• 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 Suspending Chevy Volt Output Due To Slow Sales

AdamT said:
Sure, they couldn't possibly be telling the truth. Occam's Razor and all that.
Click to expand...

The Volt, Obama's car, well he won't ever get in one, let alone drive one, but he wants you to get in and drive it. Trouble is, no wants wants to get in it either.

They stopped selling them because no one was buying them.
 
Born Free said:
The Volt, Obama's car, well he won't ever get in one, let alone drive one, but he wants you to get in and drive it. Trouble is, no wants wants to get in it either.

They stopped selling them because no one was buying them.
Click to expand...

The might get me points but


Are you an idiot?

Have you not read this thread which points out the Volt was designed before the automotive bailouts. Obama did not force GM to design it or to build it. They have not stopped sellling them, they have idled the factory for two reason. One, inventories of the malibu and volt are most likely high for what GM wants (that doesz not mean no one is buying them) and two, to retool the plant to allow for the assembly of another vehicle
 
They sell the Volt for the customers to test.
Come on GM.
 
Cephus said:
Hybrids are not clean energy. Neither are electric cars. Try again.
Click to expand...

1. It is my understanding that even if recharged on coal-based electricity, electric cars have roughly the same carbon efficiency as the best hybrids.

2. Find a cost-effective way to switch these electricity sources over to clean renewables, and the above problem is solved as well.
 
longview said:
Sorry, your original statement
"I've always had trouble figuring out why conservatives hate clean energy. It's like they WANTED the Volt to fail."
you used honest words like hate and wanted.
I honestly think many conservatives actually hate clean energy, or want dirty water or air. That is just the truth.
I am not sure you can answer a question based on logic with emotion.
Many people find it offensive to be told they have to change how they do things.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

If you can't see that the perception that conservatives hate green energy is alive and well, then we will probably be unable to debate here.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's not a hatred of it, most of them are not viable replacements as they stand. When the technologies catch up and perform better sure they'll be accepted but they are woefully inefficient. Couple of things that are problems right now 1) Clean energy has to be subsidized to stay on the market because it doesn't have a large share and for it's costs the return isn't preferable 2) Hybrids have been shown through studies to put out higher levels of pollutants such as lithium dust which can threaten water tables and effect toxin levels in runoff. 3) Hybrids have a lousy return of initial price at the backend due to the price of a new battery and maintenence of the braking systems. 4) It's hard to get a mechanic to work on a hybrid and 5) Electric cars are insufficient for extended travel.
It was a certainty, as I stated earlier the Volt was originally conceptualized around '07 during the Bush administration and I knew it was a bad idea then. The concept was better than the released version(That's usual) but even the concept was woefully lacking in everything but looks. There's nothing political in my statements against that car but rather I love the GM brand and was concerned that they were gonna eat that turkey.
Once tech catches up the market will embrace alternatives, till then it is wasteful to subsidize less productive alternatives and economically damaging. I think there is a better way, first I'd like to see magnetic motors be more thouroughly researced, they can theoretically produce the torque and power required to replace FF powerplants, and if done right can have multiple times the range, they are incredibly efficient. As well I would love to see hydrogen tech take off as I think that has great potential, but wind, solar, electrical, and hybrid are just not there.
Click to expand...

I will give deference to the fact that there are still some major cost efficiency hurdles to jump with green energy. That is one of the biggest reasons that it hasn't taken hold.

The Volt's biggest problem, I think, was that it came on the wrong side of the chicken-and-the-egg dilemma. Increased demand for electric cars would yield more recharging stations, which would increase demand for electric cars. A similar problem likely occurred in the early days of the automobile--gas stations were not nearly as common in days when the majority of people were still traveling by horseback and stagecoach. Nowadays, it's hard to go across town or even the countryside without running into at least a couple of them.

All that being said, however, to look at this dilemma with a five-year outlook vs. a fifty-year outlook will necessarily yield very different results. Fifty years from now, we are going to have higher seas, we are going to have very expensive gas, we are going to have even more people on this planet than we do now. Green energy isn't just about saving the environment--there is a real, legitimate, long-term economic interest in obtaining them.
 
Phys251 said:
I will give deference to the fact that there are still some major cost efficiency hurdles to jump with green energy. That is one of the biggest reasons that it hasn't taken hold.
Click to expand...
Okay, but in a lagging economy we have politicians trying to shove a less viable vehicle down people's throats using their own tax dollars to keep it alive. That's a problem.
The Volt's biggest problem, I think, was that it came on the wrong side of the chicken-and-the-egg dilemma. Increased demand for electric cars would yield more recharging stations, which would increase demand for electric cars. A similar problem likely occurred in the early days of the automobile--gas stations were not nearly as common in days when the majority of people were still traveling by horseback and stagecoach. Nowadays, it's hard to go across town or even the countryside without running into at least a couple of them.
Click to expand...
Actually, the electric car predates the gasoline motor by decades. Yet they still have the same problems.History of Electric Vehicles - Early Years
Until I can go 200 miles on a five minute charge I won't be interested, and it seems most people tend to gas up on route to other business as well. Very few people want to park a car to pay another electric bill for an hour plus of charging.

All that being said, however, to look at this dilemma with a five-year outlook vs. a fifty-year outlook will necessarily yield very different results. Fifty years from now, we are going to have higher seas, we are going to have very expensive gas, we are going to have even more people on this planet than we do now. Green energy isn't just about saving the environment--there is a real, legitimate, long-term economic interest in obtaining them.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any difinitive data to support either stance, but I have seen the economic impacts of failed policy which lasts generations and is hard to get rid of.
 
Phys251 said:
1. It is my understanding that even if recharged on coal-based electricity, electric cars have roughly the same carbon efficiency as the best hybrids.

2. Find a cost-effective way to switch these electricity sources over to clean renewables, and the above problem is solved as well.
Click to expand...

But they're still not clean energy, they need to be recharged, which is done via dirty means. That might make them cleanER but not clean. And honestly, nuclear is clean, but the same treehugging idiots who want their Prius don't want nuclear power. Go figure.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Okay, but in a lagging economy we have politicians trying to shove a less viable vehicle down people's throats using their own tax dollars to keep it alive. That's a problem.
Click to expand...

Is anyone really forcing the Volt down your throat? What happens if you refuse? Did he threaten you with prison if you don't buy one? C'mon man. You buy it or you don't. No one is being forced into it.
 
At the end of the day the volt must compete with every car in it's class, gas, hybrid, and electric.
Only a small percent would buy one in spite of it's bad pricing, "to do their part for the environment"
Most people want a car they can afford to buy and drive, that will do the job expected.
When the functionality and cost/cost of operation of hybrids and electrics, drop below gas vehicles,
more will be sold. They are close, but still have a bit to go.
The environmentalist may be part of the problem, as they are willing to pay higher than normal prices
setting an artificial price floor.
If the technology had to compete on it's own, it may have been more mature when brought to market.
 
Phys251 said:
Fixed it for you.

If you can't see that the perception that conservatives hate green energy is alive and well, then we will probably be unable to debate here.
Click to expand...
I can see that your perceptions are alive and well!
I was suggesting you were painting with too broad of a brush.
There are plenty of small minded people on both the conservative and liberal sides.
They are the ones who want to limit peoples freedoms, (In the name of their holy cause of course).
People buy vehicles within their ability, and based on their needs, a compromise of features.
If the volt does not fit into the equation (even with the tax credit) it will fail.
No Hate, no desire, just simple economics.
 
I have nothing against hybrid vehicles and actually I think they have alot of potential and the concept is sound. What I have a problem with is my tax dollars going into a technology that is not yet ripe. When this technology is sound and cost effective people will flock to these cars but until then the government is literally putting the cart ahead of the horse and squandering tax payer dollars that we really can't afford right now.
 
EagleAye said:
Is anyone really forcing the Volt down your throat? What happens if you refuse? Did he threaten you with prison if you don't buy one? C'mon man. You buy it or you don't. No one is being forced into it.
Click to expand...

While the government is not as yet actually forcing me to buy one, they are getting close. For starters, I am forced through taxes to finance other peoples purchases. I am also forced to purchase corn whiskey to feed my vehicles, and yes, it is shoved down my throat. Forced to use a light bulb I hate, Forced to pay subsidies to windmills I don't want. It's a long list.

There is a reason I don't purchase a hybrid. I don't want one of the dam things. Nor do I want to pay for those that do. That should be enough reason.
 
EagleAye said:
Is anyone really forcing the Volt down your throat? What happens if you refuse? Did he threaten you with prison if you don't buy one? C'mon man. You buy it or you don't. No one is being forced into it.
Click to expand...
Well, if you bought a Volt there's a 5k subsidy(your tax money back, along with that of others), if you don't people are constantly reminding you that nothing is going to be one about the fuel price problem and you could end up "going broke driving a traditional vehicle". Doesn't sound like people are exactly leaving the issue alone.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, if you bought a Volt there's a 5k subsidy(your tax money back, along with that of others), if you don't people are constantly reminding you that nothing is going to be one about the fuel price problem and you could end up "going broke driving a traditional vehicle". Doesn't sound like people are exactly leaving the issue alone.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's a $7,500 federal tax credit.

Which I think is especially pathetic on the Volt since the average household income of people who buy one is over $170K per year.

That means lower and middle income Americans are basically paying richer ones to help them buy a Chevrolet Volt.

And now that pathetic POTUS Obama wants to raise that to $10K.

'Obama hikes subsidy to wealthy electric car buyers'

...'The new subsidy level represents a 33 percent jump from the current $7,500 government payout for each Volt buyer, even though the Volt’s buyers are already among the wealthiest Americans.'...

Read more: Obama hikes subsidy to wealthy electric car buyers | The Daily Caller
 
DA60 said:
Actually, it's a $7,500 federal tax credit.

Which I think is especially pathetic on the Volt since the average household income of people who buy one is over $170K per year.

That means lower and middle income Americans are basically paying richer ones to help them buy a Chevrolet Volt.

And now that pathetic POTUS Obama wants to raise that to $10K.

'Obama hikes subsidy to wealthy electric car buyers'


Read more: Obama hikes subsidy to wealthy electric car buyers | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...
I don't care if I get wealthy in life or if I stay middle class I'm not interested in paying more money for less value, which is basically where hybrids and electrics stand. It is telling that subsidies have to be around a fourth of the car's value just to keep it on life support. Even then if this car had been anything else it would have been flushed by now.
 
Phys251 said:
All that being said, however, to look at this dilemma with a five-year outlook vs. a fifty-year outlook will necessarily yield very different results. Fifty years from now, we are going to have higher seas, we are going to have very expensive gas, we are going to have even more people on this planet than we do now. Green energy isn't just about saving the environment--there is a real, legitimate, long-term economic interest in obtaining them.
Click to expand...

There is not one green anything that can compete in price against our natural resources. To your 50 yr outlook, instead lets look out 500 yrs, we have enough natural gas and coal to last a thousand yrs. And it cheap. All our electrical plants are fueled by natural gas or coal. We've never had a shortage of electricity. All wind and solar does is make more electricity, it does not save one drop of oil. The only reason we have any green at all is because our government is taking tax payer money to subsidize the building or subsidize the buyer. Without the government dumping billions into green there would be none, why, because it is not competitive. Dumping billion into green is the biggest waste of money ever.

T Boone lost millions on wind, he gave it up and is now preaching natural gas, of which is cheaper than ever, and is in large supply.

Now I am not against green, but making more electricity is not the answer, the real problem is a substitute for oil. That is where some dollars need to go is into research replacing oil. Look at what oil does, it fuels our planes, trucks, heavy equipment, ships, trains, cars etc, the challenge is to replace oil with a substitute. Electricity is not it.
 
DA60 said:
Actually, it's a $7,500 federal tax credit.

Which I think is especially pathetic on the Volt since the average household income of people who buy one is over $170K per year.

That means lower and middle income Americans are basically paying richer ones to help them buy a Chevrolet Volt.

And now that pathetic POTUS Obama wants to raise that to $10K.

'Obama hikes subsidy to wealthy electric car buyers'

...'The new subsidy level represents a 33 percent jump from the current $7,500 government payout for each Volt buyer, even though the Volt’s buyers are already among the wealthiest Americans.'...

Read more: Obama hikes subsidy to wealthy electric car buyers | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

The true facts are, without government subsidy there would be no green anything. Obama is pouring billions down a rat hole, to promote green that cannot compete in price against natural gas or coal. T Boone lost millions on wind and is now backing natural gas.
 
Born Free said:
Now I am not against green, but making more electricity is not the answer, the real problem is a substitute for oil. That is where some dollars need to go is into research replacing oil. Look at what oil does, it fuels our planes, trucks, heavy equipment, ships, trains, cars etc, the challenge is to replace oil with a substitute. Electricity is not it.
Click to expand...
We can make methane, Storing green electricity as natural gas - Press Release May 5 2010
And from what I have heard, once we can make one hydrocarbon, we can make others.
 
longview said:
We can make methane, Storing green electricity as natural gas - Press Release May 5 2010
And from what I have heard, once we can make one hydrocarbon, we can make others.
Click to expand...

To me that makes no sense at all. Why would you want to use expensive bird killing windmills to generate electricity so as to convert it to natural gas,when you already have hundreds of years of NG there for the taking?

Carrying this a step further, no need for the windmills. We could just use our abundant resources of NG to make electricity in order to convert it to NG to make electricity.
 
longview said:
I can see that your perceptions are alive and well!
I was suggesting you were painting with too broad of a brush.
There are plenty of small minded people on both the conservative and liberal sides.
They are the ones who want to limit peoples freedoms, (In the name of their holy cause of course).
People buy vehicles within their ability, and based on their needs, a compromise of features.
If the volt does not fit into the equation (even with the tax credit) it will fail.
No Hate, no desire, just simple economics.
Click to expand...

Macroeconomics and microeconomics do not often share the same needs. Remember that.
 
Born Free said:
There is not one green anything that can compete in price against our natural resources. To your 50 yr outlook, instead lets look out 500 yrs, we have enough natural gas and coal to last a thousand yrs. And it cheap. All our electrical plants are fueled by natural gas or coal. We've never had a shortage of electricity. All wind and solar does is make more electricity, it does not save one drop of oil. The only reason we have any green at all is because our government is taking tax payer money to subsidize the building or subsidize the buyer. Without the government dumping billions into green there would be none, why, because it is not competitive. Dumping billion into green is the biggest waste of money ever.

T Boone lost millions on wind, he gave it up and is now preaching natural gas, of which is cheaper than ever, and is in large supply.

Now I am not against green, but making more electricity is not the answer, the real problem is a substitute for oil. That is where some dollars need to go is into research replacing oil. Look at what oil does, it fuels our planes, trucks, heavy equipment, ships, trains, cars etc, the challenge is to replace oil with a substitute. Electricity is not it.
Click to expand...

1. Sorry, but that is not true. Wind is becoming progressively cheaper, and in fact in some places in America, it has nearly achieved cost-competitiveness with coal. Furthermore, the evolution of energy-storing technology has made it more cost-feasible to smooth out the inevitable bumps and dips in power as the wind comes and goes.

2. If we had that kind of mindset fifty years ago, we would have never invested in technologies that improved our lives. The space program, the Interstate Highway system, the Internet, etc., might have never come about. And keep in mind that all three of these are a direct result of the federal government.

3. Coal power is, by far, the single biggest producer of serious atmospheric pollutants such as arsenic, mercury, lead, etc. Big Coal conveniently leaves these externalities out of the discussion when trumpeting its "cost-competitiveness," which is simply dishonest. Externalities are just as important to a society as profits and losses are, maybe more.
 
jimbo said:
While the government is not as yet actually forcing me to buy one, they are getting close. For starters, I am forced through taxes to finance other peoples purchases. I am also forced to purchase corn whiskey to feed my vehicles, and yes, it is shoved down my throat. Forced to use a light bulb I hate, Forced to pay subsidies to windmills I don't want. It's a long list.

There is a reason I don't purchase a hybrid. I don't want one of the dam things. Nor do I want to pay for those that do. That should be enough reason.
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at it that way, a lot of us are getting something shoved down our throat. As long as we buy oil from Saudi Arabia some of that money gets filtered down to terrorists. But nobody asks me, I have to pay for that, and ultimately pay for the weapons that are killing our troops in field. That ****ing pisses me the **** off to no end. I don't want the yearly $4 Billion subsidy paid out to oil companies, but I get no choice in the matter. Depending on who you ask, oil companies get anywhere $14 Billion to $71 Billion in tax breaks every year. If you take the LOW average of this it works out equal the profits the oil industry makes. I think the industry should make a profit on it's own merit, not just handed to them. But I get no choice on this; it's just shoved down my throat. When people got tax breaks for buying a HumVee, I didn't want one, but my tax money helped pay for those who did. "The list is long." We don't live in paradise so we aren't all going to get everything just way we want it.

LaMidRighter said:
Well, if you bought a Volt there's a 5k subsidy(your tax money back, along with that of others), if you don't people are constantly reminding you that nothing is going to be one about the fuel price problem and you could end up "going broke driving a traditional vehicle". Doesn't sound like people are exactly leaving the issue alone.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what I tell everybody else, if a Volt or an EV isn't right for you, don't buy one. The silence from your wallet will tell the auto industry they need to improve the product. And you won't go broke driving a conventional vehicle, now. That's hyperbole and everybody knows it. If anyone tries to "force" you to by an EV, tell them to **** off for you, and give them another **** off from me. That kind of behavior is bull****. No one should knock you, in all seriousness, for your car choice. Likewise, anyone buying a Volt shouldn't be knocked or belittled for their choice.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Methane definitely has potential, but unfortunately it tends to be more volatile than standard petroleum products, right now it's a safety issue much like hydrogen. If they can get storage to around the same safety as gasoline, diesel, and kerosene I say go for it.
Click to expand...
I am thinking they actually make the diesel and gasoline from the natural gas (or synthetic natural gas).
Banks Power | Synthetic Diesel Fuel
Making Liquid Fuels From Natural Gas: A Technological Challenge Of The Twenty First Century
We already know how to store them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom