Lars Larson: Let’s talk about the Chevy Volt

by In the news Thursday, August 5. 2010

Lars Larson: Let’s talk about the Chevy Volt The Chevy Volt is finally coming out. The electric car took Detroit and General Motors, now owned by the federal government, more than two years just to get it to market.

There’s another private sector out there. Electric cars have been around for a long time. This one? Who knows what it’s going to turn out to be. I do know that $41,000 is an awful lot of money to pay for an ordinary sudan.

You could probably replicate it in a gasoline driven car for less than half that amount of money. But, the federal government is going to put your money behind it anyway. They are going to put $7,500 of your taxpayer dollars out to incentive people to buy this thing.

Why don’t we let the private market determine how to replace the gasoline-driven car, instead of having the government pick the winners and the losers.

“For more Lars click here”

Related posts:

Posted by In the news at 05:42 | Posted in Measure 37 | 49 Comments |

Email This Post |

Print This Post

Back to Home Page

TBone

The Federal Government Subsidizes gasoline to the hilt: through tax and other subsidies to the oil companies, and through the trillions of dollars spent on defence of oil fields all over the world. None of that shows up in the price at the pump.

In my mind, I’d much rather the government subsidize an electric car than putting American boys in harms way just to protect the profits of oil companies.

Bob Lutz’s command to the engineers six years ago was take petroleum out of the equation. The engineers, some of the best in the world, went away, did the math, worked the problem and the volt is what they came up with. If I had my old job back, I’d probably buy one.

Steve Plunk

Nonsense. How can you claim the government subsidizes gasoline when they tax it? Federal and state taxes in Oregon approach 50 cents a gallon. Don’t give me the excuse we lease the land for drilling cheap. The cost of extraction is high and who owns the oil in the first place? Not the federal government in my opinion.

The Volt may or may not be a success but it is a huge risk. A risk I don’t believe the government should be taking. Especially with my tax dollars.

eagle eye

Ah, so the federal government doesn’t own the oil on federal land. Who then does, may I ask? The Indians? Or should it be free for the taking? I suppose the same applies to the national forests too, right? Interesting theory.

Steve Plunk

Oil on federal land should be nearly free for the taking with certain limitations and rules to protect against environmental spillovers. Who made it property of the federal government to used as a political tool? We have certainly seen the national forests mismanaged. The presumption that the government should charge high prices to extract resources is misplaced. Those high prices on passed right on the citizens who consume the resource. Government gets rich, taxpayers get poor. It’s a hidden tax.
Rupert in Springfield

>Alas, not like you say. The price of gas is basically the price of crude + refining costs + gas taxes (which contra Plunk, pay for roads) + a modest percentage for the oil companies

Where did this idea pop into your head?

First of all gas taxes do not all go to roads. Second even if they do, they largely subsidize government play time projects like all the nonsense that comes out of the federal highway portion of the tax.

Second of all you left off the price of exploration as well as shipping. Plenty of wells turn up dry and never produce a thing. Also you think those giant tankers that will be coming over here thanks to Obama’s nitwit moratorium just do it for free?

You have some serious misconceptions as to what goes into the price of oil.

>If anyone is subsidized, it’s the consumer.

Ok, this makes no sense as it is contradicted by your first statement. You say the price of the gas include “the price of the crude”.

God knows what this means, but since crude doesnt appear by magic, some portion of that price is the price of the oil lease paid to the government.

Well, how much did the federal government pay for that oil down int he ground? Were there any costs to put it there?

Nope

So the price of the oil lease is a straight up subsidy to the government.

How about the taxes?

Did the government have any cost other than a few sheets of paper in instituting the tax?

Nope.

So the tax is a straight subsidy to the government. Yes, they have to pay out for road projects, and that is a cost but the skim on the tax is phenomenal. We get the massive ODOT, which largely does nothing, Idiot choo choo projects and the like.

>a modest percentage for the oil companies.

Real modest, the profit on oil is single digits.

You add up all the money that goes to the government in taxes and oil lease fees then subtract one half the cost of the actual roads built with those taxes ( Road construction costs can really only be subtracted for half their value because most are Davis Bacon projects, which just about doubles the cost. ) and you would still have government making way more on gas than the oil companies.

This concept that the consumer is subsidized on gas prices is really one of the most inane things out there. It has no real basis and if you ask all you will get is a lot of arm flailing about Bush, Cheney, the military and wars in the Mideast.

eagle eye

Your whole post is too idiotic to be worth wasting time on. Sorry!
Rupert in Springfield

Oh I didn’t expect you to address my post.

You always pull this routine when you get called on an argument with an obvious blunder like you did here with the costs of oil production.

I wouldn’t have expected any different from you.

When you get called – you pretty much always back down with the lame insult routine.

No surprise there, another miss from eagle eye!

eagle eye

Alas, not like you say. The price of gas is basically the price of crude + refining costs + gas taxes (which contra Plunk, pay for roads) + a modest percentage for the oil companies. Net, they are not subsidized in any meaningful way. If anyone is subsidized, it’s the consumer.

And electricity is no substitute for oil. In the first place, the electric car is going to be a deficient item for a long time to come, even with massive subsidies like the Volt has.

Second, you have to generate the electricity. That means burning coal, or oil, or natural gas, or uranium/other nuclear fuel. Or solar power (with truly massive subsidies and higher costs) or wind (ditto, plus destroying what’s left of our landscapes and otherwise disturbing the natural world).

Steve Plunk

Natural gas is the key energy source being ignored by government policy makers. It’s plentiful, relatively clean, and easily converted to a motor fuel and electricity.

Pingback: ev.ifoday.com
Omar al-Bashir

“I do know that $41,000 is an awful lot of money to pay for an ordinary sudan.”

What are you doing in Sudan?
Bob Clark

This idea the government subsidizes oil on a net basis is ludricous. All you have to do is look at corporate income statements to find oil companies routinely pay tens of billions of dollars in income taxes each year. They do receive accelerated depreciation schedules, but so do many other businesses. The degree of subsidization for renewable energies is ridicuously high at something approaching 50% over the conventional supply. There should be a standard whereby government is not allowed to carry on decade long programs subsidizing a new technology at over x percentage of the existing technology. And this percentage shouldn’t be anywhere nears 50%, maybe more like 5 to 10% with a sunset of 10 years. Even mossy green Oregon democrat legislators have come to realize the drain on public finances new renewable energies represent. The Feds aren’t their yet because they are running the fiat money printing press. Eventually such wasteful practices hit like a Greece or Argentina financial crisis.

The Volt is got to be some $20k to $25k more than a comparable gasoline car, and the volt will still use gasoline after the first 40 miles if I recall correctly. At current gasoline prices, you would have to drive the car over 200,000 miles before breaking even on the purchase price differential ($3 gasoline and 25 miles per gallon, conventional, and assuming zero energy cost for the volt).

Here’s a trade. Coal power plant expansion for electric car adoption. America’s energy independence actually becomes more real by shifting more energy supply to coal as America is surplus coal while deficit oil. Here’s what makes it more attractive. Electric cars powered by coal power would actually cut the phantom man made greenhouse gases, because the energy efficiency of autos would more than offset the additional coal power emissions. This is not a market based solution but it probably achieves the Democrats’ purported goal of energy independence and carbon dioxide emissions reduction. Whereas most of the renewables just work around the edges, not even keeping up with underlying energy demand, and putting the country at risk of serious financial meltdown.

eagle eye

“the energy efficiency of autos would more than offset the additional coal power emissions.”

I’m dubious. Got a link to a serious analysis of this? Coal is a high-carbon fuel. Plus, a lot of energy lost when you make electricity. Also, other countries would probably just burn the oil in our place.

Coal is also a dirty fuel (in other ways than CO2). And of course, it would make driving much, much more expensive. This would be a very tough sell.

Now if you were talking nuclear electricity, at least it would be clean, much cleaner than burning oil, to say nothing of coal. But also a very tough sell.

valley p

“Why don’t we let the private market determine how to replace the gasoline-driven car, instead of having the government pick the winners and the losers.”

Because the “private market” does not internalize the costs of pollution, war, and world policeman duties that are strongly associated with the use of oil.

Steve writes: “who owns the oil in the first place? Not the federal government in my opinion.”

In your opinion? Never mind facts? OK then. In my opinion you don’t really own your own business. It belongs to the people.

Eagle writes: “And electricity is no substitute for oil.”

Sure it is. It is energy that can transport people and goods from point a to point b a lot cheaper than the same distance traveled in an internal combustion powered vehicle. The Volt well be doing the equal of much better than 100 MPG in terms of energy used.

And the nice thing about electricity is we can generate it 100% from domestic sources. That has to be worth something to us no?

eagle eye

Nah, electricity is no substitute for oil. If it was, it would already be. Even aside from the problem of generating the energy, the batteries just aren’t there yet. And if you could really get the equivalent of 100 mpg, nobody would be driving gasoline cars any more. Not here, not over there. You wouldn’t need the subsidies. Especially in places like Europe, where they tax gasoline to make it $6/gallon, supposedly to take care of all those externalities.

Serious people in the energy business will tell you that liquid fuels are what it’s going to be for the foreseeable future. When BP stood for “Beyond Petroleum”, not “Blowout Performance”, their focus was liquid biofuels. Still is actually.
Steve Plunk

Unlike the governments claim on natural resources I can document my investment and profits to substantiate title to my business. The government merely claimed title and now withholds those resources from the public in order to finance itself.

You mention facts so give me some. Why should the government own a resource that is worthless until extracted and how did they become the owners entitled to profit from the sale? I understand a fiduciary responsibility to the true owners but isn’t limiting the extraction ignoring that responsibility?

The first step toward a responsible energy policy is the undoing of the idea government owns our resources. They moved from managing to owning over the last few decades and have proven to irresponsible stewards not looking out for the best interests of the citizens.

eagle eye

You have a title from the Indians? Every bit of non-Indian property was bequeathed by the federal government.

If you want to argue that the federal government should just give away our property, fine. You’re just wasting your time and I don’t want to waste mine. Even arguing that the feds should SELL our national forests is a waste of time. So go to it.

Steve Plunk

I guess we could go all the way back to the Indians but it’s much easier just to dismiss valley p’s nonsense opinion that he doesn’t believe I own my business.

The point is private owners are better stewards of the land and the founding fathers never intended for the federal government to own nearly half of the western states. Resources have become a political and social engineering tool for the feds. The presumption that the government owns the natural resources has gotten us poorly managed lands and artificial constraints on the supply of natural resources.

It’s well past time to revisit some of the creeping powers of the governments meant to serve us. We have become the servants who like the frog in a slowly warming pot hasn’t noticed the change. Rethinking things like government ownership of lands is past due.

valley p

“I guess we could go all the way back to the Indians but it’s much easier just to dismiss valley p’s nonsense opinion that he doesn’t believe I own my business.”

Yes, well I was offering one nonsense opinion merely to cancel out another. Yours, since you do not seem to believe the government owns the legal title to its estate. And as Eagle pointed out, every title west of the Alleghenies was secured by the government before being transferred, for fee or in exchange for actions (i.e. proving up) by private parties. So if the government did not once own your land, then they could not transfer title to those who came before you, and your title is worthless. Your land belongs to the heirs of the Indians who occupied it 10,000 years before you showed up. I’m going to send them a notice about this. You should start packing up.

You think private landowners are better “stewards” of the land than the government? Why, because they have managed to extract more dollars from it? Is that the only yardstick you have to measure value by? Dollars? That is beyond sad. Maybe you like tree farms with 10 foot tall trees packed in like sardines Steve, but others among us have a taste for actual forests.

The only pot slowly heating up is the temperature of the earth, thanks largely to private sector waste of energy. A good segue back to the primary purpose of the Volt.
jim karlock

*Dean Apostle:* The only pot slowly heating up is the temperature of the earth, thanks largely to private sector waste of energy.
*JK:* Huh? The earth quit warming in 1995. And has been cooling since 2002. Further the recent warming cycle was at the same rate as earlier cycles. In other words, there was nothing unusual about the recent warming cycle – it was just like the previous natural warming cycles and now has likely ended. What is the problem? Why do you continue to believe Al Gore’s lies?

Don’t believe me?

Then read the BBC interview with one of the UN IPCC’s lead authors and head of the CRU, Phil Jones here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

It shows the complete bankruptcy of AGW fantasy and your comment. (As ususal.)

Thanks
JK
Anonymous

Not clear that the founding fathers ever intended there to be most of those western states. Starting certainly with the Louisiana Purchase, which no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson — THE founding father, if there ever was one — thought was of dubious constitutionality when he acted as President.

As I say, go ahead, persuade your fellow Americans to sell off the federal lands. Or better yet, give them away to the oil companies! You make Sarah Palin sound like the voice of reason. Good luck to you!

eagle eye

Here’s how the 100 mpg comes about. The car is a hybrid that also gets most of its power from electric plugin and stores in batteries at night. That way, it uses so little gas that 1 gallon goes 100 miles (on average). But the rub is, the electric power has to be generated and paid for. No way is it really like a 100 mpg car.

Read about it here if you like:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/The100mpgCarIsComing.aspx

Engineers can give you an earful about architects who start doing engineering!

valley p

Well I am more the architect then the engineer and do not intend on doing any engineering here. So I’ll parrot what the engineers say instead. The Volt is not a Hybrid in the way that a Prius is a hybrid. The Volt always runs on electricity, while the Prius switches back and forth from electric to gas. The Volt has a 40 mile range on a charge, which is within the round trip commute distance of most car drivers. So if you drive a Volt for commuting, and your RT is less than 40 miles, you basically never have to use any gasoline at all as long as you remember to plug your car in at night. (The point of the on board generator is to recharge the batteries if you go beyond the 40 mile range, not to power the car). I think it is Honda that has a 100 mile range purely electric car, quite a bit cheaper than the Volt. We will see which one sells better.

Electricity is way cheaper than gas on a per mile driven basis, especially here in the Northwest. Your cost of running the Volt totally on electricity is probably on the order of 50 cents for those 40 miles, or 1/6 the cost of a 40MPG sedan. If you pay full sticker price it will be a good number of years for you to break even on your extra car cost, so if saving money is your goal don’t go there until the initial cost comes down another 25% or so. Leasing the Volt is actually pretty cheap however, and probably would save you money over leasing a comparable conventional car.

Where people get into trouble is when they expect an electric car to have all the advantages of a gasoline powered one. It doesn’t. It has some advantages (quiet, domestic energy sources, much less pollution even if one burns coal for the electricity) and disadvantages (high initial cost, less range, long recharging time).

Why hasn’t Europe developed the electric car already? I don’t know. They have focused on higher efficiency fossil fuel cars, especially diesel, and they have subsidized the hell out of growing their own diesel fuels. Plus they just drive a lot less than us, and have well subsidized transit. In Amsterdam 60% of the people use bikes. There are lots of ways to get around.

jim karlock

*Dean Apostle:* 1/6 the cost of a 40MPG sedan.
*JK:* A 40 mpg sedan is less than $0.20 per mile. Are you saying that the electric is $0.03 per mile?
See http://www.portlandfacts.com/aaa_method.htm

*Dean Apostle:* Why hasn’t Europe developed the electric car already? I don’t know. They have focused on higher efficiency fossil fuel cars, especially diesel, and they have subsidized the hell out of growing their own diesel fuels.
*JK:* Because Europe quit being the center of innovation when they destroyed the rewards of innovation with excessive taxes and socialism.

*Dean Apostle:* Plus they just drive a lot less than us, and have well subsidized transit.
*JK:* Automobiles account for 78% of motorized transportation in Europe and that well subsidized transit is losing market share fast to cars. See http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/eurotranistshareloss.htm

*Dean Apostle:* In Amsterdam 60% of the people use bikes. There are lots of ways to get around.
*JK:* Tell us about total passenger-miles of bikes vs cars in the metro are, not city center.

Thanks
JK

Rupert in Springfield

Can we please just dispatch with the Volt?

Look, lets just figure out how much the subsidy works out for every tax payer, and simply hand the money to the rich young sporty couples who will buy this car (no one making under $150k can afford to buy a $40k first generation novelty).

The car is inane and provably so:

The manufacturer (Obama) claims it has a fourty mile range.

Think thats small?

Think again – when was the last time you had something battery powered that ran for the duration advertised for more than a few months?

Now think about how often you will be cycling that battery? Probably a hell of a lot more than anything else you ever had where after about a year the battery at best lasted 75% as long as when it was new.

So – out of the gate it might range 40 miles, inside of a year you will probably get 30. After a couple of years you will be able to drive the thing to the end of your driveway to check the mail but thats about it.

You will never save enough on gas to justify the price because you are going to be replacing that battery a heck of a lot.

Bye bye gas savings – see how batteries dont last long? – see how most of us learned that with our first model car around the time we were ten and now we laugh at you silly greenie ninny?

What about the other exciting features?

Well, it costs $1.50 to charge it according to Chrevrolet.com. Three times the figure Dean lied about.

Ok, so basically compared to a fuel efficient car you it costs one half as much to drive in fuel costs.

But you can only go 40 miles. After that you switch to gas anyway.

Which is what all Volt owners will do when they see the first battery replacement cost. They will simply run it on the gas engine and call it good.

Drive to a deserted road, have your friend follow in a van with an engine hoist and just yank the battery out and dump it and you probably will get some good milage.

People will laugh at you, and well they should. I know Id sure make fun of anyone driving this thing.

After all – when the government pays you $7,500 to buy the damn thing, that means everyone out there paid for your stupidity.

Same thing as the nitwit solar panel program, where everyone has to subsidize the lunkhead who puts solar panels on their roof.

So, if you see someone in a Volt – laugh at them and mock them – after all, like the solar power ninny, you paid for it, you are entitled!

valley p

GM has an 8 year or 100K mile complete warrantee on the battery, so they must think it works better than you do.

The cost to charge it depends on the rate for electricity. The Northwest has pretty cheap, subsidized rates, as you should know because you use so much of it.

You don’t “switch to gas” after 40 miles. You either recharge at an outlet or your on board generator does the charging for you with gasoline power. So any Volt owner who attempts to drive their car on the engine is going to be in for a rude surprise, because the engine is not connected to the drive train. And any owner who walks away from their batteries will miss out on the warrantee.

By the way, does that last part demonstrate the depth of your research on the Volt? That you think it works like a Prius? News flash, it is different technology.

I think absolutely Rupert, you should go around mocking everyone who:

a) drives a volt
b) drives a hybrid
c) drives any tiny fuel saving car
d) puts solar panels on their roof
e) signs up for green energy
f) rides a bicycle to work
g) buys organic food
h) likes acoustic music
i) wears birkenstocks
j) has facial hair but is not a libertarian
k) Lives in an inner city neighborhood
l) Has backyard chickens
m) likes Europe

I think you should not only mock them, you should do so as demonstratively as you can. Point, guffaw, hold up signs, take out ads in the paper. I think you should do this a lot. I also think you should up your insurance before starting this mocking campaign.

Rupert in Springfield

>GM has an 8 year or 100K mile complete warrantee on the battery, so they must think it works better than you do.

Or it could be you just simply haven’t read the warranty. I have never read an auto warranty that covered normal wear and tear. Diminished battery capacity would certainly be that.

Nice try though – and nice to see you actually read about the car rather than simply making things up like your last post.

>The cost to charge it depends on the rate for electricity. The Northwest has pretty cheap, subsidized rates, as you should know because you use so much of it.

Nice dodge, but lets face it, you went off half cocked, as usual and simply made up numbers because you didn’t know what you were talking about.

Lame attempts at insults don’t override that fact. You are simply an idiot who didn’t actually look at the cars specs. You just jumped on to defend it because Obama backs it.

>You don’t “switch to gas” after 40 miles. You either recharge at an outlet or your on board generator does the charging for you with gasoline power.

No you dont you complete idiot.

Ok idiot – go the web site and actually read.

Can you do that idiot?

Here is what it says, right there on the web site

“Volt is an electric vehicle with a range extender. Well, what does that mean? It means Volt runs on electricity from its battery, and then it runs on electricity it creates from gas. Let’s assume you have a fully charged battery. Now, depending on the weather, the electrical features that are turned on and how you drive, you can drive up to 40 miles on the electricity stored in the battery — totally gas and emissions free. After that, its gas-powered, range-extending generator automatically kicks in to provide electrical power. So Volt can go for several hundred additional miles, until you can plug it in or fill it up again.”

Source chevrolet.com

So no, you dont run the engine and charge the battery.

You run the engine to power the electric motor, just as I said and just as Chevy says.

If you could actually read you would know this. Since you can;t you did not.

This is probably the single biggest reason you are an idiot.

>I think you should not only mock them

And after that little list of yours, I think you should probably seek professional help.

What are you on about with facial hair and back yard chicken raising idiot?

What’s with the inner city stuff?

Is that your subtle racism coming to the fore again? You have always been the biggest bigot on the blog. Statements like this only go to further it.

Anyway I love it when you combine your racism with the tough guy routine with the upping the insurance crack. Woooo I am so scared. Dean the bigot and his chicken raising facial hair posse is going to beat me up……OOOooooooo.

Anyway – your lunacy aside – yep, I totally mock any jerk who chucks up solar panels that makes me pay more for electricity.

Someone driving a Volt? You’d better believe I would mock them, wouldn’t have a problem with it at all.

I doubt very much I will ever see one though. Although most of my friends are far left, I have a feeling none of them are stupid enough to buy this thing.

valley p

The $1.50 is if you use the average American rate of 12 cents a KWH. Oregon’s average rate is around 8.5 cents, less during off peak times if you have the right meter. And probably less in socialistic public power Springfield.
dartagnan

“see how batteries dont last long? – see how most of us learned that with our first model car around the time we were ten”

Technology has made a few advances since you were 10, Rupe. This thing does not run on Eveready AA cells.

Rupert in Springfield

Yep Darter – and most of us have plenty of experience with rechargeable batteries of all kinds.

From the camera batteries to lap top batteries to the simple rechargeable AA’s

All of us have experience with those Darter – and I would say most have experienced the diminishing life over time.

Simply a fact of battery design Dart – they wear out and tend to have diminished capacity as they are cycled.

Again, most learned that at age 10, apparently you have not.

Oh well.

dartagnan

Yes, I’m familiar with rechargeable batteries. Some are able to hold a charge longer than others. How have you determined how long the Volt’s battery will hold a charge?

The Volt’s battery is warranted for eight years. How long is the typical automobile gasoline engine warranted for?
valley p

Rupert, this is clipped directly from the Chevy volt web site:

“The Volt is a series vehicle meaning only the electric motor power the car at all times, *the gas engine is just a generator, making electric to keep the batteries in a steady state of charge* after 40 miles.”

So like I said. The car does not run off of the gas engine ever. The gas engine charges the batteries which run the engine. The gas engine is apparently not connected to the drive train.

Beyond that, the engineers who designed the Volt appeared to have taken a number of steps to maintain the life of the battery. I doubt they would put the car out there for sale expecting that the batteries will be useless in a few months or years.

The inner city neighborhood had noting to do with race. It had to do with organic urban yuppies who choose to live near the center of things so they can drive less. You seem awfully prone to seeing race connected to every other statement. What is going on there?

As for the rest, yes by all means, go forth and mock. And make sure your dental is paid up.

jim karlock

*Dean Apostle:* You don’t “switch to gas” after 40 miles. You either recharge at an outlet or your on board generator does the charging for you with gasoline power. So any Volt owner who attempts to drive their car on the engine is going to be in for a rude surprise, because the engine is not connected to the drive train.
*Dean Apostle:* “The Volt is a series vehicle meaning only the electric motor power the car at all times, the gas engine is just a generator, making electric to keep the batteries in a steady state of charge after 40 miles.”
*JK:* Wrong as usual. And as usual you show complete incompetence when it comes to basic science. Read & understand this (from http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/review.html):
“The Volt is a four-seat, four-door “series plug-in hybrid” hatchback with a plug-in battery pack that can power the car’s 149-horsepower (111-kilowatt) electric motor by itself for up to 40 miles. After that, the gasoline- or E85-powered four-cylinder generator powers the motor for as many as 300 additional miles.”

(The connection from the engine to the motor is the same as in a diesel locomotive – a big wire!)

Please learn to study before opening your mouth.

Thanks
JK
valley p

You need to take it up with GM. I quoted them. They say it is only a generator that maintains the charge within the batteries which in turn powers the drive train. I have not dismantled the Volt to see what is connected to what. Have you?

robinwonders

don’t you have to pay a mileage tax on electric vehicles?
Pingback: ev.ifoday.com
Georgette

Anyone who would pay that much for such a range-limited vehicle is obviously so stupid they need some subsidy help.
This thing will sell like hotcakes. It is the future.
It is here now and will save us all.
Anonymous

I wonder if that leaf green colored Prius owner I saw a couple yeasr ago on I-405 will be getting a Volt and transferring her vanity plate?

“I Care”

I sped up to get a look at the driver. She appeared to be the typical liberal looking PSU type and she glowed with caring.

Obviously by her plate she wanted everyone to know exactly how special she is.
Rupert in Springfield

Hey you know though – maybe selling cars is one thing Obama will actually do well.

I mean the guy cant do economics – he spent us into the poor house and managed to raise unemployment two points over the highest he predicted.

Even with a press on his side he screwed up the BP spill – how the hell do you manage to screw up worse than Bush among LA residents on that one?

Screwed up foreign policy – Iran is about to get the bomb, Israel is mad at hell at us and the Europeans have even formally told BO the relationship with him isn’t working. No small wonder, in the midst of an economic disaster over there he is looking like an idiot running around telling their governments to spend more when they are all cutting back.

So hey – maybe we can find something for this boob to do, selling cars might be it!

valley p

“I mean the guy cant do economics – he spent us into the poor house and managed to raise unemployment two points over the highest he predicted.”

Oy, Wash rinse repeat. The poor house is what Bush drove us into. We have had economic growth for the last 3 quarters. We have had more net jobs created n the last year than Bush created in 8 years. Unemployment went higher than predicted. BFD. That just means they made an underestimate of the problem they had inherited.

“Even with a press on his side he screwed up the BP spill”

Leaving aside what the press has to do with it, how did he “screw up the BP spill?” Certainly BP screwed it up. But what did Obama do that caused that mess?

“Screwed up foreign policy – Iran is about to get the bomb,…”

Maybe and maybe not. But if and when they do we have a few thousand of them stocked. N Korea got the bomb while Bush was president. Have they dropped one on anybody?

“he is looking like an idiot running around telling their governments to spend more when they are all cutting back.”

No Rupert, they are not “all cutting back.” A few are. Britain, Ireland, Greece, Spain. Others are not. And the ones cutting back are having the worst go of it.

Maybe you think everyone “cutting back” is going to get the world out of its economic funk, but I don’t know any reputable economist who agrees.

As for cars…yes, we still have a domestic auto industry thanks to Obama taking a bold step against public opinion. If we had followed your advice unemployment would be double by now.

Rupert in Springfield

>Oy, Wash rinse repeat.

Ok – the dopey Yiddish “tell”

So we know you know you have a crappy argument going in, lets see where it goes.

>The poor house is what Bush drove us into.

Ok, sure enough, when Dean has no argument, switch the topic to Bush.

No dice here though, because the stimulus package was passed and every economist out there told BO the same thing – don’t repeat the mistake of Japan iin the 90′s, releasing the money slowly.

There was time enough for me to even predict here that because of the slow money release, which again, every economist out there warned against, it would fail.

It did, the economists were right, I was right, and BO was wrong. Bush doesn’t have thing one to do with that.

>Unemployment went higher than predicted. BFD.

It is a big deal – since the major reason the stimulus was passed to prevent that.

It didn’t work, the numbers say so, and public opinion certainly holds that.

>That just means they made an underestimate of the problem they had inherited.

He’s the president – and your defense is he didn’t know what the hell was going on?

That’s about as weak as it gets

Ok so now we see why you had the Yiddish “tell”.

>Leaving aside what the press has to do with it, how did he “screw up the BP spill?”

The perception of his performance is worse than that of Bush during Katrina among LA residents.

Next time read.

Thats what the press has to do with it. How anyone could screw that up is beyond me, but your boy sure did!

>Maybe and maybe not.

No, not maybe, not maybe not – he did. For the reasons cited.

When the Europeans officially notify you that the relationship is not working, thats screwing things up on foreign policy. I mean it takes a total screw up like Obama to turn them so against him so quickly considering the good will he had going in.

When you go over there and advise the Europeans to do exactly the wrong thing – spend more, and they tell you to buzz off with your lame advice, thats screwing up.

When you have our only ally in the Mideast, Israel, mad as hell at you, thats really screwing up.

>N Korea got the bomb while Bush was president. Have they dropped one on anybody?

This is seriously your defense?

>No Rupert, they are not “all cutting back.” A few are. Britain, Ireland, Greece, Spain. Others are not. And the ones cutting back are having the worst go of it.

Wrong – virtually all are cutting back or have been over the past few years.

>Maybe you think everyone “cutting back” is going to get the world out of its economic funk, but I don’t know any reputable economist who agrees.

Of course you don’t. because you are a singularly uninformed individual.

Virtually every economist has urged austerity in varying degrees.

Its why they are engaged in austerity in the first place. They aren’t doing it because it just popped into their head or the gas station attendant told them it was a good idea.

>As for cars…yes, we still have a domestic auto industry thanks to Obama taking a bold step against public opinion.

Ok, so now we know that you have no idea where the auto bail out money went.

>If we had followed your advice unemployment would be double by now.

Hard to make that case, since clearly by your own argument I know more about the economy than Obama.

I mean you hold him harmless because he supposedly was unaware of how bad things were.

I, and every other economist, held that the stimulus would under perform at best because of the slow release of money.

Well, everyone was right and Obama was wrong.

Your excuse that he just didn’t know what was going on might work to hold him unaccountable. After all you never hold anyone accountable if they are a Democrat.

However, I, along with every economist out there, including Robert Reich, were proven right.

That doesn’t add up to unemployment being double if sense had prevailed. It just adds up to Obama is economically incompetent.

That’s what the court of public opinion certainly holds,

Its also what the economic numbers, as well as your own argument, that he just didn’t know, hold.

There is something kind of nice about hanging you with your own words on a sunny Friday!

Cheers!

valley p

“It is a big deal – since the major reason the stimulus was passed to prevent that.”

Yes, of course you overlook the fact that the unemployment rate exceeded the prediction BEFORE the stimulus went into any effect at all, so how it could have prevented an event after the fact will be left unexplained.

“The perception of his performance is worse than that of Bush during Katrina among LA residents.”

Oh…ok then. Perception. Maybe so. In terms of actually doing something about the problem, different story.

“When you have our only ally in the Mideast, Israel, mad as hell at you, thats really screwing up”

I did not know that keeping Israel happy was the measure of foreign policy success. Interesting idea. Maybe we should let them vote in our elections? Maybe we should help them build more settlements? Both would make them happy.

“This is seriously your defense?”

I need a defense? Think of it this way. If Bush were still president (eek) Iran would be at least as far along on its bomb quest as it is today. The same is true of any Republican were president. Short of war, no president has the power to stop Iran from researching and eventually building a bomb if that is what they are determined to do. But don’t lose sleep over it. Iran will not likely bomb Springfield.

“Virtually every economist has urged austerity in varying degrees.”

I like the varying degrees part. Its a loophole the size of the Gulf of Mexico. Everybody wants someone else to be poorer someday. Sure, I can buy that. But there are darn few economists who are advising that deficit spending be cut TODAY in order to balance budgets years from now.

“Hard to make that case, since clearly by your own argument I know more about the economy than Obama.”

I made that argument? You really are delusional. You don’t know more about the economy, or economics in general for that matter, than any of my chickens. Ok that is an exaggeration. one of the chickens walks around looking confused and shakes her head a lot. You might know more than her. Emphasis on might.

“I mean you hold him harmless because he supposedly was unaware of how bad things were.”

I think under the circumstances, walking into office facing an economy sinking like a stone, an unprecedented collapse of financial institutions and the housing market, 2 ongoing wars, and a unified knucklehead opposition, he passed what he could as quickly as he could. Was it enough to put everyone back to work? No. No program short of direct federal hiring would have done that. Did it stop the bleeding and initiate growth? Apparently so. 3 quarters in the economy was growing and it has been ever since. More jobs have been created in the last year net than under 8 years of Bush. Were you aware of that?

“I, and every other economist,…”

Stop yourself right there Rupert. *You and every other economist* . You are now an economist? That is your newest claim? First a constitutional scholar and now an economist too? Why on earth do you waste your time debating the likes of me on this blog? You should at least have your own cable show.

“including Robert Reich,”

So you and Robert Reich are amigos and were in agreement? Seriously? And you agree with his article today that we ought to have a 2nd stimulus? Of course you do. As long as it doesn’t increase the deficit right?

“That’s what the court of public opinion certainly holds,”

Oh come now. The court of public opinion? Where do you get off? Public opinion says that Obama should be doing more to get people back to work, spend less, balance the budget, and by the way do not ever raise taxes on anyone. Great program there. Sounds like George Bush.

“There is something kind of nice about hanging you with your own words on a sunny Friday!”

I agree with you on the nice sunny Friday part.

bennie

Bla, Bla, Bla – another colossal waste of tax payer money that we don’t have. What a joke. I guess they can produce a grundle of them on our dime, store them someplace before they scrap them in a few years and then they can inflate the price on real cars and sell a bunch of them and keep their CAFE standards within the law. Nothing more than lawn mowers on wheels.
John in Oregon

For a vehicle like the MilliVolt the simple fact is that electric vehicles will not be practical until we get at least two orders of magnitude improvement of energy density storage in terms of volume and weight. That 100 fold improvement is not going to come from electrochemical batteries. This is yet another political fad.

But is that really the problem with the transportation industry??? Everyone has forgotten what Ford, GM and Chrysler said back at the get go. That voice was clear. There is not enough money to keep retooling in response to the latest political fad. What were those fads?

Ethanol is in, More MPG with less energetic fuel, new tail pipe regulations, hydrogen is out, yet more MPG. Ethanol is out, electric is in.

So the manufactures go to congress hat in hand. We don’t have the money to retool yet again, even more, further still. Congress responded, we don’t like your jet or CEO pay. Congress has the votes, you loose.

So the congressional oar roils the auto market and the failure is blamed on free market capitalism. Heaven forbid anyone in government stand up and confess we did it. So the Government continues to pick winners that fail.

Here is a dirty little secret. Did you know its possible to reduce the diesel fuel consumption of any standard diesel emergency power backup generator? And the modifications cost just pennies. How you ask?

Simple. Inject natural gas or propane at the combustion air intake of the engine. As the flow rate increases the diesel governor throttles back diesel to maintain engine rpm’s.

That same solution could be used with the land transport fleet. It will never happen.

Don’t believe it? Then explain why Harry Reed stuck a natural gas production killer into legislation. The natural gas fracking poison pill he inserted into the Gulf Spill grill bill.

Why? Could it be because the watermelons don’t like any practical source of energy. Nahhhh couldn’t be that could it.

jim karlock

Agree on Harry Reed & his fellow green idiots.

However, I would argue that 40 miles on pure electric is very useful and may cut gas national consumption by 1/2 or more if everyone had one since the average daily mileage is a bit under 40 miles. Charging at work allows an 80 mile round trip for commuters – you could commute from Gresham to beyond Hillsboro on pure electric.

A doubling to 80 miles would remove most need for gasoline except for long trips

Of course the green idiots are going to have to live with nuclear power for all those green cars.

Thanks
JK

John in Oregon

JK, lets pursue this discussion a bit further. For benchmark consider two real alternatives.

CNG/gasoline flex fuel technology is well known off the shelf technology. The 8 gal CNG tank provides a 200 mile range then switches seamlessly to gasoline. Overnight home recharge or stop and go gas station recharge (5 minute) is available. No problem for a 1,200 mile trip. Production costs are similar to existing vehicles.

Prior to the O-bankruptcy, General Motors had invested a great deal of tooling and development money in hydrogen electric vehicles with a planned first market offering in 2010. While much of the technology is long life and off the shelf two challenges were storage and refueling. Those were solved by establishing an agreement with Shell to provide refueling at Shell stations. Again range is not a limit and the tail pipe emissions are water. Obamas Car Czar canceled the product.

Now consider the market segment for an electric rechargeable such as the Volt or Leaf.
1] Limited range of some 40 to 90 Miles.
2} High initial capitol cost.
3] Lengthy recharge time, overnight typical – 30 minutes best case.
4] Single trip, point to point. Few or no side trips to market, cleaners, ETC.
5] Limited accessory power for heating, air conditioning, radio, GPS, computer.

Is there a market segment for this kind of vehicle? Yes. Its likely to be a higher earning second car family with one short range fixed route driver. The real question is however if the market segment is large enough to make the product profitable.

Disregarding the direct $7,000 government subsidy, industry insider analyst opinion is mixed. Toyota has yet to recoup the development / production cost of the Prius. Conventional fuel vehicle sales continue to subsidize the Toyota hybrid product segment offerings.

Looking further at the non-actualized costs. Oregon cities open with fanfare $400,000 mid trip charging stations. All to jump start electric cars don’t you know? How might this cost shake out?

First lets suppose that private companies would drive that cost from $400,000 to $10,000. Further assume that one in four parking spaces will be electrified. That works out to an additional $2,500 cost for the average parking space simply to accommodate electric car mid trip recharging.

Who pays? My bet is the political market place would tell us the parking space provider and / or the conventional fuel driver. Is there any way the charging station user would pay?

Now consider further the demographic of the electric car segment. The second car family with one short range fixed route driver. Is that not also the demographic of a transit rider?

And I haven’t touched on the Nickel Metal Hydride and Lithium Ion waste cycle or the Lithium five year life time clock problem.

Think back to the fall of 2008. Earlier that year one of the enviro warriors was on my door step asking me to support the demand for 45 MPG sanctions. She was with the environmental green tree club or some such branch of acorn and as it happened at the time I wasn’t busy so I spent some time in discussion.

Her solution was simple. Get off foreign oil by forcing the auto companies to build 50 MPG cars just like Europe does. The message was obvious, the atrocious auto companies refused to build the cars that Americans wanted and she needed me to demand that government force the loathsome car companies to build the cars she thought I wanted.

So we had this discussion that those 50 MPG cars don’t meet either US safety or pollution standards and she stomped her feet about the corrupt car companies.

All this shows that the real world, markets, and common sense have little to do with the decisions that government makes. Ultimately it becomes all about politics, and who has most power.
jim karlock

*John in Oregon:* \CNG/gasoline flex fuel technology is well known off the shelf technology. The 8 gal CNG tank provides a 200 mile range then switches seamlessly to gasoline. Overnight home recharge or stop and go gas station recharge (5 minute) is available. No problem for a 1,200 mile trip. Production costs are similar to existing vehicles.
*jk:* Agree, but you may be a bit optimistic about 8 gal of CNC running 200 miles – that’s 25 mpg and doesn’t CNC have a lot less energy/gal than gasolene?

*John in Oregon:* Prior to the O-bankruptcy, General Motors had invested a great deal of tooling and development money in hydrogen electric vehicles with a planned first market offering in 2010.
*jk:* I have never understood the push to hydrogen when CNC is available now. The only reason appears to the dream of CO2 neutral with dreamed of hydrogen from solar.

*John in Oregon:* While much of the technology is long life and off the shelf two challenges were storage and refueling.
*jk:* They are still challanges!

*John in Oregon:* Those were solved by establishing an agreement with Shell to provide refueling at Shell stations.
*jk:* Where does the H2 come from? If from gas or liquid fuel, what does they do with the carbon? In any case the wasted carbon is a cost.

*John in Oregon:* Again range is not a limit and the tail pipe emissions are water.
*jk:* Again, H2 has a lot less energy per gal than gasolene. And is difficult to store.

*John in Oregon:* Now consider the market segment for an electric rechargeable such as the Volt or Leaf.
1] Limited range of some 40 to 90 Miles.
*JK:* that is the point of a hybrid – first 40 miles each day on electric, then use gas for rest. Many people will be gas free.

*John in Oregon:* 2} High initial capitol cost.
*JK:* The hope is that the cost will come down, as new technologies frequently do.

*John in Oregon:* 3] Lengthy recharge time, overnight typical – 30 minutes best case.
*JK:* That is the point of the hybrid – yo don’t recharge on the go. But if you are commuting, you may be able to recharge while at work.

*John in Oregon:* 4] Single trip, point to point. Few or no side trips to market, cleaners, ETC.
*JK:* No problem – it can run on gasolene.

*John in Oregon:* 5] Limited accessory power for heating, air conditioning, radio, GPS, computer.
*JK:* The current hybrids also have this problem. We can live with it.

*John in Oregon:* Is there a market segment for this kind of vehicle? Yes. Its likely to be a higher earning second car family with one short range fixed route driver.
*JK:* Costly, yes. So is the Prius. Again, long range is the point of the hybrid. No range problem.

*John in Oregon:* Looking further at the non-actualized costs. Oregon cities open with fanfare $400,000 mid trip charging stations.
*JK:* Simply amazing. $400,000 for an electrical outlet!! Only government can waste money on that scale!

*John in Oregon:* That works out to an additional $2,500 cost for the average parking space simply to accommodate electric car mid trip recharging.
*JK:* They should limit it to the sort of outlet they have on parking meters in sub zero climate regions for engine block heaters. Maybe beef up the output, but the cost should be close to what they already have.

*John in Oregon:* Earlier that year one of the enviro warriors was on my door step asking me to support the demand for 45 MPG sanctions. …So we had this discussion that those 50 MPG cars don’t meet either US safety or pollution standards and she stomped her feet about the corrupt car companies.
*JK:* Have sympathy for her – she was just another mindless robot that is infesting Porltand.

*John in Oregon:* All this shows that the real world, markets, and common sense have little to do with the decisions that government makes. Ultimately it becomes all about politics, and who has most power.
*JK:* I suspect that it has always been that way, we are just now realizing it.

Thanks
JK
John in Oregon

Hi JK, I think you put your finger on the problem here > *I have never understood the push to hydrogen when CNC is available now.* As you say ” The only reason appears to the dream of CO2….”.

Bingo. Your comment was what I needed to connect the dots.

Take a look at the GM hydrogen car, the Volt (original design) and Leaf. As a group the common factor is California zero tail pipe regulations. No better design team than a bunch of bureaucratic regulators on a crusade to save the world. Keep in mind the Volt hybrid is a past over add on design due to the less than 20 mile range. 20 out, 20 back.

The same regulators from whom the California strawberry farmers will get three choices. Continue to grow, forge ahead into bankruptcy, or plow under and walk away.

It all depends on the decision of the Californai SRC, which was appointed by DPR to focus on review and has overlap with the SRP which is charged with evaluating risk by the ARB, the OEHHA and the DPR.

I had to laugh at your comment . *Simply amazing. $400,000 for an electrical outlet!! Only government can waste money on that scale!* You have a real talent for understatement.

Of course neither of us took into account the need for a GFCI, IG, AFCI, or state certification of the charger and the weighs and measure test of the metering.
A patriot

I’d love to get a Volt, even without the subsidy. Anything to stop sending oil dollars to Hugo Chavez and all those Arab dictators!

Lars Larson: Let’s talk about the Chevy Volt

Get Email Updates:

Links of Interest

Archives

Information

Stay Tuned...

Lars Larson: Let’s talk about the Chevy Volt

Subscribe to this blog

Subscribe Via Email

Get Email Updates:

Links of Interest

Archives

Information

Stay Tuned...