• 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

Macroeconomics and microeconomics do not often share the same needs. Remember that.
At the level of the individual buyer, it's all microeconomics.
 
At the level of the individual buyer, it's all microeconomics.

This is what can happen when it's all about microeconomics:

bank-run-1931.jpg
 
This is what can happen when it's all about microeconomics:

bank-run-1931.jpg

Actually, my guess is this is more what fractional reserve banking is all about.

But, I digress...
 
Last edited:
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 perfectly fine, and you have the right attitude about it, much like I don't give people who choose to drive hybrids or electrics any crap but do state the drawbacks. Then again I readily admit that fuel costs are a hinderance at times for conventional.
That's hyperbole and everybody knows it.
Not really, it isn't every person who makes the choice to drive the alternatives that make things tough, but when you have administration officials openly bragging that they make choices for consumers in terms of CAFE standards, alternative subsidies, and who get in the way of the standard fuel's development there is a pattern.
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.
Using people's tax money as a subsidy for the alternative choice takes away some options though, the money out of my wallet makes my choices more limited, all the while choosing something I don't want as the "preferred" option. That is a problem.
 
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!
I haven't heard much about the synthetics market yet, I'm sure it's possible because of similar chemical characteristics but have yet to hear much on it. I'm gonna have to run in a sec. but will check these articles out when I get a chance.
 
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.
The reason I was bringing this up, is for people to think about hydrocarbons as an energy storage mechanism, as opposed to a limited resource.
So many times we find that nature has already engineered a great solution to a problem,
we just have to look at it correctly.
We need a high density energy storage method for our modern lifestyles (and to keep eating).
Hydrocarbons area near perfect storage method, and we are already set up to use them.
If we can make our own hydrocarbons, whats the problem?
The making of our own hydrocarbons consumes Co2, so the hydrocarbons burned are Co2 neutral.
 
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.



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.

Do you realize how inconsistent those 2 statements are? On the one hand, you want an end to oil subsidies. To that I agree. I would like to see an end to all subsidies, including all energy and green subsidies. Let the chips fall where they may. I would also agree on the end to product subsidies. Again, let the market take care of the problem.

That should also extend to removing the obstacles which favor one product over another. Placing obstacles in the way happens with government all the time, and not necessarily for economic reasons. If my information is correct, the Saudi oil problem would go away if we utilized our own resources, of which there are hundreds of years available.
 
This is what can happen when it's all about microeconomics:

bank-run-1931.jpg
The thread is about the Volt not selling. It's price point is above it's value!
microeconomics
 
The reason I was bringing this up, is for people to think about hydrocarbons as an energy storage mechanism, as opposed to a limited resource.
So many times we find that nature has already engineered a great solution to a problem,
we just have to look at it correctly.
We need a high density energy storage method for our modern lifestyles (and to keep eating).
Hydrocarbons area near perfect storage method, and we are already set up to use them.
If we can make our own hydrocarbons, whats the problem?
The making of our own hydrocarbons consumes Co2, so the hydrocarbons burned are Co2 neutral.

Again, why use electricity to manufacture a product we already have in abundance? Just store the NG. Eliminate the electricity phase.

Hydrocarbons are already an energy storage mechanism. No need to manufacture hydrocarbons so we will have something to store.
 
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.

I like your post, except for two problems, you never once mentioned natural gas. Further if wind is so great why did T Boone a wind supporter and investor lost millions and is only supporting natural gas?

I used natural gas and coal as their is a thousand yrs of energy in those two natural resources. Further electricity does not save one drop of oil, which you further did not mention, nor did not respond to. Like I said I'm not against green but wind and solar is not the answer for a replacement to oil. This government spearheaded by Obama is subsidizing 30% of the cost to build and to buyers to support wind and solar and subsidizing electric cars, not because they are competitive, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT.
 
