• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM Losing Up To $49,000 Per Volt

ecofarm said:
Batteries don't charge themelves. A "hydrogen fuel cell" does not create energy from thin air. The emissions might not be at the tail-pipe, but they exist. If ones house runs on coal, then one is driving on coal and a very expensive battery (both economically and ecologically). I think fuel efficiency, through standard hybrid technology, is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the hydrogen fuel cell comes in, because the Volt doesn't use one. And though it's true if the house gets electricity from coal so does the Volt, but I don't see a lot of folks complaining about houses getting electricity from coal, so why the complaint about the car getting electricity from coal? And the cool thing about electrics is, if the local power company suddenly directs your electricity from a new solar plant, your Volt is suddenly squeaky clean without a single change to the car. It could happen one night and you wouldn't even know it.
 
avusbluem5 said:
So, maybe GM should stop making the Cruz, and focus only on the Volt? Since the Volt is by a large margin, a more profitable car to build.
Click to expand...

It would only be a more profitable car if they were selling enough of them to make more money - which they are not.

That also excludes costs of development though.

Defenders of the Volt have a point in saying the cost of development needs to be spread throughout the lifetime of the car but the sales numbers are just too anemic to believe the lifetime will be too much longer or it will ever actually turn a profit. GM will be halting production of the Volt for, I believe, the third time to compensate for the low sales. Development costs are a sunk cost and at some point GM will have to accept they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from.
 
ecofarm said:
Batteries don't charge themelves. A "hydrogen fuel cell" does not create energy from thin air. The emissions might not be at the tail-pipe, but they exist. If ones house runs on coal, then one is driving on coal and a very expensive battery (both economically and ecologically). I think fuel efficiency, through standard hybrid technology, is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Not all houses get their energy from coal.

We have Nuclear, Hydro, wind and geothermal which are zero CO2 emission sources of electricity.

Coal power in the United States accounted for 42% of the country's electricity production in 2011. Other carbon based sources brings that up to 68%. So if everyone converted to Hydrogen fuel cell transportation, we'd see a ~32% reduction in co2 emissions.
 
Donahue said:
It would only be a more profitable car if they were selling enough of them to make more money - which they are not.

That also excludes costs of development though.

Defenders of the Volt have a point in saying the cost of development needs to be spread throughout the lifetime of the car but the sales numbers are just too anemic to believe the lifetime will be too much longer or it will ever actually turn a profit. GM will be halting production of the Volt for, I believe, the third time to compensate for the low sales. Development costs are a sunk cost and at some point GM will have to accept they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from.
Click to expand...

From what I'm seeing, sales of the Volt are increasing by leaps and bounds.
GM spokesman Jim Cain said the company expects the Volt's August sales to top 2,500, the best month by far since its December 2010 launch. That would mark a 35% increase over July sales and more than a 700% jump from year ago results.
Click to expand...
Volt monthly sales to hit record in August - Aug. 30, 2012

The Volt is dominating the European market as the Ampera..

In the Netherlands, the Ampera has taken more than 77% of the passenger EV market share in May. The average year-to-date market share for the Ampera in the Netherlands was more than 50%. Based on the latest available figures, the Ampera is also the best-selling EV in Germany with a share of more than a third and Switzerland with 44%.
Click to expand...
Green Car Congress: Opel says Ampera was Europe

Steadily increasing sales can hardly be described as "anemic."
 
minnie616 said:
Guess it is all in how creative you get with your math and that article got quite creative:


Reuters: GM Is Still Losing As Much As $49,000 On Each Volt It Builds
Click to expand...

Donahue said:
It would only be a more profitable car if they were selling enough of them to make more money - which they are not.

That also excludes costs of development though.

Defenders of the Volt have a point in saying the cost of development needs to be spread throughout the lifetime of the car but the sales numbers are just too anemic to believe the lifetime will be too much longer or it will ever actually turn a profit. GM will be halting production of the Volt for, I believe, the third time to compensate for the low sales. Development costs are a sunk cost and at some point GM will have to accept they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from.
Click to expand...


"they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from."

The volt is Profitable with a 19% margin, perhaps as high as 40+%. The R&D cost to develop the Volt's technology will benefit more and more product lines over time. It is not solely up to the Volt to recoup that initial R&D investment, which is treated as an Overhead cost, that is Amortized below the EBITDA line on the financials. Example: GM has a 114 horsepower Chevy Spark electric car planned for a 2013 release. GM has also sold almost 5,000 Opel Amperas and Holden Volts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, further reducing the R&D/unit sunk cost. Reuters ignored both of these in their hit piece.

You say, "Development costs are a sunk cost and at some point GM will have to accept they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from."

This would be the worst thing GM could do, stop production of a profitable car with good margins because it's going to take a long time to recoup the money THEY ALREADY SPENT.

facepalm111.jpg
 
EagleAye said:
From what I'm seeing, sales of the Volt are increasing by leaps and bounds.

Volt monthly sales to hit record in August - Aug. 30, 2012

The Volt is dominating the European market as the Ampera..


Green Car Congress: Opel says Ampera was Europe

Steadily increasing sales can hardly be described as "anemic."
Click to expand...

That's just kind of wishful thinking on your part.

This discussion is less about cars then it is about politics and you're not really looking at the context of those claims. Sales have been so anemic that increases "by leaps and bounds" holds little real meaning. Any company would love to increase sales by 700% in a year but it's not quite that impressive going from 350 Volts sold to 2,500 in a record month when the cars it competes against sell more than ten times that in an average month.

40,000 Camrys were sold in May. At that pace Toyota would have sold more Camrys every two days then GM did Volts throughout the entire month in their best month ever.

This is political for Volt defenders on this board but it's business for GM. At some point they are just going to have to discontinue production of the Volt and move on to something more profitable.
 
poweRob said:
first 40 miles on electricity which basically means that you don't ever use gas unless you do a road-trip. That's not economical? lol... whatever man.
Click to expand...

Huck huck. The best estimates put the payback of a Volt vs Cruze at 15 years.

http://www.edmunds.com/industry-center/analysis/will-higher-gas-prices-boost-hybrid-ev-sales.html

And that is using $3 gas and the EPA estimate, which has shown to be so accurate in the past... :roll:

Huck huck. So no, its not economical.
 
avusbluem5 said:
"they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from."

The volt is Profitable with a 19% margin, perhaps as high as 40+%. The R&D cost to develop the Volt's technology will benefit more and more product lines over time. It is not solely up to the Volt to recoup that initial R&D investment, which is treated as an Overhead cost, that is Amortized below the EBITDA line on the financials. Example: GM has a 114 horsepower Chevy Spark electric car planned for a 2013 release. GM has also sold almost 5,000 Opel Amperas and Holden Volts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, further reducing the R&D/unit sunk cost. Reuters ignored both of these in their hit piece.

You say, "Development costs are a sunk cost and at some point GM will have to accept they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from."

This would be the worst thing GM could do, stop production of a profitable car with good margins because it's going to take a long time to recoup the money THEY ALREADY SPENT.

facepalm111.jpg
Click to expand...

You can post as many images as you like but you're still the one who has no idea what you are talking about.

A profit is only realized when the car is sold. They're not selling Volts in any real meaningful capacity.

5,000 Volts sold abroad in a year might sound like a real lot to you but it isn't. Toyota sold 40,000 Camrys in May alone.

This is political to you. I get that. It's business to GM.
 
avusbluem5 said:
"they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from."

The volt is Profitable with a 19% margin, perhaps as high as 40+%. The R&D cost to develop the Volt's technology will benefit more and more product lines over time. It is not solely up to the Volt to recoup that initial R&D investment, which is treated as an Overhead cost, that is Amortized below the EBITDA line on the financials. Example: GM has a 114 horsepower Chevy Spark electric car planned for a 2013 release. GM has also sold almost 5,000 Opel Amperas and Holden Volts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, further reducing the R&D/unit sunk cost. Reuters ignored both of these in their hit piece.

You say, "Development costs are a sunk cost and at some point GM will have to accept they will never recoup their investment and move on to a line they can profit from."

This would be the worst thing GM could do, stop production of a profitable car with good margins because it's going to take a long time to recoup the money THEY ALREADY SPENT.

http:/g][/QUOTE]

Maybe i missed where there was some proof of the volts profitability. Could you post it again?
Click to expand...
 
Donahue said:
That's just kind of wishful thinking on your part.

This discussion is less about cars then it is about politics and you're not really looking at the context of those claims. Sales have been so anemic that increases "by leaps and bounds" holds little real meaning. Any company would love to increase sales by 700% in a year but it's not quite that impressive going from 350 Volts sold to 2,500 in a record month when the cars it competes against sell more than ten times that in an average month.

40,000 Camrys were sold in May. At that pace Toyota would have sold more Camrys every two days then GM did Volts throughout the entire month in their best month ever.

This is political for Volt defenders on this board but it's business for GM. At some point they are just going to have to discontinue production of the Volt and move on to something more profitable.
Click to expand...

Well, it's clear Volt attackers easily see this as political with all the references to "Obamacar." The opposition to the car is more about opposition to Obama than anything else.

If the number of car sales is so critical, then would you say Lamborghini is an unsuccessful, unprofitable company?

Its global deliveries increased by 300 units from 1,302 in 2010 up to 1,602 last year, an increase of 23 percent.
Click to expand...
Lamborghini Sales Increase 23 Percent In 2011
 
avusbluem5 said:
Not all houses get their energy from coal.

We have Nuclear, Hydro, wind and geothermal which are zero CO2 emission sources of electricity.

Coal power in the United States accounted for 42% of the country's electricity production in 2011. Other carbon based sources brings that up to 68%. So if everyone converted to Hydrogen fuel cell transportation, we'd see a ~32% reduction in co2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Most greens are opposed to nuclear (disposal of spent fuel and plant parts, and risks) and there is no significant amount of hydro, wind or geothermal in the US (perhaps except very small geographic areas).
 
EagleAye said:
Well, it's clear Volt attackers easily see this as political with all the references to "Obamacar." The opposition to the car is more about opposition to Obama than anything else.

Lamborghini Sales Increase 23 Percent In 2011
Click to expand...


I'm not a particularly partisan person.

I don't doubt that a number of the people in this thread are politically motivated in pointing out the Volts' anemic sales but they are still right. GM's investment in the Volt was a terrible business decision. Covering your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "YES WE CAN!" to drawn out the arguments will never change that.

If the number of car sales is so critical, then would you say Lamborghini is an unsuccessful, unprofitable company?
Click to expand...

I know you think you're making an intelligent point here but you're really not.

The number of cars sold isn't really critical. It's selling enough cars to pay all your bills with enough left over to make a profit that is critical. GM spent $1.2 BILLION developing just the technology for the Chevy Volt. You can scream "YES WE CAN!" until you turn purple but GM still has to sell a whole lot of cars just to recoup that investment. Lamborghini doesn't have to recoup a billion dollar developmental cost. They also have an extremely high mark up on their cars. I don't know what it is for sure but it's probably in the area of ten times that of GM's Volt.

Making far more per car plus not having the obscene development costs GM has means that Lamborghini can sell a small number of cars and still make a whole lot of money.
 
Donahue said:
I'm not a particularly partisan person.

I don't doubt that a number of the people in this thread are politically motivated in pointing out the Volts' anemic sales but they are still right. GM's investment in the Volt was a terrible business decision. Covering your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "YES WE CAN!"...
Click to expand...

You should have stopped before the obvious Obama reference. You just revealed a political bias/lean.

Donahue said:
I know you think you're making an intelligent point here but you're really not.

The number of cars sold isn't really critical. It's selling enough cars to pay all your bills with enough left over to make a profit that is critical. GM spent $1.2 BILLION developing just the technology for the Chevy Volt. You can scream "YES WE CAN!" until you turn purple but GM still has to sell a whole lot of cars just to recoup that investment. Lamborghini doesn't have to recoup a billion dollar developmental cost. They also have an extremely high mark up on their cars. I don't know what it is for sure but it's probably in the area of ten times that of GM's Volt.

Making far more per car plus not having the obscene development costs GM has means that Lamborghini can sell a small number of cars and still make a whole lot of money.
Click to expand...

Hammering and underlining on the $1.2 billion point only works as the travesty you desire if the technology developed is only used in one car ever (which will not happen), and they stopped making Volts now, which you are encouraging them to do. The tech developed for the car will get used in many other types. So that cost will get spread around. Here's other folks making this clear...

The statement that GM “loses” over $40K per Volt is preposterous. What the “analyst” in whom poor Ben Klayman placed his faith has done is to divide the total development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced thus far. That’s like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is “losing” 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.

Listen, Ben and Micheline: that’s not how car business cost accounting works.
Click to expand...
The Real Story On GM's Volt Costs - Forbes

GM's response:
DETROIT – Reuters’ estimate of the current loss per unit for each Volt sold is grossly wrong, in part because the reporters allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates. The Reuters’ numbers become more wrong with each Volt sold.

In addition, our core research into battery cells, battery packs, controls, electric motors, regenerative braking and other technologies has applications across multiple current and future products, which will help spread costs over a much higher volume, thereby reducing manufacturing and purchasing costs. This will eventually lead to profitability for the Volt and future electrified vehicles.
Click to expand...
GM Response to Reuters Story on Chevrolet Volt Development Costs
 
EagleAye said:
Hammering and underlining on the $1.2 billion point only works as the travesty you desire if the technology developed is only used in one car ever (which will not happen), and they stopped making Volts now, which you are encouraging them to do. The tech developed for the car will get used in many other types. So that cost will get spread around. Here's other folks making this clear...
Click to expand...

For you this is politics but for GM this is business.

You're looking at the amount of Volts sold to date and coming to the conclusion that it makes business sense to take resources away from the gas powered automobiles that actually make GM money in favor of developing new electric cars for no other reason than the Volt is loosely tied to the Obama campaign and you support him. That's it.

The fact of the matter is people have shown no real interest in buying electric cars. GM is very well aware of this, having invested $1.2 BILLION in what is quickly becoming one of history's biggest flops. They're not going to invest more money in electric cars. They're halting production of the Volt for, I believe, the second time in less than two years due to anemic sales. I wouldn't be tremendously surprised if they discontinue the car entirely in the coming weeks.
 
Donahue said:
For you this is politics but for GM this is business.

You're looking at the amount of Volts sold to date and coming to the conclusion that it makes business sense to take resources away from the gas powered automobiles that actually make GM money in favor of developing new electric cars for no other reason than the Volt is loosely tied to the Obama campaign and you support him. That's it.

The fact of the matter is people have shown no real interest in buying electric cars. GM is very well aware of this, having invested $1.2 BILLION in what is quickly becoming one of history's biggest flops. They're not going to invest more money in electric cars. They're halting production of the Volt for, I believe, the second time in less than two years due to anemic sales. I wouldn't be tremendously surprised if they discontinue the car entirely in the coming weeks.
Click to expand...

Well, you guessed. Thanks for trying. I like electric vehicles because I want to get away from foreign oil and otherwise an automotive power source that must fail us eventually. My thinking is along the lines of energy security. Relying upon the hostile nations in OPEC to be fair with us regarding our nation's life blood is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. Most of our oil is consumed in cars and trucks. So if we want to plug a gargantuan security hole, we need cars and trucks which do not rely on OPEC oil to keep running. The best choice is electric vehicles because they can run on electricity from damn near anything from nuclear to NG to algeal diesel. Whatever direction we go with energy, electric vehicles can use it. This energy flexibility makes EVs the far superior choice.

So if you're one of those anti-American crowd who like being dependent on foreign oil, you just run with that and be happy. I don't care for this liberal viewpoint. For me, it's America first all the way. We can't make enough of our own oil to supply our own needs without using it all up in a few decades. And then the many other products we get from our own oil including fertilizer and plastics will not be available to us anymore. And then we'll have to go begging for handouts. SO, if we get our power from other American means while creating American jobs, electric cars are the best choice. And domestic American oil will last a long, long time. I don't mind helping out other countries if that's what you're after, but we need to get our **** squared away before we go creating energy jobs for everybody else, instead of Americans. Once we're stable with energy and not relying on crust of bread energy from the Saudis and Hugo Chavez THEN we can chase after you more liberal concerns.
 
EagleAye said:
Well, you guessed. Thanks for trying. I like electric vehicles because I want to get away from foreign oil and otherwise an automotive power source that must fail us eventually. My thinking is along the lines of energy security. Relying upon the hostile nations in OPEC to be fair with us regarding our nation's life blood is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. Most of our oil is consumed in cars and trucks. So if we want to plug a gargantuan security hole, we need cars and trucks which do not rely on OPEC oil to keep running. The best choice is electric vehicles because they can run on electricity from damn near anything from nuclear to NG to algeal diesel. Whatever direction we go with energy, electric vehicles can use it. This energy flexibility makes EVs the far superior choice.

So if you're one of those anti-American crowd who like being dependent on foreign oil, you just run with that and be happy. I don't care for this liberal viewpoint. For me, it's America first all the way. We can't make enough of our own oil to supply our own needs without using it all up in a few decades. And then the many other products we get from our own oil including fertilizer and plastics will not be available to us anymore. And then we'll have to go begging for handouts. SO, if we get our power from other American means while creating American jobs, electric cars are the best choice. And domestic American oil will last a long, long time. I don't mind helping out other countries if that's what you're after, but we need to get our **** squared away before we go creating energy jobs for everybody else, instead of Americans. Once we're stable with energy and not relying on crust of bread energy from the Saudis and Hugo Chavez THEN we can chase after you more liberal concerns.
Click to expand...

Yes, EagleAye, you're exactly right.

I must be anti-American because I recognize selling 2,500 cars a month is pretty horrendous after a company invested $1.2 BILLION developing them.

:roll:

You're partisan stupidity isn't just worth responding to anymore. Consider yourself ignored.
 
Donahue said:
Yes, EagleAye, you're exactly right.

I must be anti-American because I recognize selling 2,500 cars a month is pretty horrendous after a company invested $1.2 BILLION developing them.

:roll:

You're partisan stupidity isn't just worth responding to anymore. Consider yourself ignored.
Click to expand...

No, because your ideas make us dependent upon our enemies. Why do this knowingly? And what's partisan about energy security? I did say we can help out other countries if that's what upsets you, just that we should handle our own energy. How is that too partisan?
 
EagleAye said:
Well, you guessed. Thanks for trying. I like electric vehicles because I want to get away from foreign oil and otherwise an automotive power source that must fail us eventually. My thinking is along the lines of energy security. Relying upon the hostile nations in OPEC to be fair with us regarding our nation's life blood is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. Most of our oil is consumed in cars and trucks. So if we want to plug a gargantuan security hole, we need cars and trucks which do not rely on OPEC oil to keep running. The best choice is electric vehicles because they can run on electricity from damn near anything from nuclear to NG to algeal diesel. Whatever direction we go with energy, electric vehicles can use it. This energy flexibility makes EVs the far superior choice.

So if you're one of those anti-American crowd who like being dependent on foreign oil, you just run with that and be happy. I don't care for this liberal viewpoint. For me, it's America first all the way. We can't make enough of our own oil to supply our own needs without using it all up in a few decades. And then the many other products we get from our own oil including fertilizer and plastics will not be available to us anymore. And then we'll have to go begging for handouts. SO, if we get our power from other American means while creating American jobs, electric cars are the best choice. And domestic American oil will last a long, long time. I don't mind helping out other countries if that's what you're after, but we need to get our **** squared away before we go creating energy jobs for everybody else, instead of Americans. Once we're stable with energy and not relying on crust of bread energy from the Saudis and Hugo Chavez THEN we can chase after you more liberal concerns.
Click to expand...

Your whole argument is foreign oil, you know we send 500 billion a yrs to Oil Lords, so why not bring home that 500 billion a yr and all the jobs that go with it HOME. Then you would say we don't have the oil? Sure we do, all we have to do is open up our lands to exploration, and build Keystone that brings oil in from a friendly nation.

Electric cars have been around for decades, there is not one green anything that can compete in price of oil, natural gas, or coal. Without government using tax payer money there would not be a windmill, solar panel, or an electric car. They cannot compete, right now natural gas is as cheap as it ever was and we have a thousand yrs of the stuff, same with coal, and our lands and off shore is full of oil, and so is our close neighbor Canada. Drill here drill now and team up with Canada and say good by to Oil Lords.

Electric cars is at best an around town car, it's not going to take you 300 miles to no where, let alone and long haul truck, going across country. Batteries are not going to do it. Electric cars now, try turning on the heat when it's O degrees outside, batteries do not work in cold or high heat and turning on the heat you will probably not make it out the drive way. The when it's 95 degrees outside try turning on the air and see how far you get. Last if it were not for government subsidizing these cars they would not sell one. Not one.
 
EagleAye said:
No, because your ideas make us dependent upon our enemies. Why do this knowingly? And what's partisan about energy security? I did say we can help out other countries if that's what upsets you, just that we should handle our own energy. How is that too partisan?
Click to expand...

In bold I totally agree with, so now read my post #68
 
jonny5 said:
Why not? Hes already paid for several through the income tax. We should all be getting them for free since the taxpayers still owns GM.
Click to expand...

Not unless they personally own GM stock.

Get your facts straight. The treasury still holds shares of GM stock as part the bailout deal.
 
VanceMack said:
Its wonderful if it ever becomes viable. Frankly we can give OPEC the big kissoff if we would just utilize our own fuel reserves and be a little smarter about mass transit. I know people that own the Volt. 2 regret it. 1 drives it but honestly I believe I does it because he is the type that refuses to admit he has made a mistake.

We'll see how it plays out long term. It doesnt do anything for me but if it works for some people long term, happy days. And who knows where technology will take us.
Click to expand...

I give GM credit for taking that huge leap of being the first. I think once they stabilize the tech enough to where they can trust it fully, it will be expanded into their other cars as an option. Like you see with hybrid versions of cars that had been established. Accord, Civic, Escape, Camry.

I think this will happen with this tech. Toyota has been checking it out for years. People had been doing their own conversions on the Prius called PHEV or Plugin Hybrid Electric. They've been driving with only electricity for the first 40 miles for some years now. Toyota started looking into production models of it.

Also as far as getting ride of OPEC, I wish we'd make a WOPEC... a western hemisphere OPEC market were we sell and buy only to the western hemisphere. Those jobs would help people to not have to migrate for work so much. Let Russia, China and Europe fight over the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Your whole argument is foreign oil, you know we send 500 billion a yrs to Oil Lords, so why not bring home that 500 billion a yr and all the jobs that go with it HOME. Then you would say we don't have the oil? Sure we do, all we have to do is open up our lands to exploration, and build Keystone that brings oil in from a friendly nation.

Electric cars have been around for decades, there is not one green anything that can compete in price of oil, natural gas, or coal. Without government using tax payer money there would not be a windmill, solar panel, or an electric car. They cannot compete, right now natural gas is as cheap as it ever was and we have a thousand yrs of the stuff, same with coal, and our lands and off shore is full of oil, and so is our close neighbor Canada. Drill here drill now and team up with Canada and say good by to Oil Lords.

Electric cars is at best an around town car, it's not going to take you 300 miles to no where, let alone and long haul truck, going across country. Batteries are not going to do it. Electric cars now, try turning on the heat when it's O degrees outside, batteries do not work in cold or high heat and turning on the heat you will probably not make it out the drive way. The when it's 95 degrees outside try turning on the air and see how far you get. Last if it were not for government subsidizing these cars they would not sell one. Not one.
Click to expand...

I do agree with bringing the oil jobs home. But even then, the object is to keep them home, but still not run out of oil any time soon. We need that oil for plastics and fertilizer and myriad other uses. You see we've obviously been leaning on foreign oil for a very obvious strategic reason, and that is not running out of our own. Better to use the other guy's oil up first, right? But doing so has enriched the workers of other countries and not our own. Right now we need jobs, and an upgrade of domestic energy, which we need anyway, would provide a lot of jobs and create economic stimulus. So I propose replacing those old coal plants with newer NG plants, because as you say it's cheap and we've got lots of it. If we add in wind and solar, with NG as a base load, then the inevitable increased demand for NG won't drive up the price too high and it will last a lot longer too. So will the oil. The whole point is to rely on our own resources but not use them up before we're ready. Make sense?

And yes, EVs as it stands now are a city car only. You won't drive across the country in one. But most people spend most of their time driving around the city anyway. Occasionally, taking a long road trip. Since it isn't unusual to have two cars, it would therefore be reasonable to keep a city car, which you use most of the time, and then an ICE car for long-range driving. In time battery tech will improve and EVs will improve in range. Lets just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And not look at a newborn and say, "well he cain't talk and he seems mighty short for a farmhand." Give it time. Just don't throw him in the trash before he's grown a might.
 
poweRob said:
I give GM credit for taking that huge leap of being the first. I think once they stabilize the tech enough to where they can trust it fully, it will be expanded into their other cars as an option. Like you see with hybrid versions of cars that had been established. Accord, Civic, Escape, Camry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and how do you like subsidizing them with your tax dollars, that is if you pay federal income taxes. Because I don't, we're 16 trillion in debt and counting and why are we subsidizing wind and solar and cars, when we have a thousand yrs of natural gas, coal, and oil.
 
Born Free said:
Yeah, and how do you like subsidizing them with your tax dollars, that is if you pay federal income taxes. Because I don't, we're 16 trillion in debt and counting and why are we subsidizing wind and solar and cars, when we have a thousand yrs of natural gas, coal, and oil.
Click to expand...

A-Source?
B-Oil receives these subsidies too. The only difference is one is established and rakes in multi billions while the other is not
 
EagleAye said:
I do agree with bringing the oil jobs home. But even then, the object is to keep them home, but still not run out of oil any time soon. We need that oil for plastics and fertilizer and myriad other uses. You see we've obviously been leaning on foreign oil for a very obvious strategic reason, and that is not running out of our own. Better to use the other guy's oil up first, right? But doing so has enriched the workers of other countries and not our own.
Click to expand...

You can say that again and not only the workers of other countries, but the countries themselves.


Right now we need jobs, and an upgrade of domestic energy, which we need anyway, would provide a lot of jobs and create economic stimulus. So I propose replacing those old coal plants with newer NG plants, because as you say it's cheap and we've got lots of it.
Click to expand...

Changing out from coal to NG has been going on for decades, all the new plants burn NG.

If we add in wind and solar, with NG as a base load, then the inevitable increased demand for NG won't drive up the price too high and it will last a lot longer too.
Click to expand...

There you go subsidizing wind and solar with tax payer money, while we're over 16 trillion in debt and counting. We have over thousand yrs of NG and you want to spend one hell of a lot more on wind and solar, just because. No Fing way. Further we have over a thousand yr of coal and we've come a long way in cleaning up coal.

The whole point is to rely on our own resources but not use them up before we're ready. Make sense?
Click to expand...

It only makes sense if we're running out, but when we have over a thousand yr of supply I don't I would clasifiy that as running out. Christ wind and solar is old, and we need be we could flood this country with those stupid things if was needed to. T Boone lost millions on wind and is now pushing NG as the future energy source.

And yes, EVs as it stands now are a city car only. You won't drive across the country in one. But most people spend most of their time driving around the city anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't know what city your talking about but try driving to work in California, Texas, NY, or any big city where people commute 75 miles one way. Then when the temperature drops to "0" and you put on the heat, your little battery goes dead, same when it's hot, put on the air and you stop driving. Plus the life of a Battery differ in hot or cold weather, thus unreliable.

In time battery tech will improve and EVs will improve in range.
Click to expand...

You can say the exact same thing about cleaning up coal to burn. In time Tech will improve. But the problem with that theory, you cannot force science, storing electricity has not been successful for decades, and it may never be in the amounts that we would need to move heavy trucks, construction equipment, move cars long distance without a extremely heavy load of batteries that is self defeating. Subsidizing solar, wind, and EV is a waste of tax payer money. Especially when we're 16 trillion in debt and counting.

Lets just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And not look at a newborn and say, "well he cain't talk and he seems mighty short for a farmhand." Give it time. Just don't throw him in the trash before he's grown a might.
Click to expand...

I am all for green, but I am only for green research, subsidizing wind, solar, and EV is a waste of money. Put some money into research only do develop that battery you speak of but until we have that battery why keep throwing good money on a wanabe EV. McCain wanted to put up prize money to a company that would come up with a battery that would meet certain criteria. I can't recall the award amount but that is the type of research we can support. Not just throwing money at a problem and hope something sticks. Because right now wind, solar and these EV are costing this country billions in borrowed money we don't have
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom