rickyp wrote:steve

I think it is probably too soon to declare the Leaf a success.

But not too soon to declare the Volt a failure?

Because there was no market to begin with and, in spite of massive subsidies, there's still no market. In the real world, that's failure.

In the real world new car categories take a while to develop.
The first hybrids sold only 3000 cars world wide in 1997.
This year the Prius will sell over 400,000 cars world wide.
Introduced in the States at very high prices in 2000 only 5800 Prius cars were purchased. This year over 140,000 will be sold in the US.

Theres no reason to believe that electric cars won't have the same development pattern as hybrids . If the subsidies mean that US auto makers will, for once, be at the forefront of a market segment rather than following, it's probably a good thing.

By the way. You know what the leading US export was last year? Refined gasoline.
Despite exporting a record amount, the price of gas domestically didn't go down in the US, either. Meaning the underlying attraction of the electric car is likely to continue... .

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-gas ... 39135.html

rickyp wrote:In the real world new car categories take a while to develop.
The first hybrids sold only 3000 cars world wide in 1997.
This year the Prius will sell over 400,000 cars world wide.
Introduced in the States at very high prices in 2000 only 5800 Prius cars were purchased. This year over 140,000 will be sold in the US.

Theres no reason to believe that electric cars won't have the same development pattern as hybrids . If the subsidies mean that US auto makers will, for once, be at the forefront of a market segment rather than following, it's probably a good thing.

By the way. You know what the leading US export was last year? Refined gasoline.
Despite exporting a record amount, the price of gas domestically didn't go down in the US, either. Meaning the underlying attraction of the electric car is likely to continue... .

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-gas ... 39135.html

Ricky, even if you were correct that manufacturing electric vehicles were somehow a critical economic component for the US economy, in the absence of other changes, what is the evidence that the US would retain this manufacturing capability for electric cars without any other policy changes. Given that there is no evidence that these policy changes are being made, or even agreed upon, it would seem to me that we are still burning money for virtually no reason at all.

ray

Ricky, even if you were correct that manufacturing electric vehicles were somehow a critical economic component for the US economy, in the absence of other changes, what is the evidence that the US would retain this manufacturing capability for electric cars without any other policy changes

I could do a steve here and say, "what evidence do you have that they wouldn't?"

However, what I'll say is that when an industry utlizes a core technology, a community of people are involved in the technology. Its the cultural knowlege and institutional memory that results in innovation and development around the core product.
Thats why, when an industry leaves a nation it is very difficult, if not impossible to resurect the industry. Much of the reason why industries thrive in certain geographies is that they spin off innovation and development from the core ...Without the core, there is seldom this kind of innovation within that area again.
Thats why when the Asian tigers basically bought the various high tech industries from US locations in the 80's and 90's, , (displays, peripherals, computers) they also insisted upon technolgy transfers from the multi nationals that relocated from the US. If they had simply subsidised production they wouldn't have developed the array of companies around the multi nationals in their countries. Companies that now compete with the multinationals..

I'm not saying electric cars are exactly the same Ray. And there are certainly no guaranteees that the electric car will be a key factor in the continuing resurrection of the American car industry. However, it is dangerous for the American indusry to ignore the trend, And they really aren't if you also note that Ford is pushing their "ecoboost": engines. Surely a competitor to electric cars...
The subsidies seem to make sense, broadly speaking, if they speed the Volt's development, so it doesn't get too far behind Leaf and others coming up. WIth events like the squeezing of the Straits of Hormuz, the uncertainty over fuel prices will only help speed acceptance...
By the way, flipping betwen channels yesterday I stumbled upon a Headline News report, from a consumer reporter, on electric cars. Both the Leaf and Volt. The guy was over the top enthusiastic.

There are a host of fossilized subsidies that continue to exist in your nation. None that actually aid innovation or development. (The oil industry and ethanol are two possibles no?) . The fact is that the subsidies in these two areas may actually hinder innovation, if they are somehow artificiallly affecting the market over the long term. Want to attack subsidies or wasteful tax breaks start there.
But, as long as the subsidies for the electric car are short term (say no more than 5 to 7 years) then helping GM get ahead of the curve probably is a wise move...
Would it guarantee that electric cars would continue to be made in the US? Absent of other policy changes? I think you're making the point that there are structural problems that affect the US auto industries competitivesness? I think some were addressed in the bailout, like taking out the high cost of union pensisons and extended medical (A whole arguement here for socialized medicine BTW) .... But you're probably right that more needs to be done ..
I don't think thats entirely relevant to whether or not the development of a made in the US electric car gets a little help..Because whether or not the help happens, the same problems will need to be addressed if the industry is to continue improving. But to continue improving it also needs to be leading edge.... and that leading edge appears to be electrical.
A venture capitalist friend tells me he recently saw a Chinese company with an electric engine running a HumVee body. Range 1000 kilometres. Top speed 140 KPH. Charging time: 30 minutes.
Could be BS. Certainly exagerated. But thats where the interest is in cars now...

rickyp wrote:ray

Ricky, even if you were correct that manufacturing electric vehicles were somehow a critical economic component for the US economy, in the absence of other changes, what is the evidence that the US would retain this manufacturing capability for electric cars without any other policy changes

I could do a steve here and say, "what evidence do you have that they wouldn't?"

Ugh. RJ really gives you too much credit here.

For example, you've completely glossed over the problems I've listed with these cars. They don't solve our oil-dependency problems; they exacerbate our electric shortages; their batteries are expensive to replace and no one knows how to dispose of tens of thousands of them (or more). In other words, the market for these vehicles will soon be limited by reality--they cost a lot and create more problems than they solve.

I'm not saying electric cars are exactly the same Ray. And there are certainly no guaranteees that the electric car will be a key factor in the continuing resurrection of the American car industry. However, it is dangerous for the American indusry to ignore the trend, And they really aren't if you also note that Ford is pushing their "ecoboost": engines. Surely a competitor to electric cars...
The subsidies seem to make sense, broadly speaking, if they speed the Volt's development, so it doesn't get too far behind Leaf and others coming up. WIth events like the squeezing of the Straits of Hormuz, the uncertainty over fuel prices will only help speed acceptance...
By the way, flipping betwen channels yesterday I stumbled upon a Headline News report, from a consumer reporter, on electric cars. Both the Leaf and Volt. The guy was over the top enthusiastic.

The Strait of Hormuz is a separate issue. The Saudis have said they'll boost production if there is a problem. The US Navy will have something to say as well. Who knows? After several Iranian acts of war against the US, maybe Obama will finally accept that they are at war with us even if we don't want to be. Okay, no, that's crazy talk. His VP still thinks the Taliban are not our enemies even as they kill our troops.

Btw, fascinating anecdote on that CNN cheerleader, er, consumer reporter. How many vehicles has he purchased? Enthusiasm and $5 will buy you a latte.

But, as long as the subsidies for the electric car are short term (say no more than 5 to 7 years) then helping GM get ahead of the curve probably is a wise move...

Yeah, as wise as Solyndra.

Obama and Co are trying to force the market to accept something it doesn't want. You can call it "wise." I call it dumping money down the sewer. Please wake me up when the Volt turns a profit. See, that's the funny thing: companies care about profits. The government? Not so much. The current government wants industry and the consumer to do the "right" thing, no matter if it doesn't help either one. Putting money into a poor product (see fires) that is not in demand is something only the government would do, and something only a socialist would applaud.

A venture capitalist friend tells me he recently saw a Chinese company with an electric engine running a HumVee body. Range 1000 kilometres. Top speed 140 KPH. Charging time: 30 minutes.
Could be BS. Certainly exagerated. But thats where the interest is in cars now...

If true, it is the WORST argument for the Volt I've ever heard. Why? Because Chevy is so far away from this that we've already lost.

Nice op-ed from the WaPo:

Meanwhile, a lesser-known but equally dubious energy tax break also expired when the year ended Saturday: the credit that gave electric-car owners up to $1,000 to defray the cost of installing a 220-volt charging device in their homes — or up to $30,000 to install one in a commercial location. As a means of reducing carbon emissions, electric cars and plug-in hybrid electrics are no more cost-effective than ethanol. What’s more, only upper-income consumers can afford to buy an electric vehicle (EV); so the charger subsidy is a giveaway to the well-to-do.

The same goes for the $7,500 tax credit that the government offers purchasers of electric vehicles, a subsidy that, alas, did not expire at year’s end. The Obama administration says that the credit helps build a market for EVs, which helps create jobs. Given the price of eligible models, like the $100,000 Fisker Karma, that rationale sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics.

Backers of the charger tax credit may lobby Congress to renew it when lawmakers tackle the payroll tax extension issue again in the new year. We hope that Congress says no. Not only is it a case study in upward income redistribution, it also would represent a deepening of the taxpayers’ commitment to what looks increasingly like an industry not ready for prime time.

Sales of electric vehicles were disappointing in 2011, with the Volt coming in below the 10,000 units forecast. In addition to its high price, the Volt brand is suffering from news that some of its batteries burst into flames after government road tests. Meanwhile, Fisker, the recipient of more than half a billion dollars in low-interest Energy Department loans, repeatedly delayed the introduction of its ballyhooed Karma — while repeatedly raising the sticker price. And now Fisker has announced a recall of the cars because of a potential defect in its batteries — made by A123 Systems, another large recipient of Energy Department support.

Evidence is mounting that President Obama was overly optimistic to pledge that there would be 1 million EVs on the road by 2015. Electric cars are not likely to form a significant part of the solution to America’s dependence on foreign oil, or to global warming, in the near future. They simply pose too many issues of price and practicality to attract a large segment of the car-buying public. More prosaic fuel-economy innovations such as conventional hybrids, clean-diesel cars and advanced gasoline engines all show much more promise than electrics.

The ethanol credit was on the books for 30 years before it finally died. Let’s hope Congress can start unwinding the federal government’s bad investment in electric vehicles faster than that.

"Bad investment." Why is it that you can't see it?

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39425/

This is a company that has received some federal funding, but also raises funds on its own. The vibrancy of capitalism and technological progress is such that we don't need federal distortions to move forward. Their research department is way more important in solving our energy issues than any federal involvement.

Attention all K-Mart shoppers (and Ricky): there's trouble in paradise!

General Motors reported solid growth in vehicle sales this year, but its high-profile electric Chevy Volt fell short of targets.

The company reported today that it sold 7,671 Chevy Volts in 2011, fewer than the 10,000 it had expected to sell. There were more than 1,500 Volts sold in December, the best month since the car was launched in late 2010.

Sales of the Volt have been closely watched as a barometer both for uptake of electric vehicles and GM's financial health.

Buyers receive a $7,500 federal tax credit for buying an electric car with a battery as large or larger than the Chevy Volt battery. But because of the cost of large batteries, electric cars still have a significantly higher price tag than conventional cars. The Volt price starts at $39,145, the Nissan Leaf starts at about $35,000, and Ford's Focus Electric costs just under $40,000. The full $7,500 tax credit is available for each.

Electric vehicles are cheaper to fuel up but the internal combustion engine efficiency continues to improve and hybrids have become more commonplace. Unless there is a spike in the price of gasoline, many analysts expect electric vehicle sales to remain a small fraction of overall sales in the next five years because of that higher purchase price.

Take away the government subsidy and they would be closer to zero. I just bought a luxury car for the same price as a Volt. I've no idea why I would have bought a Volt instead.

I admit that I don't fully understand your hatred of the Volt. Is it only the subsidy? There are lots of stupid, but vastly more expensive subsidies out there, as I'm sure you're aware.

But I'm not sure the article got its facts right. GM expected to produce 10,000 vehicles, not sell 10,000 vehicles during 2011. They need to have inventory, and since they sold about 1,000 vehicles in December, they have about 2.5 months of inventory, which is about right if sales don't increase, but considering sales have steadily increased since introduction, they're probably going to need to make more, not less.

I just like choices. Some people drop 20K on a motorcycle, 250K on a Bentley, or 12K on some sensible Korean number, and all of that's great. More choices=a good thing. The Volt gives consumers another choice. How can that be bad?

Here's a press release from March 2011 from GM which has their production targets:

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_GM.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Mar/0304_VoltPricing

Chevrolet plans to produce 10,000 Volts by the end of the 2011 calendar year, and an additional 45,000 Volts during the 2012 calendar year. The Chevrolet Volt is produced at GM’s Detroit Hamtramck plant in Michigan, U.S.A. The state-of-the-art lithium-ion battery is produced at GM’s Brownstone Township plant, also located in Michigan.

geojanes wrote:But I'm not sure the article got its facts right. GM expected to produce 10,000 vehicles, not sell 10,000 vehicles during 2011. They need to have inventory, and since they sold about 1,000 vehicles in December, they have about 2.5 months of inventory, which is about right if sales don't increase, but considering sales have steadily increased since introduction, they're probably going to need to make more, not less.

Oh, come now, people might think that knowing a bit about the car industry and how it works was useful in the context of the debate.

Inventory is definitely important, because you want to be able to provide models to biuyers quickly. If you only build to sale, you end up having to wait every time. With inventory, only non-standard options take a long time to deliver, and you can have standard units distributed aorund the country ready (and up-spec models in showrooms for test-drives etc).

geojanes wrote:I admit that I don't fully understand your hatred of the Volt. Is it only the subsidy? There are lots of stupid, but vastly more expensive subsidies out there, as I'm sure you're aware.

There are few subsidies per unit as high as the Volt. Frankly, you'd have a hard time finding a subsidy as large on a percentage basis. It's not just the $7500 of a $40K car, but also the R & D. That is one expensive golf cart. Just to review, there's a lot of government money in there, even if it's not 1/4 million per vehicle.. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/21/g ... 0-per-car/

But I'm not sure the article got its facts right. GM expected to produce 10,000 vehicles, not sell 10,000 vehicles during 2011. They need to have inventory, and since they sold about 1,000 vehicles in December, they have about 2.5 months of inventory, which is about right if sales don't increase, but considering sales have steadily increased since introduction, they're probably going to need to make more, not less.

Whatever. Let me know when those Volts turn a profit. They are a solution in search of a problem.

I just like choices. Some people drop 20K on a motorcycle, 250K on a Bentley, or 12K on some sensible Korean number, and all of that's great. More choices=a good thing. The Volt gives consumers another choice. How can that be bad?

Why should every taxpaying American be subsidizing the car-buying choice of others? Again, the government got into this without any thought for how to get rid of the batteries or how to increase the supply of electricity. In fact, Obama is trying to reduce that supply (via EPA regulations) and increase demand on it (via plug-in cars). I can't see how that is a winning formula. Then again, Obama has so much experience at running economically viable enterprises.

steve

Again, the government got into this without any thought for how to get rid of the batteries

You keep saying this, but the development of the recycling of batteries is actually on course with the development of hybrids and electric....

Toyota Motor, whose experience goes back to 1998, shortly after the introduction of the RAV4 all-electric vehicle, has established partnerships in Europe and the United States to recycle batteries, including from the hybrid Prius. This year, it began shipping some batteries from Prius models sold in the United States to Japan to take advantage of a more-efficient recycling process at home.

Honda Motor recycled nearly 500 batteries during 2009 from the electric hybrid models it began selling in Japan more than a decade ago. But it still is exploring ways to structure that part of its business as it rolls out models like the Insight and the CR-Z.

General Motors and Nissan Motor, whose Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf are newer to the market, are taking a different tack. They have agreements with power companies to develop ways of reusing old batteries, perhaps for storing wind or solar energy during peak generating times for later use.

Bayerische Motoren Werke, known for its premium BMW line, still is carrying out research on whether to recycle or reuse the batteries from its Mini E, an all-electric car it began leasing on a limited basis in 2009.

Meanwhile, some governments have begun to get involved to ensure their car industries are not undermined by sourcing or safety issues.

In the United States, the Department of Energy has granted $9.5 million to Toxco to build a specialized recycling plant in Ohio for electric vehicle batteries. It is expected to begin operations next year, handling batteries from a variety of makes and models

source:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/energy-environment/fancy-batteries-in-electric-cars-pose-recycling-challenges.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=waste%20problem%20for%20green%20cars&st=cse

http://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_r ... display/90

By the way, its not as if the current car battery is less of a pollution problem than the new batteries. Lead Acid batteries are considered among the top ten enviromental problems we have to deal with....

rickyp wrote:http://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_reports/display/90

By the way, its not as if the current car battery is less of a pollution problem than the new batteries. Lead Acid batteries are considered among the top ten enviromental problems we have to deal with....

Battery size?

Cost of recycling?

Actual energy savings?

You've shown nothing yet that indicates this is any kind of win/win scenario.

steve

You've shown nothing yet that indicates this is any kind of win/win scenario

.

If the consumers buy the product becasue they feel it meets their needs, then its a win. 10 years ago their were |It'll never fly Orville" types like you saying many of the same things about the ealiest hybrids and they now make up a significant segment of the market.
Hell, your kind were poo poohing the horseless carriage before that.,...
Every motor company has an entry into the electric field, so they must know something you don't Steve. Or you're wiser than the collective management of Nissan, Toyota, GM,Honda, BMW, and Ford.
That there are engineering refinements to be made, is a given, Thats true of any complexly engineered product in its early commercail life. Thats one reason they don't sell too many models early on, in order to improve the product before they ramp up major production.