Forbes Administers a Slap and a Tickle to Fans of EVs - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 09:22:27 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--From Forbes a splash of cold water reality for the fans of battery EVs, with the notable exception of Tesla.http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2014/05/28/except-for-tesla-electric-only-vehicles-are-failures-for-now-report/"Expect early success too for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which lack the purity of battery-only but offer an acceptable compromise of limited clean driving without range anxiety. Renault of France famously used to claim that 10 per cent of global car sales would be electric-only by 2020. This is more likely to be closer to one per cent, the report said.""High prices and range anxiety have crimped buyer enthusiasm for electric cars despite generous subsidies offered by some governments. Also, the advent of plug-in hybrid vehicles, which offer substantial battery–only and local emission free range of up to 40 miles before internal combustion engines kick in to save them, are undermining the case for battery only. Not only are battery cars pricey with unpredictable range, they also need a hugely expensive network of charging stations to make longer journeys even remotely viable."--It should be added though, that eventually EVs and Hybrids will have to stand on their own, without subsidies, as well as paying their fair share of transportation taxes now shouldered only by ICE drivers.--And, another Forbes article, about how EVs could eventually replace the waning power demand for Power Utilities and prevent another horrendous value crash like the one East German educated Merkel induced in Germany with her pipe dream Energiewende program in Deutschland. I know, I know, who cares if Electric Utilities lose all their value, they are just companies after all and deserve to die, like all companies no? What could possibly go wrong?http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/08/07/electric-vehicles-could-save-u-s-utilities-from-a-death-spiral/"However, disruption and innovation can also involve shifts that move benefits and losses from one industry to another. And if the electric industry can steal from the petroleum industry by vastly increasing the number of EVs, perhaps everybody wins except for the oil exporters (whom we are generally not so fond of anyway).--Depending of course upon whether this non-petroleum power comes from of course. If it is coal, frack gas, or nuke, then possibly soon, if renewables then possibly forever. This will probably not occur overnight, in any case. And, it will probably occur a lot sooner if governments would quit artificially pushing up consumer electric costs, with hair brained swindles. I realize that is is a very difficult point for some to understand, that electricity costs have a direct bearing on the attractiveness of EVs, since many EV fanatics believe that "Market Forces" do not exist, or if they do they are evil. The way things are going, when the EV finally arrives in a big way, the governments will have taken all of the joy, not to mention savings out of it.--Meanwhile at the margin, electric forklifts, small electric warehouse trucks, and LSV (Low Speed Vehicles) also know as "Neighbourhood Vehicles" are growing apace because they make economic sense and because the government has resisted putting its hoof down and mandating by fiat a one size fits all regulatory juggernaut in order to screw up the market.--Lastly, I was wondering how LSVs are progressing Down Under. It occurred to me that something like one of these, see picture, might be just the ticket for the Jones Family to use for local runs."But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,If your Snark be a Boojum! For then,You will softly and suddenly vanish away,And never be met with again!'Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) 1832 -1898Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 09:43:25 pm
content: EVs really are a failure, aren't they?It's worth noting that EVs powered by evil coal produce about the same or slightly less emissions for comparable cars. However, if you switch that supply to even something like natural gas, or even better nuclear, then it looks even better. Actual grid averages put emissions around 1/4 that of IC engine cars.Let's make a few assumptions about this "grid problem" that is harped on about. The average American drives ~37 miles a day (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm, bottom right cell).Let's say they own a top-of-the-range Tesla Model S P85 which does 340Wh per mile EPA rated. This means 37 miles takes 12.6kWh, so their daily energy usage is an additional 12.6kWh. This is a heavy high performance car seating 5 plus 2 children. Most people probably won't drive such a car.And let's say that 10% switched to a P85 tomorrow. (For now, we'll ignore other vehicles -- just assume passenger cars.) That's 25 million cars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States)The average US power generation per day is about 11TWh.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States25 million EVs would use... 315MWh, or about 1/30th of the electrical power generation per day. Even if everyone switched to EVs tomorrow (250 million) it's only a 1/3rd of the grid capability -- it's not unbelievable that generation could be increased to make up for this.edit: corrected typo

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 10:32:48 pm
content: Dear Tom:--As per usual there is very little you have to say that I disagree with, other than to note that if there is failure here it is not the EV, but rather the slap dash, go marching off in all directions at once, government policies. The cream will rise to the top if you quit shaking the jar. Cheers!"But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with meThe Quarrel of the Universe let be:And, in some corner of the Hubbub couch'd,Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee."Omar Khyayyam" 1048 1131Best RegardsClear Ether

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 03:18:57 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 11, 2015, 09:22:27 pmThe US is I believe rather liberal in what it allows on it's roads.I don't think it would meet the requirements to be registered as a road legal vehicle here in NZ. Unfortunately. Australia is even more stringent.For example this...can be put on the road in the US, but not here in NZ.I drive a (petrol) single seat kei class truck (Daihatsu Midget II), it's great fun, useful, economical, and I've often thought that if the motor was to blow up it would be a neat candidate for electrification.But it was imported and put on the road long before regulations tightened up (so it's allowed to stay road legal) and as far as I know current kei cars and similar can no longer be registered on the roads.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 03:40:45 am
content: Dear Sleemanj:--That has got to be just about the cutest thing I ever saw. I could pick up women with that thing all day, if it had 2 seats, oh well, I could still offer to haul the ashes. Please tell us you have more pictures."Yes, a genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is five hundred years away easier than he can a thing that's only five hundred seconds off."Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) 1835 - 1910Best RegardsClear Ether

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 05:28:58 am
content: You must have no manhood and be devoid of a capacity for self respect, and be utterly resigned to the fact, to be seen driving something like that.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 09:11:15 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 11, 2015, 10:32:48 pmI have to say I'm opposed to the subsidies on the Tesla P85D, a ~$120k car. There's a rumour going about that GM will start selling a 200 mile Chevy "Bolt", that's pure electric, starting at around $30k. For at least the start I think it's a good idea to subsidise that vehicle as that will be a stretch for most to afford. Then again GM is heavily subsidised as it is.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 09:36:24 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 11, 2015, 09:22:27 pmTesla are the only people to have taken battery EV cars seriously, at least as production vehicles. I've seen very serious looking prototypes from people like Hyundai, but I don't think those have gone into production. So, if Tesla gets some praise, they seems pretty encouraging for electric cars. If the rest of the market gets damned, its hardly surprising.Quote from: SgtRock on January 11, 2015, 09:22:27 pmIf Renault/Nissan/Samsung thought that 10% of cars sold in 2020 could be electric by 2020, shouldn't they have launched a serious contender by now? No, the Leaf, and its Renault and Samsung variants don't count as serious electric cars. They are little more than gasoline car conversions.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:13:07 am
content: The biggest issue with EVs is energy storage capacity. If a battery could be developed for cheap with small environmental impact and that is easy to recycled that could store as much energy as a gas of tank, it would be a complete game changer I think. Stick a solar panel and/or retractable wind turbine on the car and it becomes practically self powered. Cars spend the majority of their time parked so they could absorb energy during this time. For after a long trip you then plug it in.They could also make the batteries standard so you can pull up to a station and swap them out for an instant charged battery. Basically it could work similar to propane exchange programs but for batteries.Everybody wants to patent everything these days though, so a revolutionary tech that everybody can use is not something that happens much any more. Tesla was nice enough to release all their patents to public domain though so if someone comes up with a super high density battery we have to hope it's them.Switching to electric vehicles is only half the battle though, need to switch the grid to 100% green too if we want EVs to really help slow down or stop global warming. Super high density batteries could perhaps make green grid more viable though as there could be stationary battery plants along with solar/wind plants.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 02:11:57 pm
content: If there was a large move to all electric cars the grid load may not increase that much as there will be a far lower load from filling stations and oil refineries.The main problem as far as I am concerned is the range of electric cars, not when new but a couple of years down the line when the battery only has 40% of its original capacity an ICE power unit has to be pretty well clapped out not to be able to move the car and that will be many years from new. Batteries either need to be a fraction of the present price or need a far longer useful life.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 08:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 12, 2015, 10:01:39 amThen explain to me why I never get overtaken by a Tesla model-S? Everytime I go on the road I spot at least one and the drivers are always driving slower than the rest of the traffic. The only explaination must be range anxiety.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:14:41 pm
content: Quote from: GK on January 12, 2015, 05:28:58 amGood to know that manhood (or the lack of thereof) is judged by the cylinder displacement and shape of one's car.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:22:14 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 12, 2015, 08:37:43 pmRange anxiety doesn't really exist with a long range EV like a Tesla. But you still want to minimise the charging time and the supercharging network is only sparsely connected and you have to drive carefully to reach destinations. You get 300 miles at 55mph, about 230 miles at 70mph, but you have no margin left if you do that.When there are 500 superchargers (by 2016) the map will look like this:http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/images/supercharger/maps/2016-northamerica.jpg?20150111am...and then you would never really have to be worried about range, as long as you have ~50 mile range to get to the next supercharger.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:31:10 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on January 12, 2015, 10:14:41 pmDon't forget the exhaust's note!

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 02:04:52 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on January 12, 2015, 10:13:07 amSilliness.Fisker proved that solar panels on top of a car is a dumb idea. Retractable wind turbine? Even worse. Adding dead weight to a vehicle only lowers it's efficiency. This is why the "range extended" cars are poor options. They lug around an ICE and all the mechanical crap that goes with it and then when the battery is low the AC motor/gearbox and heavy batteries then become the dead weight. You get lower MPG on gas AND lower eMPG on electricity. It's lose-lose.Swapping propane tanks works because a new tank is less than $50. I'll be damned if I'm going to let you replace my ~$20,000 battery with a random one, and if it's a loaner system then you better not put my battery in someone else's car before I get back.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 02:12:42 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on January 12, 2015, 02:11:57 pmThe grid today can accomodate a LOT more EV's without any changes whatsoever. Most EV charging happens at night, during off-peak hours. It's essentially "free" power to the utility company who otherwise needs to dump the power into waste heat or ratchet down power plants.And battery health is only a problem when the car doesn't have a reasonable battery management system. The Tesla packs have been shown to have negligible capacity loss over extended lifespans. I know of several drivers with over 100,000 miles on their Model S and nobody has reported losing more than a mile or two of range capacity so far (so range loss is less than 0.5% over 100k miles). Now the Leafs are a different story - but they use vastly inferior battery management systems. The trade-off is that a Leaf has a much cheaper battery so when it gets old you just replace it. But that's not the case with a more advanced system like Tesla uses.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 02:32:23 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 12, 2015, 08:37:43 pmNot everyone is out to prove something. There are a few people who buy the cars and drive it "like they stole it"... but that usually wears off after a few weeks. Myself, I only average about 380 Wh/mi, but I know people that work hard to keep below 300. It's like a game for them. I'll floor it from time to time, but mostly I'm a safe driver who keeps to the speed limits while on public roads. BUT, if you really want to get passed up by a Tesla then I wouldn't want to disappoint.And "range anxiety" is nothing more than FUD, *especially* for Teslas. Superchargers are placed every 100-130 miles on major highways (often even closer)... I could drive 90+ mph and not be in any danger of running empty. Of course, I'd probably be going to jail if I did that. In fact, for what 99% of drivers do - commute to work and back, and maybe run some errands for a few hours - range isn't even something you think about. You plug in every night when you park your car and it's full again before you wake up.And for people with really short commutes, the cheaper EV's (Leaf, etc) are a great option for the same reasons.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 04:36:23 pm
content: The original article is from 8 months ago, and to me - saying "electric cars are a failure! (except the Tesla, PHEV's and hybrids)" is sort of like saying "I am the smartest person in the world! (except for anyone with an IQ higher than mine)".Tesla, the Volt, Prius and others have proven that EV's do, in fact, work. It's a new kind of car - not all entrants in the market were successful, but that happens in any market and with any new technology. It will take time for producers to hone their products to the needs and desires of buyers. But it's been proven that the naysayers were wrong - EV's work and work well.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 04:44:26 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on January 13, 2015, 02:32:23 amRead more carefull: Tesla owners drive their cars slower than the other traffic on average. I don't mean they go slower than the few (1 or 2) that exceed the speed limits by a great margin.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 05:20:40 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 13, 2015, 04:44:26 pmThere are 568 Teslas in The Netherlands - a country with a population of 16.8 million people. If we remove the bullshit factor, "every time I see one" is 2 or 3 times. And almost certainly, it's the same one(s).Anecdotal evidence on a few instances where the subject of the observation is the same subject is not a valid means to draw a conclusion about the whole group. Not to mention there is no demonstrated causation between the speed they drive and "range anxiety". To claim otherwise is one of the sillier posts I've ever read on here.But confirmation bias is a cruel mistress.Meanwhile, there are about 15,000 Teslas in the USA, which is a much greater density of cars per person than in your country - and I've seen maybe 5 Teslas in the past couple of years..

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 10:32:04 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 13, 2015, 09:31:12 amWhat is the official 0 to 60 (or 100) of you car? How much does it coos before subsidies?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:42:49 pm
content: QuoteThose must be the infamous mojo-chan seconds?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 11:56:02 pm
content: Nissan's specification is 9.8 seconds, I believe. That's pretty average for a small car. The Leaf is much faster doing 10-60 or 10-40 speeds. It's also fastest with a 100% SOC battery, and when it's cool-warm outside, though that will only be 0.5-1s faster.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:48:12 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 13, 2015, 05:20:40 pmNo, 9 out of 10 times I drive to a customer I see a Tesla on the road. I drive at random times and not very often so the chance seeing the same car every time is near to zero. Oh, and I stopped counting the Teslas used as taxis from the main airport. BTW the number of Model-S in the NL is closer to 2000 or 3000 (close to 1200 got sold in 2013 alone). With all the tax incentives they are incredibly cheap for private business owners. Around $35000 for the top model.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:54:37 am
content: Quote

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 02:16:08 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 14, 2015, 12:48:12 amSorry, I just don't believe you because what you say is so ridiculously implausible as to defy belief. Not to mention you have a history of "bending the facts" to suit your anti-EV bias.You're correct, I was mistaken - there are 2200 Teslas in the Netherlands, or about 1 per 8,000 capita. But there are close to 400,000 cars sold per year in your country. By any measure, Teslas are rare. To claim that on 90% of your trips you see one (and they are different ones you're seeing), and these people are always driving slower than traffic, giving you enough of a sample size to reasonably conclude that range anxiety is causing them to drive slow...Well, bullshit has not flowed forth from a post on this site so freely since that Orsto watch guy was posting here.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 04:01:45 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 14, 2015, 02:16:08 amIf you spend much of your time near Schipol airport you will see Teslas a LOT. They have long lines of them at the taxi ranks there. I was told those taxis spend most of their time just around that part of Amsterdam. However, in 5 days staying in central Amsterdam last November I saw Teslas numerous times in that area too. Not all of those were taxis.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 05:57:58 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 13, 2015, 11:02:44 pmYes, electric motors have high torque and wider RPM operating range. It's strange that the manufacturer doesn't specify the best possible 0-60, from my experience it's the 0-60 at ideal conditions where you don't care about wear and tear.ICE need to shift (narrow power band) but new clutches are very good at it (search for DCT) and are faster than any human. My last 300k miles I have done with manual gear (~20 k miles per year) and every gear shift is a challenge to have that perfect shift, especially the down shifts (no heel-and-toe here). It makes driving more fun this way though I am not as good as the machines.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 06:22:44 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--I love Tesla Motors. I do not even mind 1.3B in tax breaks and incentives Nevada is risking to get Musk to build a 5B lithium battery fab. Nevada is risking not collecting 1.3 in taxes against a possible 100B increase in economic activity in the area. Since Musk and Co. have real skin in the game. It is the kind of deal even an evil banker could understand. Like Steve Martin said "I see. A profit deal." A very different proposition from giving a beggarly startup a huge grant, a huge loan, and a pat on the back. Below article provides a good run down of the relevant facts about Musk's deal with Nevada.http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2014/09/05/tesla-picks-nevada-world-biggest-lithium-battery-plant-eyes-world-biggest/--I do worry though, about the impact of the oil glut. Hopefully Tesla's car business is relatively immune to falling gas prices as Tesla drivers probably are not primarily motivated by yearly fuel cost savings. However sales of these batteries for PV storage could be affected if PV Solar sales inflect and flatten due to lower fuel prices and disappearing subsidies.--I still favor getting rid of federal subsidy for EVs. Subsidizing a host of competitors all at once may make it harder, in some cases for the fittest designs to grow market share and succeed."In the twenty-first century, the robot will take the place which slave labor occupied in ancient civilization."Nikola Tesla 1856 - 1943Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 09:15:22 am
content: Am I the only one that has a wry smile when I read the thread's title? I doubt that left-pondians (e.g. the OP) are aware of the colloquial meaning of "a bit of slap and tickle" to those living on the prime meridian.What about those down under?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 11:49:12 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 12, 2015, 09:11:15 amI wouldn't be.Becausea) Tesla is the first successful new car company in America in the last 50 yearsb) Tesla is pioneering a radical new technology direction for one of the countries most important and major industriesIf you are going to subsidise something with your tax dollars, then a good argument can be made that this is a good choice.Looking at the price of the car and thinking it's just a bailout for the wealthy etc is missing the entire point of the subsidy.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:10:03 pm
content: QuoteIt is more of a status symbol right now - if you go to Silicon valley, that's all you see there. People buy it to be in. So its price or operating expenses are of no consequences - I would suspect that lower prices would actually hurt its sales to that crowd (Giffen goods).The perverseness in Tesla is that it is a reverse Robin Hood -> the middle class and the poor are subsidizing the rich. It is so wrong on so many different levels.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:17:41 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 14, 2015, 12:10:31 pmIf Japan is dominant, how come its market share has shrunk so much?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:23:52 pm
content: Japan dominates in battery technology (at least for lithium ion types.) Panasonic has production samples of their 4Ah silicon-anode cell available now, the highest production capacity available. But manufacturing in Japan is very expensive, compared to e.g. China.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 12:48:58 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 14, 2015, 12:23:52 pmMost of Japan's battery makers are on their knees, or have crumbled. Panasonic has been having a terrible time in most areas of consumers goods, including batteries, and have stopped most investment there. People in Japan told me they would have abandoned batteries if Tesla hadn't come along at the right moment.Just why is it so expensive to make batteries in Japan? Its not a labour intensive activity. Korea is doing well, and labour is just as expensive there. A number of low labour content industries moved to China, because they could get away with lax environmental practices, but that is changing. Things might not be as strict as in other countries, but you can't just dump all your pollution out the door any more. Its an investment heavy business, and sweet financing deals will definitely make a difference. China has cash. Maybe that's a big factor.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 03:14:06 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2015, 12:10:03 pmMy dentist wanted to buy a Tesla but his wife objected because "everybody has a Tesla". The next one on the list was Panamera. Now he will have to subsidize other people Teslas.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 04:55:18 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--First to Tggzzz, I have family members who are English, I even have an old aunty and some cousins down under. So I can tell a hawk from a hand saw when the wind blows, I know what Arf & Arf is, and I can differentiate knocking someone up, from giving them a bun in the oven. When I was a lad, I remember seeing black and white comic books titled "Pete and Tillie in a Bit of the Old Slap and Tickle". This was before comic genius Peter Sellers made them famous in a more secular way.--Please see below article, wherein Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne requests that you not buy his EVs.http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/chrsyelr-ceo-evs-idUSL1N0O71MS20140521"I hope you don't buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000,"--I seems likely that GM and Fiat Chrysler were "encouraged" to do projects like the Volt and 500E, when the federal bailout terms were being negotiated. Subsidy queens for sure.--Peter Sellers doing Michael Caine:"I can find in my undergraduate classes, bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star."Carl Sagan 1934 - 1996Best RegardsClear Ether

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 05:34:15 pm
content: QuoteTwo (major) subsidies are going with regards to EV:1) the federal subsidies on the various programs for EV;2) CAFE: the subsidies from big vehicle owners to small vehicle / EV owners.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 05:46:32 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 14, 2015, 04:55:18 pmNonsense. Any non partisan observer can easily find this out with a simple Google search. (at least for the Volt - I know nothing about the 500E but I suspect the story is the same).Bob Lutz (a political conservative) began development of the Volt in 2006, The fist concept car was introduced in January 2007 and full development for production vehicles was well underway long before the bailout of GM in 2009. If anything the GM bankruptcy and bailout delayed its release.The 2011 documentary "Revenge of the Electric Car" - is fan interesting look at some of the history of Tesla, the Volt and the Leaf.It is true that Federal mandated fleet MPG requirements have provided an incentive for the big traditional car makers to start making EVs - which is a good thing.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 06:02:08 pm
content: QuoteThat's not counting the free-riding EV owners enjoy for their free use of the transportation infrastructure funded out of the various fuel taxes.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 06:02:47 pm
content: The only "fairness" EV owners and tree huggers demand is money going their way,

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 07:21:04 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2015, 06:02:08 pmFuel tax is a pretty poor way of doing this. A Prius doesn't cause any less damage than a Camry, yet is taxed less. That's unfair!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 08:54:45 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 14, 2015, 02:16:08 am1 out of 8000 doesn't make the odds zero. Count how many cars you see during a 45 minute trip in busy traffic. Probably several thousand. I think I made a remark before along the line that Elon Musk is hiring people to stalk me with their Teslas

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 11:44:58 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2015, 06:02:47 pm+1Even knowing that sooner or later they will run out of other people's money.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2015, 11:51:15 pm
content: The only "fairness" ICE owners and advocates demand is pollution and environmental damage for everyone,

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 12:24:41 am
content: The fossil fuel and ICE industry has received massive public subsidies for years. Subsidies that everyone pays whether they drive or not.The major "subsidy" for EVs in the US is the income tax credit. This is a taxcredit- basically a reduction in the amount of taxes the EV buyer owes for one year - up to a max of $7500. Note they only get that if they owe over $7500 in taxes already (or get less if they owe less). The only credit they get is on what they would have paid in taxes. So - no one else is paying for it. A few states have similar state income tax credits -but most don't.It's funny how the conservative anti-EV idealogues are all for tax cuts for the corporations responsible for fossil fuels and ICEs and pretty much anyone else but endlessly whine when individuals who drive an EV get a tax cut.BTW, the EV tax credit came from the Bush administration and was renewed by a Republican controlled congress and it expires after a manufacturer has sold 200K qualifying vehicles. But still - the whining continues....

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 12:41:46 am
content: QuoteAre you sure? So how does the federal budget respond to this $7500 reduction in their income? Cut spending by $7.5K for each person that takes advantage? Increase taxes to compensate for the reduction? Or just increase the federal deficit?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 12:43:24 am
content: So retrolefty - I assume you are opposed to tax cuts then?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 12:58:33 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 12, 2015, 09:11:15 amEh, the subsidies are for ALL electric vehicles, including the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt ! so if you buy a 38000$ Leaf you also get 10K$ ! And like retrolefty said : you only get up to 7500 if you already owed that amount to the government. if your total taxes were only 1000$ you only get 1000$ back ...So, that being out of the way : go ask GM if they have repaid their multibillion dollar loan yet ... The government bailed them out for 49 Billion dollar. The government wrote off 11 billion of our taxpayer dollars as pure loss. ...only a nut would buy a bolt.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 01:07:48 am
content: free - electron - I know you work for Tesla - didn't you get the memo from Elon :The Chevy Bolt and similar cars are a good thing for TeslaQuote

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 01:23:38 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--So if no one else if paying for it when tax credits are handed out to EV buyers, it must also be true that no one else is paying for it when tax credits are given to say for instance oil companies, yes?--Also it should be noted that the government takes in huge sums in gas and corporate profit taxes, much more than the companies make in profits, which makes it financially worth while for the government to offer these incentives for desired behavior. Once you subtract what the government takes in. the net subsidy is hugely negative. With renewables and EVs this huge net profitability to the government has not yet been demonstrated, only promised. Certainly the Volt has not yet earned enough in profits to pay back the initial investment.--I was amazed to lean in these very pages that the reason EVs are not selling like hot cakes, is because the potential buyers are stupid or they are ICE owners who want to pollute more than they want to save oodles of moola.And here I thought they were just buying what suited them. Feh.--I do not recall saying that the Volt was designed by the federal government. I was merely opining that perhaps the un-businesslike decision to go ahead with it was heavily influenced by the feds."All business sagacity reduces itself in the last analysis to judicious use of sabotage."Thorstein Bunde Veblen 1857 - 1929Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 02:00:24 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 15, 2015, 01:23:38 amNonsense. There is no factual basis for that statement.Snip---Various straw-man arguments ignored ---QuoteSo you've changed your tune from it being part of the GM bailout terms (factually wrong) to being "influenced by the feds". What does that even mean? Any actual facts to back up that statement?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 12:40:26 pm
content: This is a particularly common element of right wing politics (conservatism), the desire to keep things "as-is" because it's "all fine".

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 02:04:54 pm
content: QuoteThe desire to not take your money away from you, nor to allow you to take my money away from me.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 03:32:10 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--It is not conservatism, it is common sense. Example. While I love and support Space Exploration and Science, I was never a fan of the Shuttle or the Space Station. Why? Because in both cases those promoting the projects, told huge lies, about what they would cost, and what they would do. In the case of the Shuttle they told huge lies about how many missions per year, and the cost per mission. They also lied about the safety of the boosters and the main engine, read Feynman's report. In the case of the Space Station it was lying about the cost, and how many Shuttle missions it would take to complete. At the last they reclassified a bunch of construction missions, as maintenance missions so they could claim an earlier completion date and a lower budget figure. Then there was the idea of going halves with Putler, great Idea that. Now he is conquering free countries by force and shooting down airliners. Administration policy? Lets kiss up to him some more, and Iran too.--Face it, the Volt is never going to sell the promised 60,000 per year, or even the re-promised lowered expectation of 45,000 per year, no matter how many subsidies, and no matter how many fleet sales to boondoggle friendly local governments and companies like General Electric (half owner of unwatched MSNBC).--What is a person in favor of any and all government expenditures except non-green subsidies, and defence spending to do? Do not present facts, attack those who disagree, and claim they do not really disagree, but have other motives. Compare them to religious zealots, who have not even appeared in this blog. And never, repeat, never acknowledge that the governments make a lot more money on sales, than oil companies do. Just keep harping on the subsidies, like they exist in a vacuum. Try to make things personal in your blog posts if you can, by mentioning the hated enemy as often as possible. And most important of all is, to claim that all EV and Renewable projects are huge successes, no matter how they turn out. And remember, keep it personal and keep it hostile.--Governments should fund research, real research, where the outcome is unknown. Governments should not as general matter be funding production.The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'Isaac Asimov 1920 - 1992Best RegardsClear Ether

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 03:53:30 pm
content: QuoteI would argue that those "science is settled" crowd and tree huggers are pretty religious about their self interests.You don't have to have a religion to be religious.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2015, 04:14:34 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 15, 2015, 03:53:30 pmI would argue the exact opposite. It is the deniers who are treating it like a religion because there is scant evidence to support their cause.If sufficient evidence came my way that showed climate change wasn't human caused, or wasn't even happening, then I'd change my opinion on the matter. Yet in fact the opposite has happened. Evidence has been presented, in multiple forms, but you continue with the denial that AGW is some kind of institutionally wide fraud or is massively exaggerated.Compare: evolution vs intelligent design. Both sides claim their theory to be valid. Which is backed by actual evidence? And which acts like a religion?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 12:49:45 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 14, 2015, 04:01:45 amIf they are mainly being used as commercial taxis around the airport - then that casts even more doubt upon the claim that they are driven slowly due to "range anxiety".However you slice it, they are rare cars anywhere - more so in the Netherlands than here in the USA where they're still rare cars.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 12:57:24 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 15, 2015, 12:41:46 amPeople talk about the $7500 as if the federal goverment cuts a check to... "someone"... for that amount.Unfortunately, EV's are like religion. And as humans, when people have a bias towards or against something - they become blind to the facts towards the goal of proselytizing.In the case of the tax credits - it's up to $7500 and it's a reduction in taxes owed. The false assumptions are that1) Everyone buying a qualifying EV is "getting" a payment of $75002) Everyone qualifies for the full $7500and most importantly...3) That people spending $40-140k on a car would not do other things with that income which would also diminish their tax liability.In other words, in reference to #3, the assumption is that the consumer would sit there and take the $7500 tax bill like a lemming - but in reality we all do lots of things to mitigate tax liability. This is no different. Not to mention the encouragement of commerce that the $7500 provides which leads to additional tax revenues that offsets (or perhaps exceeds) the initial tax credit revenue loss.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 01:10:14 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 15, 2015, 01:23:38 amYes, subsidies in general are not costs - they are recorded that way because there is really no way to measure the cost and benefit portions, so they are based out of the idea of promoting <something>, whether that be home ownership, medical insurance, a college education, etc. All of these things encourage spending which largely offsets (or entirely negates) the subsidy.QuoteYou don't understand how global economies work. Subsidies are not simply offset by income tax on profits of the manufacturer of the subidized product - rather there is a huge effect all the way down the line. People employed at parts suppliers who are collecting salaries and paying income (and other) taxes. Property and other taxes paid by those firms. The wealth generated by the investment GM made in their EV's flows to local business, colleges and incalculably more places. Where did you get your numbers on oil subsidies being "hugely negative" and demonstrated yet the same not being true of EV's? You don't have that data - nobody does, which renders your post ideology without a basis in fact.QuoteA good metric for stupidity is clinging to a belief despite it being in contrast to demonstrated facts and available data. EV sales are rising rapidly - much faster than the original Prius and orders of magnitude more than other alternatives (fuel cells, hydrogen). Only a fool would expect EV's to match combustion engine car sales to any extent in the opening years of the EV - especially considering the infrastructure is largely not built out.However, the proof is in the pudding... Tesla has created around $25 billion in market value which did not previously exist. That is about half of what GM and Ford are worth. Pretty impressive considering the resources of the latter compared to Tesla. It's yet another great American success story. What is the word for someone who hates Americans succeeding?QuoteYou've said this many times before and have been corrected many times before - I've corrected you on at least two occasions including backing up the point with direct quotes from Bob Lutz who was integral to the problem.What is the word for someone who believes their ideology despite provable facts to the contrary? Is such a person to be listened to and should their words be given weight? If so, why? I see no difference between that and a street preacher telling you that hell awaits if you don't repent. Are such people considered intellectuals with insightful opinions? Not around here.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 03:55:43 pm
content: Greeting EEVBees:--In October of 2008 GM was given the first 13.4B in bail out money, under TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program). This was pushed by President Bush, candidate Obama, and virtually all of the Democrat controlled legislature. By November President Elect was touting a million electric cars on the road by 2015. [Not even close] It was at this very time that the below article was written. It shows GM, begging for another 18B and touting the Volt and energy saving technology to save the company. [Not even close] Now I cannot prove that there were phone calls and emails between GM and administration officials discussing the Volt, but it is not an unreasonable speculation.http://www.worldcarfans.com/108120415351/wagoner-heading-to-bailout-hearing-in-chevy-volt-prototype[December 4 2008]"During GM's presentation the company will showcase the technology behind the Volt in an effort to explain to the Senators that the company's viability will be based on new energy saving technologies. With GM's plan to cut costs and focus on four core brands, the company is hoping Congress will approve their request for $18 billion in government loans. Source: Automotive News"--"Viability", "A million electric cars", Hmmm. So, as I see it the failure of the Volt is not the sole responsibility of GM and Lutz. I think the present, and the previous administrations deserve a large share. I understand the concept of Keynesian spreading of the wealth having a "huge effect all the way down the line". But that would depend would it not on whether the benefits outweighed the costs, otherwise all subsidies to unprofitable projects would be good ideas, yes? In any case a successful attempt probably generates more "huge effect" than a failure.--I support Tesla because I think it is real, bankable, approach to the EV, by someone who has skin in the game, not just a bunch of hypothecated Keynesian deficit spending, again. So, I am probably every bit as stupid as all the other ICE drives who have not bought an EV yet. Just ask Bob Lutz, the republican."If Mr. Einstein doesn't like the natural laws of the universe, let him go back to where he came from."Robert Benchley 1889 - 1945Best RegardsClear Ether

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 04:49:47 pm
content: The Volt was part of the package was well understood then, now and hopefully in the future.Any denier of it simply wants to chop down trees, starving kids and run over their neighbor's dogs.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 06:15:23 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Meanwhile, Tesla, Solar City, and most analysts are not very worried about fuel prices slowing the growth of PV.http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/12/22/john-solari-teslas-economic-multiplier-looks-good/20750317/"The gigafactory’s eye-popping jobs figures may be conservative"--And that is not the government or Tesla talking.http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096168_tesla-gigafactory-for-electric-car-batteries-site-work-continues-photos"The car is presently targeted for first production in late 2017, but the factory must be up and running at sufficient capacity to produce enough battery packs for the Model 3 before then--an ambitious schedule."http://wunc.org/post/nevadas-tesla-battery-factory-triggers-wave-follow-business"Tesla's abatements are performance-based. And the increase in people working and living here will supply new revenue, says developer Lance Gilman."--So as far as I can see the State of Nevada is not risking too much. But of course the people who are building the following business are putting their own money at risk, and not the government's."Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one."William Henry Gates III 1955 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 06:30:23 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--I should have added the below article from Investors Business Daily to my previous post.http://news.investors.com/technology/122914-732441-tesla-400-mile-battery-shows-e-car-range-gains.htm?ven=market_realistcp]""There are a lot of hybrid announcements, but right now in terms of pure battery-electric, (Volkswagen's (OTCPK:VLKAY) Audi seems to be ahead of everyone else," Dougherty's James told IBD. "Next year they're going to introduce a car that competes with what the Roadster was in 2009, and in 2017 they will introduce a car that competes with where the Model S was in 2012.""Inside the one outfitted with the Roadster 3.0 package will be a bunch of battery cells that yield 31% more energy than the originals, and so deliver 70 kilowatt hours of electricity in the same size battery pack, Tesla said on its blog Dec. 26.""If we assume the improvement seen in the Roadster is applied to the Model S," she said, potential tweaks to the Model S could reach a range of 350-400 miles per charge by the end of 2017. "By that point they will be vertically integrated (with the Gigafactory) and they'll be locking up battery cell supply.Tesla is James' top stock pick for 2015 among 11 companies she covers. She has a buy rating and 325 price target on Tesla shares""Albertine has a buy rating and 400 price target on Tesla stock, which fell nearly 1% Monday but is up 48% this year to near 226 after a 344% gain in 2013."--Whoo hoo, I do not recall seeing this kind of advice to investors from IBD or any of its sisters regarding the Volt, but then again they are capitalists."A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier."H. L. Mencken 1880 -1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 07:45:42 pm
content: SgtRock you continue to be either uninformed or purposely deceptive. Your history of posts suggests it is the later.Quote from: SgtRock on January 16, 2015, 03:55:43 pmTARP wasn't even signed into law until October 2008.GM was not approved to even be considered a financial holding and hence eligible for TARP until December 2008.QuoteAll the article you referenced says is that GMs CEO was going to drive to the bailout hearings Washington in a Chevy Volt. So let's see he was driving a Volt in December 2008 - before GM had even received any federal money.. Kind of defeats your own argument don't you think?By December 2008 GM was already securing contracts with suppliers, the UAW and putting in place facilities for mass production of the Volt. Is it a surprise that when asking for money Wagoner would be touting GMs latest, greatest technology?More facts about the GM Baiout:" On December 2, 2008, General Motors submitted its "Restructuring Plan for Long-Term Viability" to the Senate Banking Committee and House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. Congress declined to act, but in December 2008 the Bush administration provided a "bridge loan" to General Motors with the requirement of a revised business plan.""On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements."June 1, 2009: GM filed for Chapter 11 BankruptcyJuly 10, 2009: A new company financed by the United States Treasury, "NGMCO Inc"purchased the most of the assets, and the trademarks of the General Motors Corporation.In total $51 billion taxpayer money has gone in the GM bailout. Until December 10, 2013, the U. S. Treasury recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake. The final cost of the GM bailout cost the U. S. taxpayer $12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally).According to a study by the Center for Automotive Research the GM bailout saved 1.2 million jobs and preserved $34.9 billion in tax revenue.The facts are a matter of historical record, Your contention that production of the Volt was part of GMs bailout terms is not accurate and your ongoing attempt to say it is despite being shown the facts speaks to your motivations and character.Personally, I was very opposed to TARP and was not happy when Bush and Paulson held the country hostage to get it passed. I was not if favor of ANY of the government bailouts during the 2008/2009 financial crisis (on which I blame both the 'Clinton and the Bush administrations along with their Wall st. puppeteers.). I was opposed to the GM bailout but even more so the much larger bailout of AIG and the big banks. At least GM's bailout involved a Chapt 11 bankruptcy and the bondholders and shareholders were required to take a haircut. And GM is an actual company producing something of value and not the pox on humanity that the big banks have become- but I digress....In anycase - regardless of what I think about GMs bailout, the Volt is a great car (ask anyone who owns one) with great engineering and given the political forces aligned against it, it continues to slowly gain sales as part of the early wave of EV adoption. I'm also a big fan of Tesla - it is clearly leading the way and and forcing the big automakers to play catch up.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 08:02:53 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--See below article about GM CEO Rick Wagoner driving a Chevy Volt-Mule to Capitol hill.http://jalopnik.com/5101870/gm-ceo-rick-wagoner-rolls-up-to-capitol-hill-in-cruze-covered-chevy-volt-mule"GM CEO Rick Wagoner just showed up to Capitol Hill driving the Chevy Volt mule.""You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1."Ernest Rutherford 1871 1937Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 08:07:14 pm
content: Nice try Sgt. Rock. I hadn't previously taken you for a troll, but now....

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 08:52:45 pm
content: QuoteIs that before or after they flown in with their corporate jets?GM and Chrysler are kind of like those tree-huging environmental extremists: they cannot make a living on their own but they insist that you follow their instructions to live your life.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 16, 2015, 03:55:43 pmIt's a shame that you continue to be intentionally dishonest in your statements, despite being corrected numerous times previously.1) Obama's statement about "one milliion EVs" was not made "around this same time", he said it during his2011State of the Union speech. Lie #1.2) Nowhere does the article state that Wagoner "touted the Volt and energy saving technology to save the company". You made that up because it supports you anti-EV stance. Lie #23) The Volt was shown as a concept in January of 2007, after being developed through 2006 in response to Lutz wanting to take another crack at EV's with the development of Li-Ion batteries. It was green-lighted shortly after the 2007 Auto Show and the R&D and tooling was complete and the first production unit was built BEFORE the GM executives even went to Washington.Therefore, the claim that it would "not be unreasonable" to speculate there were calls and emails between GM and officials is obviously nonsense.Quote1) The "million EV's" statement was a political platform statement by Obama and has nothing to do with viability of any EV or whether spending on the Volt was warranted. Therefore using Obama's hope for a million (collective) EV's from all manufacturers as being the metric for success is yet another dishonest statement.2) GM (and the facts) would disagree with you that the Volt is a failure. There were articles that claimed GM loses $40k-60k per Volt sold. The author took the total R&D costs and divided it amongst the units sold to date. That doesn't even work by elementary school logic, yet it was repeated ad nauseum by folks who didn't possess the smarts to think it through. Lutz, in response, stated the obvious - R&D costs are recouped over the lifetime of a platform - not over the first years production or even the first generation. The Voltec platform has expanded beyond the Volt. It is also used in Via motors electrified trucks, as well as the Cadillac ELR, and now with the 2nd generation 2016 Chevy Volt. We've had Republican and Democratic congresses and white houses during the life cycle of the GM Volt. The idea that it's a political icon is obviously untrue. Not to mention GM has had various managers, CEO's and executives over the years and the Volt program lives on and has grown substantially since inception. That's success by any measure.3) You do not understand Keynesian economics. It has nothing to do with "trickle down" - which was championed by Reagan's administration. In fact, Keynesian and "trickle down" are somewhat opposites of each other.Quote1) Nobody has said people who don't buy EV's are stupid - that is merely another claim you have invented to argue against. That is a logical fallacy called a "straw man" - misrepresenting someone's position and arguing about what you have claimed their position is. It's intellectually dishonest because, of course you know nobody said that.2) You've been corrected numerous times about tax credits not being "spending", yet you continue to make the claim - which is also dishonest.QuoteIn sum, looking through your post, it's pretty much just lies, logical fallacies and false claims. Not the kind of things someone would do if they had a valid point that was defensible. Rather, the kind of thing someone would do who was arguing flawed ideology against facts. Not really any different than an Occupy Wall Street type demanding social spending to give everyone a "living wage", including those that prefer not to work at all.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:17:36 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 16, 2015, 06:15:23 pmYou should be able to see the error of your thinking based on the above article.Previously, you claimed that tax credits were warranted when corporate profits would make up for the credits. You may notice in the article you quoted that nowhere do they talk about corporate profits offsetting the tax credits. They DO talk about jobs, payroll taxes and "trickle down" effects of giving thousands of people tens of thousands of dollars a year which they will spend on homes, cars, clothes, food, entertainment, at local shops and such, etc. Nevada doesn't write a check to Tesla - they simply agree to give them a postponement of taxation for a specific period of time. If they did not give that deal, Tesla would not go to Nevada. So what was the net effect for Nevada? They will get millions or billions in revenue (after the tax free period ends as well as immediately from all the economic activity building the plant followed by the economic activity and payroll taxes for thousands of employees). That revenue would otherwise not exist - for Nevada. It is anopportunity costalone. To claim otherwise is to say that if you were thinking of buying a new TV that's usually $1000 but is on sale for $500, but you didn't realize that you missed the sale at Best Buy so you decided to keep your old TV... and doing so cost you $500.Hopefully you now understand the benefits of tax credits and how they are not spending and can be more truthful in subsequent posts.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 09:39:13 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 16, 2015, 06:30:23 pmUnfortunately, you don't understand how investing or how the stock market works.IBD will never issue a "buy" on anything Volt, because if they sell 20,000 units in a year at $32,000 (cost to dealer, where GM gets its revenue from), that is $640 million. GM does around $155 billion a year in sales, so even if ALL the money paid by dealers was retained by GM, the Volt would account for less than one half of one percent of GM's sales. In reality, GM doesn't keep all that revenue - much is returned to dealers in the form of incentives, hold backs and advertising fees, as well as year end credits and performance credits. Even if the Volt was going to increase to triple the income to GM next year, it would account for about 1% of their total sales. In other words, the Volt can't "move the needle" on GM's stock because it is a tiny fraction of their global business.The Tesla Model S - the only car Tesla makes right now, accounts for 100% of their revenues however. GM's P/E ratio is around 21, while TSLA's was over 1,000 in 2013 and -550 in 2014, but with a market cap for TSLA of $24 billion. Meaning Tesla is not sold on earnings but on future potential. Therefore, news about what is coming from TSLA is super important to their stock price and has a great effect on value. News about what the Volt is coming with in 2016 will not have a major effect on GM, so that news is as important in terms of stock price as whether the next version of MS Flight Simulator will let you fly a green 747 has on Microsoft's share price.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 10:21:11 pm
content: Greeting EEVBees:http://www.hybridcars.com/obama-calls-for-1-million-plugin-hybrids-0805/” He backed up his trademark optimism with the most dramatic auto technology proposals of the 2008 campaign cycle. Obama said he hopes to see 1 million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road by 2015, a number far beyond the most optimistic forecasts."--Looks like 2008 to me.http://www.worldcarfans.com/108120415351/wagoner-heading-to-bailout-hearing-in-chevy-volt-prototype[December 4 2008]"During GM's presentation the company will showcase the technology behind the Volt in an effort to explain to the Senators that the company's viability will be based on new energy saving technologies.--In order for the company to be saved, does it not have to be viable?http://wunc.org/post/nevadas-tesla-battery-factory-triggers-wave-follow-business"Tesla's abatements are performance-based. And the increase in people working and living here will supply new revenue, says developer Lance Gilman.""Nevada doesn't write a check to Tesla - they simply agree to give them a postponement of taxation for a specific period of time. If they did not give that deal, Tesla would not go to Nevada. So what was the net effect for Nevada? They will get millions or billions in revenue (after the tax free period ends as well as immediately from all the economic activity building the plant followed by the economic activity and payroll taxes for thousands of employees)."--The above quoted post seems to have gotten what I was saying about the deal completely backwards and has restated my conclusion as if in argument. The post was pro Tesla, not anti. Duh.--I hope for now that we can all agree that Wagoner did indeed drive a Volt-mule to Capital Hill in 2008 after the private plane imbroglio, and that Obama, in 2008, indeed touted 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015. Moreover, it would have been much more stupid to make that prediction in 2012. Talk about inaccurate nitpicking.--True enough people cannot buy stock in the Volt, but they can buy stock in GM, and IBD hasn't written the kind of article about GM that the have Tesla. They did however mention the Volt in the below 2008 editorial about the Volt and EVs in general.http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080713-666735-gm-dropping-price-on-chevrolet-volt.htm"Sales of the Volt, the most popular electric vehicle, were only a little more than half of the 45,000 that GM expected last year. Ford built 1,627 Focus Electrics in 2012 and sold only 685 of them.Foreign makers fared no better. Mitsubishi could sell only 600 of its i-MiEVs while Nissan sold fewer than 800 of its Leafs last year. Sales in 2013 remained stagnant until Nissan cut the price by $6,400 early in the year. Yes, Tesla seems to be doing well. But remember: It makes a luxury car that appeals to the wealthy who buy them as toys. It's an outlier.Meanwhile, Chrysler has wisely decided to stay out of the EV market until "consumers are willing to step up and pay for the technology," Automotive News reported this week. That's the way it should be." Government involvement invariably introduces inefficiency, improper incentives and, in the end, failure."To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."François, Marie Arouet - Voltaire1694 - 1778Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 11:47:00 pm
content: Over 100,000 Leafs have been sold.Each Leaf is profitable if sunk costs (R&D, facility construction) are ignored:http://www.torquenews.com/2250/nissan-leaf-now-profitable-sortBy the end of next year, the Leaf will probably be making Nissan a net profit.The Model S is profitable for Tesla, but it turns out building a massive battery factory and supercharger network requires a lot of capital. So they are currently losing money. But guess what - Tesla is now free of government loans. The only subsidy is the ~$7.5k + state incentives, which do make the cars more attractive. But Tesla is just making use of what is already there. I have little doubt that Tesla could still survive without those subsidies, although their sales figures would probably be lower, especially for the small-battery models.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 11:49:51 pm
content: QuoteEvery decision you have made is correct, if the incorrect ones are ignored;Every answer you give is correct, if the incorrect ones are ignored;...That's liberal's mentality.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 11:53:28 pm
content: Danny, it's a reasonable thing to do, to ignore R&D and facility construction for now. Those costs will be amortised across all cars. The point is, it costs $X to build and sell a Leaf and Nissan can sell a Leaf for $X+Y, where $Y is positive, netting them a profit on each car. Since the facility is built and the R&D is finished, Nissan is on track to become profitable even when sunk costs are taken into account. Plus, they have sold over 100,000 Leafs, and they are on track to sell more this year than in any previous year.Your argument may as well be the same as for the Volt, take total invested and divide by one mule car, oh dear, GM must be losing $5bn on the first Volt they sell!I believe this is GAAP/non-GAAP stuff, though I can't be sure.It's amazing how poor of a grip on basic financial systems you seem to have. I am no whiz myself but even I can understand this.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 12:03:45 am
content: QuoteIf you exclude wrong information in that sentence, you have a complete void,

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 12:15:19 am
content: Isn't this not opposite day today or not?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_accepted_accounting_principlesYou just can't face the fact that something "green" might actually make some green.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 12:27:11 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 16, 2015, 11:49:51 pmYou MUST be joking? Please tell me you're joking...Dannyf has an idea for a widget. He invests $10k in R&D to bring that widget to market. Once the R&D is complete, he analyzes the hardware and labor cost to produce a widget, and estimates that it will cost around $100, so dannyf picks a price point of $200 to give some profit margin. Excited, he sells the first one. As soon as he does, tom66 comes along and writes an article about how dannyf is losing $9900 on each widget sold! Then a second one sells. "Dannyf is losing $4900 on each widget sold!" A third sells..."Dannyf is losing $3233 on each widget sold!"You can see how this accounting analysis is pure idiocy, but that's what a lot of people are doing for the Volt, Leaf, etc.It makes much more sense to put that $10k in a bubble. Ignore it just for a second, and look at the ACTUAL profit on each unit sold...$100. It doesn't take a genius to see that dannyf only has to sell 100 widgets before he's paid off his initial investment and the entire project is net positive. If he's selling 20 per month, then in 5 months he'll be in the clear. He's obviously not losing $x,xxx on each unit sold, a 5th grader could see that.I like how you conveniently left off the second half of tom66's point:QuoteWhich makes this point painfully clear.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 12:40:38 am
content: This is the important statement:QuoteDannyf and others make it painfully obvious that the right-wing pundits on here appear to have very few reasonable arguments. Or, if they do, they're keeping them close to their chest.I can agree to an extent that some of the subsidies might be too high or GM executives might be hypocrites. Still doesn't change the root of the argument. You can't argue with actual numbers: More and more EV sales, and profit being made on each vehicle, and consumers are becoming accepting of the technology.50k Model S + 100k LEAF + ....edit: derp fixed error

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 02:41:50 am
content: QuoteWhy just for a second? If you ignore it forever, every thing you make is profitable!QuoteWhy get burned by the cost? Ignore it and you can count all of your revenues as profit. Wola! huge bonuses for all!And I heard that's apparently "GAAP" too.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 03:24:44 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 17, 2015, 12:40:38 amIn general I agree but I think it's important not to paint all "right wingers" with the same brush. I participate on a Chevy Volt forum and there are many political conservatives - some far to the right, who own Volts. I generally try to avoid the whole right vs left, dem vs repub, liberal vs conservative nonsense since it has become a relatively meaningless dichotomy - at least here in the US.What is true is that there is a certain simple minded subset of people on the right who seem to have bought into the whole anti Volt, anti EV, anti renewable energy, climate change denial propaganda campaign promoted by Fox News and conservative talk radio here in the US. It began in part as an attempt to knock down Obama but has continued beyond that. Part of the funding for this effort comes from well known far right groups and the fossil fuel industry. Part of the effort even involves "astro-turfing" with some being paid to post on internet forums.What is clear from the pattern of starting threads and postings by Sgt Rock and dannyf is that facts don't matter. Their posts are full of misinformation and some outright lies. They repeatedly ignore posts with factual information and provide few or no links to facts to support their views.It's all rather silly isn't it?. I mean EVs, renewable energy, climate change - they should be inherently apolitical topics. They are science and engineering topics. Rational people ought to be able to discuss their pros and cons in the context of science and engineering facts - but instead some continue to want to make them political - even here on an engineering forum!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 05:51:11 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Outright lies, eh! Smile when you say that partner. Be specific and show the proof, or hold your water.--Please see the below article from huffnpuff 08/12/2008.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/obama-delivers-a-real-ene_b_116751.html"Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan."Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas..."--Senator Obama, 2008! Does anyone still seriously maintain that the above statement was not made until 2012, and that I am lying about it.--Generally it is best if you are going to accuse someone of lying, to prove it and document it.--I say that Wagoner, drove a Chevy Volt-Mule to Capital Hill, in 2008. I have provided an article and a picture. I really do not see how any one can continue to believe that I am lying. I would be interested to see any proof that lies behind these accusations."I sell here, Sir, what all the world desires to have—POWER."James Watt 1736 1819Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 07:18:45 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 17, 2015, 05:51:11 amok - here's a couple of the most recent just from the last few pages of this thread.:Quote from: SgtRock on January 16, 2015, 03:55:43 pmQuote from: SgtRock on January 14, 2015, 04:55:18 pmBoth already proven to be false.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 11:08:53 am
content: QuoteWhat the simple-minded leftist tree-hugging liberal envrionmental extremists have trouble comprehending is that people aren't "anti Volt, anti EV, anti ....".What the rest of us want is not to allow you to take my money to subsidize your crony capitalists. If it is your pet projects, you fund it. Leave us alone.But even something that simple has proven to be impossible for those tree huggers to understand.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 04:30:50 pm
content: I ask for the same. Please don't let me subsidise your fuel burning cars by means of the health service. After all, smog and pollution causes 200,000 early deaths per year in the USA alone. MIT study:http://lae.mit.edu/air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-u-s/I wonder what the additional cost on the health services, and the general economy is, as a result of these deaths?FEMA value a human life somewhere around ~$2mn USD (That's typically the average amount spent to prevent any readily preventable death.)http://lae.mit.edu/air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-u-s/So 200,000 early deaths x $2mn USD = $400 billion dollars.Kind of makes subsidies even on fossil fuels look light.EVs contribute to this in a way if they are powered by coal/gas electricity. But they contribute much less. They still are very far from being perfect (ideally: wind+nuclear+carbon-capture nat gas CGGT ... that's if fusion doesn't take off.) But right now, they're the only solution that allows us to live in first-world comfort whilst doing something to reduce overall emissions.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 05:27:43 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 14, 2015, 10:51:13 pmIt's a blasphemy tax, similar to dhimmi.Oppression always comes with 'justification'.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 06:10:59 pm
content: QuoteI am sorry, aren't you guys parasites on the rest of the society?Show me what "taxes" have you contributed to the society, vs. what you have taken from the society?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 01:39:31 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 17, 2015, 10:25:51 pm'The money'? You must mean tax payers' money and subsidies.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 11:39:21 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2015, 01:39:31 amTesla is far from government subsidised. Don't forget they paid back the $465 million from the US government several years early. They received a tax break from California and Nevada, but so did Boeing in Washington. And while the $7,500 tax credit applies, this is for individuals only. Tesla would still sell plenty of cars without that subsidy. They don't see a penny of it. They're just making good use of what subsidies are provided to sell more cars.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:28:26 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 18, 2015, 11:39:21 am"Analysis: Tesla may have made over $100 million off the CARB enabled battery swap ZEV credit scheme"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/12/analysis-tesla-may-have-made-over-100-million-off-the-carb-enabled-battery-swap-scheme/"Common EV incentives include tax credits, rebates, free parking, and unrestricted access to high occupancy commuter lanes on major roadways"http://my.teslamotors.com/incentives/US"The governor signed four bills in a ceremony in Carson City, including Senate Bill 1, which exempts the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company from paying property taxes for up 10 years, and sales and local sales and employer excise taxes for 25 years. The bill also approves up to $195 million in transferable tax credits, those that allow a company to sell the credit to another"http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-nevada-tax-breaks-incentives-package-approved-1410507190Crony capitalism at its worst, and the free loaders come here to brad about their loot.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:51:12 pm
content: ZEV credits provided less than 1% of Tesla's revenue last year. ($1.3bn revenues, $127mn credit sales)http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/3858687290x0xS1193125-14-403635/1318605/filing.pdfTesla would be profitable without those credits (if they also weren't spending lots on capex, r&d, etc.)Again, this is a case of a company making use of what is available to it. It would be bad practice not to do so. The oil industry also receives subsidies, but I don't see complaints from you over that.The ZEV mandate is poorly implemented because it supports hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles over battery-electric vehicles, when it has been shown time and again the FCEVs don't work. The ZEV mandate was established many years before Tesla was. In my mind, just because an EV is purchased doesn't allow an ICE to also be purchased to make up for that (that's essentially what ZEV lets you do.) However, how do you get car companies to produce lower emission cars? It's been shown time and again that the free market simply will not optimise for externalities like pollution and smog. So rewarding companies who actually manage to do this is the only realistic way to achieve these goals. (And if you think that Joe Q Public cares, you just need to look at polling statistics on AGW to convince you otherwise.)The Nevada tax breaks are interesting, too. If Nevada did not offer these breaks, would Tesla be in Nevada? Probably not. So, net Tesla tax income for Nevada = $0. Or, Tesla can come to Nevada, employ many thousands of people who pay income tax and contribute to the local economy, and Tesla can get a break from taxes for some years. And, eventually, they will have to pay taxes. So they win there.Boeing received an extremely large subsidy for building in Washington:-http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/11/11/boeing-biggest-state-subsidy-in-u-s-history/

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 04:57:08 pm
content: Lobbying from:Oil industry -https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01General automotive industry -https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=M02&year=and...Tesla -https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000057516/https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000057516&year=2014(that's ~$100k dollars/yr, last spent in 2011, compared to ~$140mn oil, ~$60mn automotive)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:41:52 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 18, 2015, 04:57:08 pmWhy should Tesla spend more, this administration is in their pocket, and so is the government and legislators in their home state, all socialist leaning. This is how crony capitalism work.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 06:01:55 pm
content: QuoteHow can any reasonable and well intentioned person argue that, in the face of billions and trillions of subsidies to the green energy industry in general and tesla in particular?You simply want to starve poor kids in Africa, or deny those pregnant women in South America their rights to quality health care simply because they are not compatable with your pet projects.Those evil deniers of billions and trillions of subsidies to the green energy industry are simply that, evil.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 06:53:46 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 18, 2015, 06:01:55 pmTrillions? I would need a source. The fossil fuel industry doesn't even receive a trillion $ in subsidies.Tesla receives very little direct money from government or from favourable legislation. 1% of their balance sheet is ZEV credits, this is falling year on year. They have no outstanding loan to the government having paid it off early with interest. Tesla is simply taking advantage of what is available to them. (Starbucks paid very little tax due to clever accounting tricks. I don't hate Starbucks, I hate the over-complicated tax code with too many loopholes which allows them to do this.) Fact of the matter is because companies operate on a pure profit and growth motive, if they do not act to improve profit/growth/shareholder returns the executives will find themselves out of a job.YES, the cars give owners benefits (subsidies) and this may increase the number of sales of the Model S. These benefits were also given to people driving hybrids at one point. Now, you can disagree on whether or not these subsidies are a good thing. Personally I think anything that encourages clean/green tech is not a bad thing, when appropriately managed.I guess that's the main difference between our points of view. You seem to think that the free market will sort it all out. I don't. Historically, it has only succeeded at maximising profits at the expense of workers, health and the environment.For example, I would be in favour of a tax on unnecessary 4WD vehicles in city centres. They pollute much more. They are big, taking up parking space that others need. They are more dangerous in crash for pedestrians.Quote from: dannyf on January 18, 2015, 06:01:55 pmI'm not sure where this came from. It's a straw man and not relevant. And they are not my pet projects.Quote from: dannyf on January 18, 2015, 06:01:55 pmI'm glad you've finally seen the light Danny. I wouldn't call them evil, though. I'd say that they need to consider both sides of the argument not just what FOX NEWS tells them.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2015, 04:09:06 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 19, 2015, 09:39:11 amDeny the facts in the name of the cause and then go personally after the suppressors. The AGW zealots remind me the practices of of another modern religion. There is nothing new under the sun.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2015, 05:57:20 pm
content: Quotefrom the guy who doesn't understand return on investments.Classic.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 12:27:18 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 19, 2015, 04:09:06 pmExcept weAGW zealotshave provided many pieces of evidence from multiple sources which point to approximately the same conclusion.You have not addressed them, you just keep telling us we are denying the facts? How about providing some of your own... It could be a dataset, a formal paper (doesn't even have to be in any of those fancy liberal-biased rolling-in-the-dough science publications), or maybe some website with sourced info. Is that too hard?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 02:32:35 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--How to identify, and quit responding to, trolls. Your first tip off is that it always has to be personal. Instead of just posting logical arguments and facts, trolls will call you out personally, and then tell you that you are stupid or you just don't understand, or your country is a sh*t hole, or that you are a liar. Strings of nested quotations a mile long. Posts on top of posts. And always personalised with hostility and name calling. Do yourself a favor. Respond to facts, and not to individuals. If they cannot treat you with respect, then do not speak to them. We all should be able to voice opinions with out all the questioning of motives and continous hostility. Tom66 disagrees with me about things political all the time, but he does not go out of his way to be hostile or personal. See the difference.--I accept the fact that many Volt drivers are happy with the car, that has never been disputed. I just don't think that it was a good idea from a business stand point (capitalism again). So far the Volt has not met the 60,000 per year GM announced benchmark or the lowered 45,000 one. Perhaps the New Volt and the Bolt will eventually sell enough for GM to recoup its investment, but if the fuel glut lasts, it will be tough slogging."In fact, the thieves were considered social allies of the revolution, since they too were enemies of private property. Stalin who once robbed banks, fondly characterized the thieves' behaviour as redistribution of wealth, an additional form of class struggle.""Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn 1918 - 2009Best RegardsClear Ether

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 02:40:33 pm
content: QuoteYou have no control over who respond to your posts but you have 100% control over whose posts you respond to,It does provide some entertainment value seeing them getting all agitated from time to time, though.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 03:18:19 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 20, 2015, 12:27:18 pmI provided the facts in post 105. You are going in circles.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 03:32:37 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 20, 2015, 03:21:09 pmPoor Stalin.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 03:49:45 pm
content: Crony capitalism in the green/cleantech industry implies that Tesla and other companies such as wind turbine manufacturers, solar power plant operators, etc. are in bed with the government. Whereas the reality is that the oil and general automotive industry have contributed far more to government officials than any of the other companies...You argue that the administration favours Tesla right now. Ok, but in the GWB years they favoured the big oil players. They even went as far as believing in hydrogen cars -- what a brilliant scam by big oil. California has funded the construction of many of these filling plants and despite all this investment onlyaround 125 FCVswere sold in California last year (one of the few markets where they are available - Japan being one other.)By some records California spent over $100 million on building out a largely unsuccessful hydrogen network which sells hydrogen at about the price of gasoline (on a per mile driven basis.)I'd much rather see government spend my tax money on a sustainable future... and support those who are willing to try future technologies... than squander it on impossible projects or military misadventures.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 03:51:50 pm
content: hydrogen ... three wordshydrogen embrittlementhindenburggood luck ...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 03:57:33 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on January 20, 2015, 03:51:50 pmHydrogen embrittles some metals, but not all metals. The process has been know for more than a century, and is well understood. Its only a problem if you ignore it and use inappropriate materials.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 04:12:40 pm
content: There are many major issues with hydrogen in cars.It requires natural gas to make. You can produce it from water and electrolysis, but the efficiency of sub 25% makes this a non-starter. Other solutions such as using algae to produce hydrogen have not been shown to be scalable or commercially viable. This doesn't ween us off fossil fuels and only serves to increae CO2 emissions.Interesting graphherecomparing many vehicles with the Toyota Prius - hydrogen is WORSE on a W2W basis than a Prius... what chance does it have?At least EVs permit us to move to a cleaner grid with lower emissions per kWh. Right now EVs pollute less on the average grid, compared to comparable cars. As long as improved technologies are implemented they will get cleaner year on year.The second major issue is the lie over fuelling time. Most manufacturers tout that hydrogen can achieve a 3 minute fill up - roughly comparable to that of a petrol car. However, this is only available in a few limited circumstances. First, the hydrogen station must have received less than X visitors that day, as all hydrogen needs to be pre-pumped to the desired pressure (it's stored at a considerably lower temperature.) For one station in Japan with a cost of about $5mn USD, this was 20 cars or 6 buses. Not per pump, but per station. Secondly, this is never available whenever the outside air temperature drops too low - below about 0 degC the fueling times increase by an order of magnitude or fueling becomes unavailable altogether.Hydrogen stations cost a ridiculous amount to build. $5 million or $10 million is not unheard of. Compare: a Tesla supercharger costs less than $150k for 8 stalls. That includes grid upgrades necessary to support charging.And the cost of the fuel cell ... that's another matter. Full of precious platinum, like a catalytic converter, but in much larger quantities.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 04:24:24 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 20, 2015, 02:32:35 pmCalling you out for repeatedly spreading mistruths and sometimes lies as I and others have done is not trolling. See the definition ofTroll.I think anyone who's observed the history of these topics you repeatedly start can see quite clearly who the trolls are.As far as presenting facts - again the history of posts speak for themselves. Anyone can read through this thread or others you've started and make their own judgement.QuoteWell you continue to backtrack. The discussion was not about what is good from a business stand point. You stated that the production of the Volt was part of the GM bailout. You made demonstrably false statements to support your view. Your misinformation and lies have been pointed out several times by myself, Corporate666 and others yet you continue to ignore the facts. You seem to be the one who does not want to make this about the facts.There are many ways to be hostile. Hiding being pleasantries and quotes from historical figures is one way.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 06:12:14 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 15, 2015, 12:24:41 amA few clarifications:1. Don't confuse between libertarians and conservatives.2. I don't think anybody here is against EV. It's just a question of should the general public be forced to pay for it.3. I don't think anybody here is for tax cuts and subsidies for fossil and ICE corporations.4. Don't confuse calling out corruption with 'whining'.Cheers.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 08:01:04 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 20, 2015, 06:12:14 pmFair point. I should have said conservative and libertarian. Although the truth is I find these political labels often fall short since their meanings have evolved. The policies of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan would be considered liberal (or socialist!) by many of todays "conservatives". Likewise the policies of Clinton and Obama (forget the rhetoric look at the policies) are more to the "right" than most of what where previously considered moderate Republican views. Personally, some of my views fall under the "conseravtive" banner, some under the "libertarian" banner and some under the "liberal" banner.QuoteI'm not sure I agree with that. Ignoring what the public pays for ICE vehicles and only focusing on what the public pays for EVs qualifies as "anti-EV" in my book. Of course I think many with that view come by it from the politicization of the issue - leading them to believe what their favorite media pundits tell them and not focusing on (or willfully ignoring) the facts.QuoteNot subsidies - I didn't say that (though they do conveniently ignore them and only point out the EV subsidies) but clearly most from the "conservative" and "libertarian" camps are generally anti-tax and specifically for lowering taxes on corporations.QuoteSee above. The whining I referred to is the repeated complaining about the EV subsidies which mostly amount to targeted tax cuts.As far as corruption and crony capitalism goes - there is plenty of that everywhere and whatever occurs in the EV world is a small fraction compared to what occurs in the fossil fuel industry or traditional auto maker world (and all that is dwarfed by what occurs in the financial services world). The share of EV industry money is, at this point, very small as compared to the ICE and fossil fuel industry. I have no doubt that once EVs become a larger portion of the pie, the associated crony capitalism will also grow proportionately but criticizing EVs on the basis of any that exists now is a weak argument since it is so ubiquitous and applies even more so to ICE vehicles.That seems to be the common theme. Find some issue with EVs (or RE) and repeat it over and over while ignoring the same or larger issue as it exists for traditional ICE vehicles (or fossil fuels). It may fool some but I'm sure most EEV blog readers are smarter than that.EVs (and RE) are not a panacea and have their own sets of issues, but they are a step forward.In the spirit of presenting some facts. Here's a few nice graphs of the growth of EV sales.The first is fromhereand shows overall cumulative EV sales through the end of 2014 broken down into BEVs and PHEVs.The second is fromhereand breaks it down by specific vehicles. It only goes through mid 2014. I believe the Leaf has overtaken the Volt now for the lead.Overall - these show healthy growth (even if it is too little, too late...)

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2015, 09:13:43 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 20, 2015, 06:12:14 pmI'll remind you that a libertarian is just a conservative that likes to smoke weed.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 12:57:14 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 20, 2015, 09:13:43 pmI mow weed, not smoking ;-)Libertarians are what used to be called classical liberals. Think about it this way, we, the good libertarians, are in the center and are oppressed from the right by conservatives that want to impose their religious morals and from the left by socialists that want take our money, both try to harness the power of the government to advance their cause.Cherish the liberty of yourself and fellow men.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:11:55 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 20, 2015, 09:13:43 pmHa! One of my friends recently ran for the state legislature as the Libertarian candidate. He likes a good beer, but weed? .. I don't think so. Then again it's legal here now so maybe soon...Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2015, 12:57:14 amI view it a little less linearly. I like the graphic below as one way to represent the political spectrum.QuoteTrue dat. Just make sure your liberty doesn't interfere mine.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 03:20:24 am
content: We already have two of the three top murderers of the 20th century. Where would be Mao Tse Tung in that graph?Also, Obama should be significantly lower in that graph.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:55:38 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2015, 03:20:24 amRight next to Stalin I'd thinkQuote? Obama isn't on that graph. If he was I would put him just to the right of Clinton (again based on his actual actions and policies not his rhetoric).

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 07:17:13 am
content: With the current price of oil's effect on Russian finances, I wouldn't expect the glut to last much longer. That's a pretty serious political destabilizer.Correction to the estimates about Tesla Supercharger site costs: $150,000 is the lowest estimate I've seen mentioned. A more realistic estimate would be around $250,000. Doesn't really affect the point being made though. And the cost is paid by roughly $2,000 per sale that is earmarked for the charging network rollout (the $2,000 number is based on the extra fee charged for adding SC capability to an S60 which doesn't have it as a standard feature).

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 07:31:53 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 04:55:38 amMy bad, Nader looked darker than usual. Obama is all about giving freebies and wealth distribution. Now that we restored balance so it's not as easy but he keeps trying. Clinton also moved down in the graph in recent years but above Obama. I wouldn't say that Stalin and Hitler provided security.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 10:28:47 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2015, 07:31:53 amYou're right of course - he's done an excellent job of redistributing to the top 5%. Look at the actual facts. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric and the political pundits. There's a game afoot. If you're following your national libertarian "leaders" and falling for the national theatrics you just might be unknowingly doing the dirty work of those for whom liberty is the least of their motivations (but an effective buzzword to motivate the minions).Just sayin' - Think for yourself.The thing about greed is enough is never enough..Source of figures below and more details on the ongoing wealth redistribution can be foundHERE

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 11:59:39 am
content: The liberal tree-hugging environmental extremists would be somewhere on the bottom of that chart?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 12:29:26 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 21, 2015, 11:59:39 amNot if they're rolling in all those green subsidy dollars and mega science bonuses.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 01:41:57 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please see the below Whitehouse press release wherein President Obama takes credit for the bailout and for electric vehicles. Please note that Ford was not involved in the bailout, and was not forced to produce an EV.http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/15/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-cannon-falls-minnesota[President Obama] "You will recall when I came into office they were talking about the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, and a lot of folks said, you can’t help them, and it’s a waste of the government’s money to try to help them. But what I said was, we can’t afford to lose up to a million jobs in this country, particularly in the Midwest, but we also can’t afford to lose leadership in terms of building an auto industry that we used to own. And so we turned around those auto companies -- they are now making a profit for the first time in decades, they’re gaining market share for the first time in years. (Applause.) But what we said was, if we’re going to help you, then you’ve also got to change your ways. You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks. There’s a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you’ve got to understand the market -- people are going to be trying to save money. And so what we’ve now seen is an investment in electric vehicles"--And, the below article from Forbes which quotes from the speech and makes some good pointshttp://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/14/the-governments-bailout-of-general-motors-is-strangling-gm/"If the bailout was such a big success that President Obama could use it as a major issue in his reelection campaign last year, why isn’t GM’s stock isn’t worth more? Why is it increasingly unlikely that Obama’s prediction that taxpayers will make money on the bailout will come true?""The significant government stake in the company has hindered recovery. The White House forced policies on GM’s management that were oriented toward its own ideology rather than market factors. Obama himself bragged about it at a town hall meeting in Minnesota in 2011: “What we said was, if we’re going to help you, then you’ve also got to change your ways. You can’t just make money on SUV’s and trucks….And so what we’ve now seen is an investment in electric vehicles.”"We’ll never know where GM would be today if it had been allowed to go through bankruptcy in the ordinary way. But there’s no reason to believe the current management, appointed by Washington politicians, has been more competent than the executives who might have taken over following a Chapter 11 reorganization. Remember, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 40% since the GM bailout, and the 30 companies in the index are being run by executives hired without Washington’s help.""All I wants of you, Cap'n Simmons,is plain seevility, and that of the commonest goddamndest kind!"Zeph W. PeaseBest RegardsClear Ether

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 03:31:50 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 10:28:47 amHis powers are limited, especially now, but he keeps trying.Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 10:28:47 amI am thinking for myself and I cherish my liberty. If I understand your argument, if I will give up liberty I will have more money (wealth distribution). That's a mentality of a slave.Personal liberty is not a guarantee for financial success or any other outcome. It's a core value, a basic right, an axiom.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:23:38 pm
content: QuoteBut we have countless examples of how other companies have fared exiting from bankruptcy.GM's issue isn't there is no demand for its vehicles -> the majority of GM jobs would have never be lost through a bankruptcy. In fact, GM would have emerged without any of its legacy costs, without any of its management, and would be much stronger than it is today.What he said last night about GM reflects his complete ignorance of how the private sector and our legal system work.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:32:54 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2015, 03:31:50 pmNo - not what I was saying at all! Not sure how you got that from what I wrote but perhaps it was my bad. I hope you don't equate liberty with personal wealth accumulation - IMOthatwould be the mentality of a slave. Though many of the national "Libertarian" leaders have co-opted the idea as a way to consolidate their own (and their backers) wealth and power.This is way, way OT so I'll keep it short. IMO -anyone falling for the Red(Libertarian or Republican) vs Blue(Democrat) fake game and who think that defines "us versus them" is lost in the matrix. Step outside of it! Politicians (on both sides) need someone to demonize to motivate the masses. Most of what you see in the national media is Kabuki theater.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:35:11 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 21, 2015, 04:23:38 pmThe bailout was intended to help the unions, not the company. A bankruptcy court would enable a renegotiation of the employment agreements.Search for gm rubber room.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:43:07 pm
content: QuoteAs I've previously stated, I'm no fan of the GM bailout but at least GM was forced to make some changes, file Chapt 11 and its bond and stock holders take some losses. Its CEO was forced to step down. The same cannot be said for the bailout of AIG and the big banks.There is NO objective evidence that "White House forced policies on GM’s management that were oriented toward its own ideology rather than market factors". That's just political posturing - saying it doesn't make it so.As for anyone who gets caught up in what the national politicians say, most of it is for show. What's important is the facts on the ground.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 04:47:38 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 04:32:54 pmWhat I read was let's limit the liberty of people so we can get more of the 1%'s money.Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 04:32:54 pmPersonal wealth accumulation is one of the possible outcomes of liberty.Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2015, 04:32:54 pmThe metrics I care about is weather person x promotes more liberty or promotes restrictions on liberty. Government mandated socialism in its nature restricts liberty, just like government mandated theocracy. The fact that some politicians agree with me doesn't mean that I need to change my opinion just to disagree with them.Cheers.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 06:45:12 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Now wonder GM was counting on the Volt to make the company viable.http://www.autonews.com/article/20090409/ANE02/304099981/u.s.-funding-for-volt-on-hold-pending-bailout"WASHINGTON -- General Motors said it won’t get federal funding for its Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid car until the company is certified as financially viable by the Obama administration.""The automaker has applied for $10.3 billion in U.S. Energy Department loans for development of fuel-efficient vehicles. Included is a request to help develop the Volt’s powertrain components, GM spokesman Kerry Christopher said in an interview today. He wouldn’t say how much money GM sought for this purpose. As part of the $10.3 billion application, GM also has requested $2.6 billion for development of two Volt derivatives, a third hybrid model and components""President Barack Obama rejected GM’s and Chrysler’s business plans on March 30, giving GM 60 days and Chrysler 30 days to come up with more viable turnaround programs. If the companies fail to do so, Obama held out the possibility of bankruptcy." [unsubtle threat]--After fuel efficient vehicles, the Volt and its derivatives were added, President Obama approved federal funding. Allowing him to continue touting "a million electric cars on the road by 2015", as he had done since he was a Senator."The language of experiment is more authoritative than any reasoning: facts can destroy our ratiocination—not vice versa."Alessandro Volta 1745 1827Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 09:30:39 pm
content: Wow sgt Rock - you really keep trying to sell the same lies don't you. As I pointed out in post #76 the Volt was developed and the productions facilities being put in place before they even asked for money. Eventually President Bush gave them a loan. Later they asked for more money and that request was rejected by Obama. Eventually they were forced into bankruptcy. I even provided some of the same quotes you use here. They prove the point.Let's see, company X develops a product, builds prototypes, tests them successfully. Then it signs contracts with suppliers and starts building production facilites for mass production. Meanwhile their main business - selling many different products -is failing and they're running out of money. Surprise! - they need loans to complete the planned production of their new product.Your contention that the government induced GM to produce the Volt is still a lie. (see post 76 for referenced facts)You've created a straw man in your latest post - since no one has been arguing about whether GM thought the Volt would help them return to profitability. I suspect it was and is one of their hopes - that is why they are building it! . So far the Volt and the technology they developed with it is turning out to be on track to be a major part of their business. Is it as successful, as early as they hoped? duh -no - most new products a company produces aren't. Still that has nothing to do with the political points you keep trying to score.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 09:56:01 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2015, 04:47:38 pmNo of course not. But when they say they agree with you (while their actions- who they take money from and how they vote on a few select pieces of legislation - prove otherwise) to get your vote and get you to repeat their propaganda, waving the red flag of "socialism" in front of you, so that you assist in furthering their political goals, they are playing you. The real enemies of liberty may not be who you think they are. By my accounting, the only national Libertarian political figure who has been intellectually honest and whose actions do not betray the values you proclaim, is Ron Paul. I do not agree with all his positions (though I do with many) but I respect his integrity. The current ones, including his son - no.BTW - the same dynamic occurs across the political spectrum -it's just that in recent years the right has proved to be better at it.Anyways, I'm going to let this way off topic political discussion go.