rickyp wrote:I expect electric cars will follow that classic model.

The classic model: the government supplements 20-25% of the cost, tries to get consumers to switch power source, and tries to get them to buy a much smaller size than what the market generally prefers? That "classic" model?

In other words, there is no "classic" model for the Volt.

What is the current market share for all "plug-in" vehicles?

What is the source to supply the increased demand on the grid for "plug-in" vehicles?

Isn't it true that restrictions on coal-fired plants by the EPA will actually reduce the amount of energy available on the energy grid?

Oh, by the way. The US didn't invest in the display industry. That was lost in the 80's when Taiwan,S Korea and Japan had their government's invest in the display industries and in a decade took that industry right out of the US. The last US television was built in something like 1990.

And, since you have not grasped this or refuted it, it needs to be posted again. What's the end result of this "failure" to invest by the US government? Better technology, better prices, widespread availability. Yeah, what a disaster!

This is an interesting piece. The oil companies and conservatives are pessimistic about electric cars; the environmentalists and liberals are optimistic. What do the car companies think?

A survey of 200 auto industry executives conducted by KPMG released earlier this month gave an average forecast for electric vehicles to account for 6-10 percent of global auto sales in 2025 - more bullish than Exxon and BP but hardly a revolution.

"Certainly a year ago or so, you could have gotten the impression from reading the press that everyone is driving electric cars in two years time," Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche said at a roundtable at the sidelines of the Detroit auto show last month.

Zetsche said he did not see "an explosion of demand for this product."

Echoing comments from the oil companies, Gerd Kleinert, CEO of KSPG, the automotive parts business belonging to German group Rheinmetall, says take-up of electric cars will be curtailed until batteries can store energy using as little weight as gasoline does, and can be recharged as quickly as refilling a fuel tank.

"When that world exists, then we will all be driving electric cars starting tomorrow. But I personally don't see that happening, not even a hundred years from now."

Mr. Apples and Oranges wrote:As an example of what happens when the US doesn't work to keep an industry segment in the country....displays are apt. If the US auto makers didn't participate in the electric car business from the beginning....its a sure bet they would be either shut out or far behind the comeptitive curve when/if the market takes off.

How many times do you need to read this? They are not the same. You are talking about a fundamental change in terms of energy supply. Imagine if this were really reversed--gasoline powered televisions. That would be a paradigm shift of comparable note. Our power grid is inefficient and it is insufficient to handle a massive influx of new demand. A far more reasonable approach would be improving on Prius-type technology. If that sort of thing could be made to power a vehicle up to 45 or 50 mph without gasoline, then you'd have something worth investing in. Simply shifting demand to the electric grid is not a solution.

rickyp, auto industry spokesman wrote:And again, the entire industry seems to be expecting that its a likely occurrence even if you don't. (I'll bet your one of those guys who couldn't imagine people wanting 72 inch screens in their apartments?)

See, instead of merely citing my own opinion of what the "entire industry seems to be expecting," I actually found it. Facts have never swayed your views before and I don't suspect they will now.

Regarding children being expensive, I know. I have 5! (15, 8,7,4, 16 mo.) and they can be spendy. But subsidies for children are something that I would not agree with either, George. After all, with the way that laws are interpreted every woman has a choice as to having children. People have a choice to contribute to charity. All of these things are choices. I do not think we should be subsidizing choices. Let people make the choice, and the market will go where it goes.

Is the conservative news playing the Volt as a banner? Yes, but no more than the left playing the latest item to the hilt.

danivon wrote:All those public roads which existed prior to widescale uptake of automobiles are a prime example of subsidies. Metalled roads were originally brought in for other forms of transport, but were crucial to the development of the car and expanded at taxpayer cost in most cases - apart from toll roads which were often subject to publicly backed laons or state underwriting.

Yet the market ideologues would have it that this was wrong.

See the problem with this is that most market ideologues recognize the need for metaled roads for other purposes that are seen as the primary purpose of government, i.e. the more effective movement of troops for national self defense, police for law enforcement and other things. The fact that these roads, which are paid for by tax payer funds, are used by others for non-governmental, economic purposes is a side effect.

Additionally, those using the roads for non-gov't economic purposes are actually paying for the use of the roads in the way of tolls and gas taxes. Further, a growing number of transportation experts are saying the future will be moving away from gas taxes and movement to a usage tax meaning a vehicle owner will be taxed based on the amount of miles driven. Both of which fit in to the market view of paying for services.

Ray Jay wrote:

dozens (hundreds?)

Tens of thousands!

Indeed. I, too, am showing off my ignorance, but I welcome the education.

Archduke Russell John wrote:See the problem with this is that most market ideologues recognize the need for metaled roads for other purposes that are seen as the primary purpose of government, i.e. the more effective movement of troops for national self defense, police for law enforcement and other things. The fact that these roads, which are paid for by tax payer funds, are used by others for non-governmental, economic purposes is a side effect.

Hmm. The main reason for most metalled roads was trade, not troop movement or policing (given that at the outset they didn't use cars either). But regardless of whether it's the primary purpose or not, it is still subsidy, and there's more...

The government could have forced more of their costs on to the motor industry in some way from day one so as to have a fairer share, but they did not.

Mainly because the government also has a responsibility to enable trade and support the economy. Sometimes that means subsidies, direct or indirect.

Additionally, those using the roads for non-gov't economic purposes are actually paying for the use of the roads in the way of tolls and gas taxes. Further, a growing number of transportation experts are saying the future will be moving away from gas taxes and movement to a usage tax meaning a vehicle owner will be taxed based on the amount of miles driven. Both of which fit in to the market view of paying for services.

Well I was talking about the past, not the present. of course, gas tax is a 'usage tax' - the more you drive, the more gas you use. I don't use much gas when my car is parked, I know that much.

danivon wrote:Hmm. The main reason for most metalled roads was trade, not troop movement or policing (given that at the outset they didn't use cars either).

Uhm. have you ever tried to move a large body of people, wagons or horse over no road, a dirt road or a metalled road. I have done all three (reenacting experiences sometime come in handy). It is much easier to move large bodies of men and equipment over prepared/paved surfaces whether they are traveling by foot, horse drawn wagons or internal combustion.

danivon wrote:Mainly because the government also has a responsibility to enable trade and support the economy.

I can agree that enabling trade to support the economy is a valid government function. I guess our definitions on how they do that are different.

danivon wrote: gas tax is a 'usage tax' - the more you drive, the more gas you use. I don't use much gas when my car is parked, I know that much.

You are absolutely correct. The reason most give for the change is the increase fuel consumption efficiency is reducing the amount of revenue collect from gas taxes. So the option being faced is increase tax rate to maintain revenue amounts or look to some other type of tax.

That "classic" model?

The classic new product segment introduction is what I'm talking about. Marketing 101 at a local business school would cover this for you.
Many products are expensive with a limited market when first introduced. Early adapters and the well off are usually amongst the first to buy... Manufacturers often loose money for the first few years. Sometimes they keep prices articifially high in order to keep demand low, in order to be able to learn from the early adapters...
As they learn from the production introduction manufacturers both improve the products, and improve the production technologies and decrease production costs....Lowered prices and improved products enlarge the market for the product and sales increase. And finally scale helps lower costs again and enlarge the market again.
Electric cars are still in the early adapter stage..... (And this applies whether or not there are subsidies)

Steve said regarding displays:

What's the end result of this "failure" to invest by the US government? Better technology, better prices, widespread availability. Yeah, what a disaster

No, I agree not a disaster. Well, for the people in the US who used to make the products, I'm sure it was a set back... (unemployment and all...)
And please remember that the Taiwanese, Japanes and South Korean governments enabled the development of these products, and the manufacturing jobs for their countries, with direct investments and subsidies.....
An example of successful intervention that was not a disaster. As you recognize. Not only did the product reach mass market status,and profitability (although its veering to unprofitable for Sony), but it created a huge employment base for those three nations. And later China.
Government intervention never works though huh Steve?

Steve

See, instead of merely citing my own opinion of what the "entire industry seems to be expecting," I actually found it.

Well, you found one opinion that agrees with you. Sort of...
There are many auto companies making electric cars Steve. Could it be that those investments speak louder than the quotation from one curmodgeon? After all, someone once did say "It'll never fly Orville".
Who's making electric cars? Nissan, GM, Volkswagon, BMW, Ford, Honda, Mercedes Benz, Toyota and a bunch of little guys.
http://cbelectriccar.com/blog/electric- ... h-america/
I suppose they could all fail, and the category go the way of the Stanley Steamer.... But I don't think so. And I don't think the electrical grid is at such a great risk. As much as there are possible new uses for electricity, there are new and improved ways to save energy use... And Natural gas electricity looks to be pretty cheap. (Thanks to the development of safe frakking.....another "subsidized product"._)

The electrical grid has no storage capacity, which causes all kinds of inefficiencies. If there ever is widespread use of plug in vehicles, they could be used as the storage sponge that the grid never had. More on vehicle to grid here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Pretty cool when you think about it.

rickyp wrote:

That "classic" model?

The classic new product segment introduction is what I'm talking about. Marketing 101 at a local business school would cover this for you.
Many products are expensive with a limited market when first introduced. Early adapters and the well off are usually amongst the first to buy... Manufacturers often loose money for the first few years. Sometimes they keep prices articifially high in order to keep demand low, in order to be able to learn from the early adapters...
As they learn from the production introduction manufacturers both improve the products, and improve the production technologies and decrease production costs....Lowered prices and improved products enlarge the market for the product and sales increase. And finally scale helps lower costs again and enlarge the market again.
Electric cars are still in the early adapter stage..... (And this applies whether or not there are subsidies)

Big difference: at this stage, we have absolutely zero reason to think the electric car will replace the current gasoline-fueled models. Batteries are inefficient and have been for the past 100 years. You see, electric cars don't really fit your "early adopter" model. As always, I don't expect you to be deterred by the facts:

1890s to 1900s: Early history

Before the pre-eminence of internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many speed and distance records. Among the most notable of these records was the breaking of the 100 km/h (62 mph) speed barrier, by Camille Jenatzy on April 29, 1899 in his 'rocket-shaped' vehicle Jamais Contente, which reached a top speed of 105.88 km/h (65.79 mph). Before the 1920s, electric automobiles were competing with petroleum-fueled cars for urban use of a quality service car.

Proposed as early as 1896 in order to overcome the lack of recharging infrastructure, an exchangeable battery service was first put into practice by Hartford Electric Light Company for electric trucks. The vehicle owner purchased the vehicle from General Electric Company (GVC) without a battery and the electricity was purchased from Hartford Electric through an exchangeable battery. The owner paid a variable per-mile charge and a monthly service fee to cover maintenance and storage of the truck. The service was provided between 1910 to 1924 and during that period covered more than 6 million miles. Beginning in 1917 a similar service was operated in Chicago for owners of Milburn Light Electric cars who also could buy the vehicle without the batteries.

In 1897, electric vehicles found their first commercial application in the U.S. as a fleet of electrical New York City taxis, built by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia. Electric cars were produced in the US by Anthony Electric, Baker, Columbia, Anderson, Edison

Despite their relatively slow speed, electric vehicles had a number of advantages over their early-1900s competitors. They did not have the vibration, smell, and noise associated with gasoline cars. They did not require gear changes, which for gasoline cars was the most difficult part of driving. Electric cars found popularity among well-heeled customers who used them as city cars, where their limited range was less of a disadvantage. The cars were also preferred because they did not require a manual effort to start, as did gasoline cars which featured a hand crank to start the engine. Electric cars were often marketed as suitable vehicles for women drivers due to this ease of operation.

In 1911, the New York Times stated that the electric car has long been recognized as "ideal" because it was cleaner, quieter and much more economical than gasoline-powered cars.[22] Reporting this in 2010, the Washington Post commented that "the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today."

I wonder how the "early adopters" of 1911 came out on their "investment?"

Doctor Fate said regarding displays:
No, I agree not a disaster. Well, for the people in the US who used to make the products, I'm sure it was a set back... (unemployment and all...)
And please remember that the Taiwanese, Japanes and South Korean governments enabled the development of these products, and the manufacturing jobs for their countries, with direct investments and subsidies.....
An example of successful intervention that was not a disaster. As you recognize. Not only did the product reach mass market status,and profitability (although its veering to unprofitable for Sony), but it created a huge employment base for those three nations. And later China.
Government intervention never works though huh Steve?

Ricky, you consumer of straw men, no one said "Government intervention never works."

However, that it does in some cases does not mean it is necessary in the electric battery market. It also does not mean that the government should have intervened in the television market. If the manufacturing sector of China is what we want to emulate, then I suppose we should allow a far lower minimum wage so we can compete, right?

Well, you found one opinion that agrees with you. Sort of...
There are many auto companies making electric cars Steve. Could it be that those investments speak louder than the quotation from one curmodgeon?

How can you call anyone a "curmudgeon" when you can't be bothered to spell check?

In any event, that some companies are making electric cars means . . . what?

Are they doing so at a profit?

Are they making a profit without government assistance?

Are they making substantial inroads into the market?

This is where your feeble example of widescreen TV's just falls apart. There was a demand for them, spurred by the laser-disc and then the DVD. The old TV's were seen for what they were: relatively low picture quality. With the advent of Hi-Def via broadband and satellite, the market demand for hi-def televisions was assured.

Where is the technology that will make electric vehicles supplant gasoline-powered vehicles? It's been 100 YEARS!!!

After all, someone once did say "It'll never fly Orville".

And, it did not take 100 years!

Who's making electric cars? Nissan, GM, Volkswagon, BMW, Ford, Honda, Mercedes Benz, Toyota and a bunch of little guys.
http://cbelectriccar.com/blog/electric- ... h-america/
I suppose they could all fail, and the category go the way of the Stanley Steamer.... But I don't think so.

Market share?

Look at some of the companies listed on your link. Ever heard of Th!nk North America? Me either. Try the link--it's dead. Here's why: it's bankrupt.

Phoenix Motor Cars? No vehicles available yet.

Zap? Only scooters available.

Tesla? Not really, and they are a minimum $49K, taking deposits now.

Myers? I think you have to be about 125 lbs. or less.

Aptera? Not yet.

Didn't you say "making?" That would be, I think, present tense, right?

And I don't think the electrical grid is at such a great risk. As much as there are possible new uses for electricity, there are new and improved ways to save energy use... And Natural gas electricity looks to be pretty cheap. (Thanks to the development of safe frakking.....another "subsidized product"._)

Really? Please provide evidence. California has brown-outs and has super-high rates. Now, what if 14% of the cars were electric? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/22 ... e-20120323

Plenty of energy, right? No worries? That's why they have mandated 1/7th of cars in the not too distant future be electric. Here's what one Air Board member had to say:

Air board member Sandra Berg, who said she drives the all-electric Nissan Leaf, said before the vote that regulators need to take consumer behavior and choice into consideration.

She said a lot of work must be done to educate dealers to sell the new generation of cars.

“Early adopters (of electric cars) are willing to go without heat to save the miles they need to get to their destination, but that is not going to help grow the consumer base,” Berg said, referring to the range issues with some current electric vehicles.

So wait. Forcing people to buy them won't advance the technology?

Just the facts, Mr. Ricky. As usual, they don't fit inside your world view.

Lo siento.

Geojanes, I would note this from your link:

There is some skepticism among experts about the feasibility of V2G. As the New York Times states:
“ An analyst at the Minneapolis-based utility Xcel Energy, [explained] a "pie-in-the-sky vision" for V2G in which a company would offer incentives to its employees to buy plug-in hybrids. The parking lot would be equipped with recharging stations, which could also return power to the grid from the vehicles.[5] ”


An Environmental Defense representative stated: "It’s hard to take seriously the promises made for plug-in hybrids with 30 miles (48 km) all-electric range or any serious V2G application any time soon. It’s still in the science project stage (in 2007)."[5]

The Vehicle-to-grid potential of Honda’s full hybrid vehicles is unexplored, but Honda is doubtful of using them to power homes. "We would not like to see stresses on the battery pack caused by putting it through cycles it wasn’t designed for," said a Honda spokesman. "Instead, they should buy a Honda generator that was made for that purpose."[5]

Poor net efficiency. Charging a fairly efficient battery system from the grid is at best 70 to 80% efficient.[citation needed] Returning that energy from the battery to the grid, which includes "inverting" the DC power back to AC with efficiencies of about 90% yields 63 - 72% energy return to the system. This needs to be factored against potential cost savings as well as the additional wear and tear on the batteries (current batteries last a few thousand cycles at maximum) and especially increased emissions if the original source of power is fossil based.

I'm not opposed to this, but it is clear this exists only in someone's imagination and not in reality.

Surely car charging at a domestic location would mainly take place overnightt, while peak electricity usage at the moment is during the day and in evenings?

that's why my supplier discounts electricity used overnoight, when demand is low.

So I am not convinced by pearl-clutching about demand for electricity. Demand. Would actually be smoothed, which is handy for generation methods like hydro, wind, tidal, geothermal and nuclear.

steve

However, that it does in some cases does not mean it is necessary in the electric battery market. It also does not mean that the government should have intervened in the television market. If the manufacturing sector of China is what we want to emulate, then I suppose we should allow a far lower minimum wage so we can compete, right?

Ah. Well we agree that sometimes government intervention works. Huzzah!
Should the government of the US have intervened in the display sector? The negatives with display manufacturing leaving the US are that the US doesn't have employment within that sector, and has lost the technological lead it had in the development in the sector. And may never seriously participate in the sector again as a result. The positives? Low cost displays. (Which might have, probably would have, happened if the US still had a competitive industry)

But the question you ask is whether the US government should assist US auto industry in the development of their product. Lets consider if the same outcomes occur as in the display industry. That other nations auto industries end up developing electric cars that appeal to a large segment of the market and the US lags far behind because they haven't had help from the government. Would that mean a larger share of Auto manufacturing leaves the US? Leading to additional unemployment in the US? Would that be a good thing? Would that mean cheap electric cars from Germany and Japan subsume the expanding market creating another outflow of trade?

As to the key for electric car success, it probably is the development of more efficient batteries. It was certainly the key to success for mobile phones and computing devices. Although early adapters didn't seem to mind porting around walkie talkie like devices, and drivers appreciated "car phones" it wasn't till batteries allowed pocket sized devices, and lap top sized devices that the segment took off.
If they solved the battery problem there, I'd bet on an eventual solution to the battery problem for cars. Meanwhile, I still think that the strategic necessity of maintaining a leading presence in automotive design and innovation is important to the US car industry. And since it is such an important component of the US economy, helping that occur is a reasonable goal.
As well, the idea that there will be significant innovation and development in the battery sphere - driven by the development of the electric car - is reasonable. Wouldn't you rather have that innovation drive an industry in the US designing and making those batteries than in Taiwan? A reasonable investment to keep the best minds on the technology in the US?
Compared to the continued investment in things like ethanol and oil company subsidies, whose benefits I think you would be hard to discover , these subsidies are well worth while. And I would argue are at least short term, time specific investments compared to the ongoing and seemingly endless subsidies in oil and ethanol production....
Still, other than the immediate benefit of creating high quality employment in the field of R&D and design , the true benefits will come only if there is success in the electric car market.... (just as it was in natural gas frakking..., and computers...)
The major driving force in this market being the price of oil ..... which isn't coming down ... It makes the comparison between oil and batteries as a portable energy source better every day. If battery development does indeed improve as much as it did to launch mobile phones.... then I think the segment is a likely winner.
By the way, there's a lot of research going on in the field of capicators for large scale storage of electricity. That too could serve to allow more efficient use of production capacity. Somehow Steve, I think you under estimate the ability of man kind to innovate and respond to market conditions. We're a clever species about some things.
Some of us, even have the ability to understand that investment often pays off in multiple ways, and over long periods of time. And isn't driven by this quarter or next quarter results. Unfortunately the capitalist model isn't always great at these long term investment decisions, which is why you and I apprently now agree on the concept of government investment as sometimes a good thing.
Again. Huzzah!

Ricky, thank you for such a clear example of a "meaningless, pointless ramble." You adduce no evidence, refute no argument (e.g. the fact that electric batteries have been a stumbling block for more than 100 years and no recent batteries seem to solve the problem; also that many companies you cited have yet to produce a car; and there is no significant market; and the list goes on).

Keep babbling!

Doctor Fate wrote:(e.g. the fact that electric batteries have been a stumbling block for more than 100 years and no recent batteries seem to solve the problem; also that many companies you cited have yet to produce a car; and there is no significant market; and the list goes on).

hmmm. Anyone who has been paying attention to the electronics market knows that batteries are one of the things that are being improved hugely - because they are a major drag on things like mobile computing and cellphones. Forget the last 100 years, the last 25 years has seen batteries go from being heavy bricks that last an hour to being light slimline things that power far more impressive gadgets for days.

Certainly the trends are going towards electric. Hybrids are more and more common, and pure-electrics are not so inferior as they were before. It really is a matter of time.

And I note that in your rush to attack Ricky, you have not addressed my point about demand - overnight charging of cars would help even out the demand profile for electricity.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:(e.g. the fact that electric batteries have been a stumbling block for more than 100 years and no recent batteries seem to solve the problem; also that many companies you cited have yet to produce a car; and there is no significant market; and the list goes on).

hmmm. Anyone who has been paying attention to the electronics market knows that batteries are one of the things that are being improved hugely - because they are a major drag on things like mobile computing and cellphones. Forget the last 100 years, the last 25 years has seen batteries go from being heavy bricks that last an hour to being light slimline things that power far more impressive gadgets for days.

Yet, the Volt goes 25 miles, according to some, on its battery alone. Over and over again, the battery is the problem. If it weren't, electric cars would be ubiquitous. Cars are not quite the same as cell phones--have a look. The size, the scope of what they have to do, etc., are dramatically different.

Certainly the trends are going towards electric. Hybrids are more and more common, and pure-electrics are not so inferior as they were before. It really is a matter of time.

It's amazing what a modicum of technology and a good dose of government subsidy can accomplish. And yet, what is their market share?

And I note that in your rush to attack Ricky, you have not addressed my point about demand - overnight charging of cars would help even out the demand profile for electricity.

Frankly, it's not a great question. Our grid is not efficient and is losing plants, thanks to the EPA. Beyond that, some of these cars are being sold on the idea that you will be able to charge them at work. If you think you can sell millions of them and only expect them to be charged at night, you don't understand human behavior. Furthermore, the grid is incapable of supporting a large number of them. If there were a million more of them on the road tomorrow, we would not have the infrastructure for them. That energy has to come from somewhere.

steve

Frankly, it's not a great question. Our grid is not efficient and is losing plants, thanks to the EPA

The problem with the US electric grid is that power companies are still using 1960s and 1970s technologies. Its current poor condition has developed for the last three decades without electric cars, and the anticipated pressure on the system without electric cars factored in is a problem anyway.
Blaming the EPA on the power companies reluctance to invest in the smart grid technologies is pretty funny. They have no say in how power companies manage the distribution of their power.

Investment in "smart grids" would increase the reliability of sytems and increase the use of alternative sources of electricity because the current out dated systems have trouble regulating too many sources ...
Japan moved to smart grids a fair time ago and have an average of 4 minutes a year in black outs. How's that compare in the US during a hot summer? not so good: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation ... index.html
With smart grids, more natural gas electrical production could be used. As a power source they are remarkably responsive to need, Quick to fire up, and quick to turn down...

But none of this has anything to do with the development of batteries for cars. Thats happening fairly quickly .. It took $100 barrel oil, and attendant gasoline prices to drive the comparative price of competing portable energy sources to make the effort commercially viable. (Which is why the 100 year wait since the original electrical cards Steve, not some insurmountable technological problem)
If batteries for mobile devices can be downsized in 15 years the way they have .... it isn't likely that optimizing the size and weight of batteries for cars will prove insurmountable.