Its a new technology. Its still a little high but as with all new technology, it'll get cheaper with time. TBO, if I were in the car market right now, I'd hold off getting an electric car myself and I'm a supporter. The reason is that in just a few years a new battery that was just invented will get 10x the range of the present battery and it'll be just a few short years before it hits the streets. The fact is that horse is out of the gates and it's not coming back. Electric cars are out, going global as we speak and will only grow in popularity. Regardless of the anti-technological progress spin you see in the MSM, electric cars are strongly supported despite the higher cost.

The Volt, through August, will have sales of 13,300, compared to 15,600 total sales of the Prius in 2001.

From The Detroit News: GM: Aug. Volt sales best yet | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

The Prius, is one of the best selling cars in automotive history and the Volt is only a hair behind them.

I don't know this to be true but I wouldn't be surprised if GM is suspending production to retrofit future models with the new 10x the range battery.


http://www.digifixpix.com/volt/Volt_Sales_with_Trend.jpg
 
Do you realize how inconsistent those 2 statements are? On the one hand, you want an end to oil subsidies. To that I agree. I would like to see an end to all subsidies, including all energy and green subsidies. Let the chips fall where they may. I would also agree on the end to product subsidies. Again, let the market take care of the problem.

That should also extend to removing the obstacles which favor one product over another. Placing obstacles in the way happens with government all the time, and not necessarily for economic reasons. If my information is correct, the Saudi oil problem would go away if we utilized our own resources, of which there are hundreds of years available.

I guess I don't see how the two statements are inconsistent. In one I complain about oil subsidies, in the next, I encourage LMR to buy the car that suits him. Let me know how that's a self contradiction.

I do agree that the government provides a lot of obstacles, sometimes necessary, sometimes foolish. We get a lot of that. I don't see that a $7500 break on some cars is an obstacle. I can understand you disliking it, but it is not an impediment. In fact it makes buying a car easier, right?

And there may be hundreds of years of oil in the ground, but I see the price of oil steadily going up. The increasing affluence of the world's most populous countries (China and India) is creating a massive upswing in demand for oil. And this will climb even faster as the years go on. Keeping in mind that even domestically produced oil sells at the intl market price, I think even domestic oil will become too costly to be cost effective. And this will happen LONG before we get short of our hundred-year supply of oil. Stopping the import of OPEC oil will be great, but it won't be the final answer either. That's why it's important to work on electric technology now, and figure out all the bugs, now, so that when oil/gas get too expensive, we'll already have worked out the kinks and can produce a viable product exactly when we need it.
 
I guess I don't see how the two statements are inconsistent. In one I complain about oil subsidies, in the next, I encourage LMR to buy the car that suits him. Let me know how that's a self contradiction.

I do agree that the government provides a lot of obstacles, sometimes necessary, sometimes foolish. We get a lot of that. I don't see that a $7500 break on some cars is an obstacle. I can understand you disliking it, but it is not an impediment. In fact it makes buying a car easier, right?

And there may be hundreds of years of oil in the ground, but I see the price of oil steadily going up. The increasing affluence of the world's most populous countries (China and India) is creating a massive upswing in demand for oil. And this will climb even faster as the years go on. Keeping in mind that even domestically produced oil sells at the intl market price, I think even domestic oil will become too costly to be cost effective. And this will happen LONG before we get short of our hundred-year supply of oil. Stopping the import of OPEC oil will be great, but it won't be the final answer either. That's why it's important to work on electric technology now, and figure out all the bugs, now, so that when oil/gas get too expensive, we'll already have worked out the kinks and can produce a viable product exactly when we need it.

I may be misunderstanding you. You argue for ending oil subsidies. I agree. I see no mention of ending other energy subsidies. I agree, let anyone buy any car that suits their needs, but the subsidy for the Volt is intended to tilt the playing field. If the real cost, including development costs subsidized by government were factored in, not to mention the funds expended in just keeping GM afloat, even the government would not be a purchaser.

The same goes for the subsidies for alternate energy. It is intended to make oil costs similar to other forms of energy. Alternate cannot stand on its own, much of it never will. In the meantime, cheap NG and less expensive oil is available if the government keeps out of it. Government presently has apparently eased up on nuclear construction permits, but I will wait to pass judgement until the first KW rolls out of the plant. Plenty of other ways to stall anything the government wants to.
 
I like your post, except for two problems, you never once mentioned natural gas. Further if wind is so great why did T Boone a wind supporter and investor lost millions and is only supporting natural gas?

I used natural gas and coal as their is a thousand yrs of energy in those two natural resources. Further electricity does not save one drop of oil, which you further did not mention, nor did not respond to. Like I said I'm not against green but wind and solar is not the answer for a replacement to oil. This government spearheaded by Obama is subsidizing 30% of the cost to build and to buyers to support wind and solar and subsidizing electric cars, not because they are competitive, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT.

Natural gas is not a bad idea for the short run. It is by far the cleanest of all fossil fuels, and thanks to fracking, it's become a lot cheaper to extract. I have some serious concerns about some of the chemicals used for fracking, however; if they'd clean that up, I'd be a lot more for it.

Coal is becoming a white elephant (or should I say, a black elephant). It was a superb resource that was singlehandedly responsible for the industrial revolution. However, coal carries a great number of unintended consequences, so we must wean ourselves off of coal if those unintended consequences are not to become more dire.

And let's not forget that fossil fuels are receiving federal subsidies too, far more than renewable energy is.
 

Article makes my point, these things will not move without serious subsidies.

ut Chintan Talati of sale tracker TrueCar says General Motors (GMPRB) is also offering dealers the best incentives it's ever had on the model to move the cars.

Those deals have brought the price of a two-year lease down as low as $169 a month at some dealerships from the standard $279 lease price. Considering that the manufacturer's suggested retail price of $31,500 -- after a $7,500 federal tax credit -- is relatively pricy for a compact car, Talati said he'd expected sales to have been boosted even higher by GM's incentives.

"With the lease specials and discounts on the Volt currently, I'm surprised there isn't a line out the door for Volt buyers," he said.
 
Again, why use electricity to manufacture a product we already have in abundance? Just store the NG. Eliminate the electricity phase.

Hydrocarbons are already an energy storage mechanism. No need to manufacture hydrocarbons so we will have something to store.
Yes we have plenty of hydrocarbons, but we have many other means of generating power, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind,...ect.
All have poor methods of storage.
A watt of electricity generated, must be used somewhere within a fraction of a second or becomes heat.
The concept of synthetic hydrocarbons, is not about making hydrocarbons,
but utilizing and elegant method of storage.
We would not need a new infrastructure, to handle this new storage method, it's already in place.
 
I may be misunderstanding you. You argue for ending oil subsidies. I agree. I see no mention of ending other energy subsidies. I agree, let anyone buy any car that suits their needs, but the subsidy for the Volt is intended to tilt the playing field. If the real cost, including development costs subsidized by government were factored in, not to mention the funds expended in just keeping GM afloat, even the government would not be a purchaser.

The same goes for the subsidies for alternate energy. It is intended to make oil costs similar to other forms of energy. Alternate cannot stand on its own, much of it never will. In the meantime, cheap NG and less expensive oil is available if the government keeps out of it. Government presently has apparently eased up on nuclear construction permits, but I will wait to pass judgement until the first KW rolls out of the plant. Plenty of other ways to stall anything the government wants to.

Well, I don't know how much of the GM bailout went in to developing the Volt, do you? The bailout was for the whole company, not just the Volt project.

Alternative energies such as wind and solar need battery storage before they can stand on their own. But other solutions like industrial flywheel systems can hold energy for up to 3 days with little energy loss. Still, it's a good idea to have base energy systems like nuclear and NG plants that can run 24/7. Other alternative energies like wave, hydro-electric, and thermal-electric can also run 24/7 and need no such backup.

Economically, it is ridiculous to think that wind and solar can never compete with fossil systems for price. The price for both is dropping like a stone. Already, wind is competitive with coal, and in some instances, is less expensive than coal. Solar is getting there. As more manufacturing facilities become available and larger orders are placed, the price will continue to drop. We've witnessed this with practically every new technology to ever appear on the market. I don't understand how people could be unaware of this.

Even though the price for alternatives is coming down, it still needs time to develop. You suggest eliminating subsidies for both fossil fuels and alternative (and doing this right now) and seeing who wins. On the surface that may seem like a fair test. Well we all know that's a trap, don't we? Oil has 100 years advantage of development time and during that time it's only competition was the horse. No real competition, in other words. Manufacturers for the various oil equipment have been operating full swing for 100 years with a guaranteed market. Alternative energies are only gaining traction for the last ten years with severe competition (not just the horse in this case) from oil, and a market uncertain about changing over. So eliminating subsidies and then testing the market isn't a true test. A true test would have both developed simultaneously with no existing infrastructure and no supporting manufacturing facilities. In such an instance alternative energy costs would beat oil costs by several orders of magnitude. Consider the following...

I want to make enough energy to power 100 cars for one year. Let's assume the cars for both gas and electric are already ready, but absolutely nothing else. We assume this because we're only interested in comparing the source energies, not the cars.

To produce Gasoline from fossil fuel (oil), we must do the following:
1. Spend millions of dollars looking for oil with satellites and highly trained geologists
2. Having found the oil, spend millions of dollars drilling for the oil with highly trained and expensive specialists and expensive, unique equipment.
3. Having successfully drilled the oil I need to build a pipeline or supertanker to move the oil to the refinery, and spend millions of dollars building these things
4. Spend many millions of dollars building a refinery
5. Spend millions of dollars building a fleet of trucks to ship the gasoline to various points where the cars can use them. This is my distribution phase. Note: that I do NOT add in the already existing highway system cost.
6. Spend many millions of dollars making gas stations where the cars can get their energy
Done.

To produce Electricity from Alternatives, we must do the following
1. Spend millions of dollars building a solar plant.
2. Spend LESS than a million getting power lines from the plant to the already existing power lines (remember I didn't add for building highways either).
3. I could build charging stations, but most cars are charged up at home using their own money, so I don't pay for it.
Done.

This is only an example so it's rather simple, but I think it clearly demonstrates that oil-based energy requires FAR more infrastructure and FAR more startup costs than solar or wind plants. Oil has operated for more than 100 years with HUGE subsidies every year, and alternatives have only operated for a decade or so with far smaller subsidies. To claim wind and solar are poor tech because they don't compete, this very instant, is like living with blinders on and failing to understand the whole picture.
 
Yes we have plenty of hydrocarbons, but we have many other means of generating power, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind,...ect.
All have poor methods of storage.
A watt of electricity generated, must be used somewhere within a fraction of a second or becomes heat.
The concept of synthetic hydrocarbons, is not about making hydrocarbons,
but utilizing and elegant method of storage.
We would not need a new infrastructure, to handle this new storage method, it's already in place.

Actually, hydrocarbons have the best storage of all,. You just leave it where it lays until you need it and then pump it out. It has been there for millions of years and is not going anywhere soon. It also stores more BTU's in a given volume and weight after refinement than electricity. Take the vehicle as an example. A typical battery can propel an automobile around 30 or so mile before it runs out of power. The fuel tank, around 400 miiles.

The problem with electric has always been storage. Like refineries, it is unfeasible to shut the plant down during low need times and fire it up on hot days. Public Service of Colorado built some 60 years ago a system where a reservoir which was filled with pumps which utilized otherwise wasted electricity and the water used to turn generators when the power was needed. I don't know if that concept is still in use or not. It is my understanding that the proposed but never built Bay of Fundy concept operated on the same concept. Dam the bay, let the tides fill up the reservoir, and generate electricity when needed.

Of all the currently available energy sources available in the US, natural gas makes the most sense. No real refining is needed, storage is natural and storage at the need location is less of a problem than other forms. As you stated, electricity is used or lost. We have lots of NG, it burns clean, and can be easily and safely usilixzed in a variety of ways.

I would guess that the NG creation and storage system being proposed in Germany is simply using wind to provide electricity and using NG as a storage for the reasons outlined above. I don't know the resources in Germany, but they may have more wind and the problem is storage. Here it seems to me to be manufacturing something that already have in abundance. Methane is easy to manufacture. You just stick a pipe in a mass of organic waste and it flows out. Put a bucket under the spigot and you have a system. Turn off the spigot when the bucket is full and nothing is lost till you need another bucket. Simplified somewhat, but that is the basic principle. In the German system, the hydrocarbons must come from somewhere, most probably from waste.
 
In the German system, the hydrocarbons must come from somewhere, most probably from waste.
The Germans are creating the hydrocarbons our of air and water. (with energy thrown in)
Split the water to make hydrogen, capture the carbon from atmospheric Co2.
Not real efficient, but energy once stored this way is good for almost forever.
If the energy used, was going to waste, I am not sure the efficiency matters that much.
Compared to batteries, Hydrocarbon storage is decades ahead.
if the storage method was carbon neutral, it may help sell the idea to the AGW crowd.
Once you can make methane, you can make almost any hydrocarbon, Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel, ect..
So the answer to the question about what we do when we run out of oil, simple we make more!
 
Actually, hydrocarbons have the best storage of all,. You just leave it where it lays until you need it and then pump it out. It has been there for millions of years and is not going anywhere soon.

That is simply false. Peak oil is coming, very, very soon. The only fossil fuel that we have an ample supply for at least the next couple of centuries is coal.

Peak oil, BTW, is the primary reason I am strongly opposed to expanding our drilling. Wait to do that until oil is in much shorter supply, not when we have a decent amount of it to consume. Besides, if we did that, that oil would be worth a lot more then than now, meaning that sitting on those reserves would be one heck of an economic investment.
 
Natural gas is not a bad idea for the short run. It is by far the cleanest of all fossil fuels, and thanks to fracking, it's become a lot cheaper to extract. I have some serious concerns about some of the chemicals used for fracking, however; if they'd clean that up, I'd be a lot more for it.

Coal is becoming a white elephant (or should I say, a black elephant). It was a superb resource that was singlehandedly responsible for the industrial revolution. However, coal carries a great number of unintended consequences, so we must wean ourselves off of coal if those unintended consequences are not to become more dire.

And let's not forget that fossil fuels are receiving federal subsidies too, far more than renewable energy is.
If the anti-pollution scare stories had any validity, the human race would have gone extinct around 1925. Pollution is like spitting in the ocean--don't be surprised if the econazis start arresting people for that! In fact, natural air is far more toxic; it's full of bacteria and viruses that pollution kills a lot more than it harms humans. Natural plagues from pollution-free air have been the greatest killer of all time. There haven't been any mass-murderers surviving in our air since we disinfected it with antiseptic pollution.
 
If the anti-pollution scare stories had any validity, the human race would have gone extinct around 1925. Pollution is like spitting in the ocean--don't be surprised if the econazis start arresting people for that! In fact, natural air is far more toxic; it's full of bacteria and viruses that pollution kills a lot more than it harms humans. Natural plagues from pollution-free air have been the greatest killer of all time. There haven't been any mass-murderers surviving in our air since we disinfected it with antiseptic pollution.

Holy crap, man. There is a LOT of science fail in that post.
 
Oil has 100 years advantage of development time and during that time it's only competition was the horse. No real competition, in other words. Manufacturers for the various oil equipment have been operating full swing for 100 years with a guaranteed market. Alternative energies are only gaining traction for the last ten years with severe competition (not just the horse in this case) from oil, and a market uncertain about changing over. So eliminating subsidies and then testing
I want to make enough energy to power 100 cars for one year. Let's assume the cars for both gas and electric are already ready, but absolutely nothing else.

Instead of assuming things in order to excuse market failure, let's go back to the actual competition between horses and cars. Back then, cars had it far worse than the pity party you throw for the alt-fuel cult. No gas stations, pipelines, paved roads, mechanics, etc. Yet it didn't take them decades just to establish a fringe niche in the transportation industry. They took it by storm, quickly convincing everybody that they would monopolize it in the very near future. All without the government subsidies you claim they got and demand for the alts. Any roads that were built were because of overwhelming public demand, not because of cultist special interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom