you edited it.
-
Is this your modus operandi for all of your posts? :dunno:
Just the 99%