GM VP of global program management Jon Lauckner met with a congressional caucus last week and indicated his hopes for government help in getting people to adopt the Volt.
He said:
“What we favor is actually a sliding scale depending on how much battery you have on board. When I talk about $6,000 to $7,000, we’re talking about a battery that’s at least two times the size of a typical conversion plug-in or even a plug-in hybrid that we would offer.”
He argued that early adopters will have to “pay a price premium” for Volts when they first arrive, and so these tax credits will be necessary.
Source (Automotive News, subscription required)
In almost simultaneous news, presidential candidate John McCain, in a speech today, promised an advanced automotive battery prize.
He said the $300 million prize would go to the maker for “the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars”, and “should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs.”
He also proposed a $5000 tax credit to automakers for each zero-emission vehicle they sell, saying, “for every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, we will commit a 5,000 dollar tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car.”
Source (AFP)
This entry was posted on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm and is filed under Battery, Financial, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:29 pm)I’m all for tax subsidies. God knows we’re paying too much as it is, but I don’t like it when government extorts taxes from me only to give that money to a for profit corporation for “research”. So much for competition choosing the BEST technologies!
When politicians short-circuit the free market by choosing which technologies/corporations get a free taxpayer hand-out, and when politicians REFUSE to break-up monopolies… we all lose!
Welfare (individual or corporate) will not make anyone “well” because it treats a symptom, not the disease and is most certainly NOT fair.
The more something costs, the less we’ll use… PERIOD! A thing will ALWAYS find its TRUE value in a free market with a level playing field. The role of government is to stay OUT of the way and make sure the field is level so market forces can work properly.
McCain is just another NeoCon socialist wolf in conservative clothing.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:30 pm)The volt ain’t zero emission, so kiss that rebate goodbye….
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:31 pm)It’s a start – where is Obama’s comments
I like the fact that McCain is talking significant $$ for the prize – it might be enough for a quicker breakthrough in technology
I would like th Gov’t to fund clean fuel – ?Hydrogen? – stations start with LA and expand
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:39 pm)So the people who buy this first can possibly get it for 40k – 7k rebate for 33k.
How long will the rebate last for? If I get a volt in year 3 of production and the price of the volt comes down to say 33k with no rebate it will not pay to wait for the price drop?
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:42 pm)I’d like to see GM talk with the Canadian Government as well for tax credit on Volt buyers in Canada..
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:45 pm)This wouldn’t cost the gov squat and it could bridge the costs until they come down.
I don’t want the energy companies to get ANY money for any R&D. They can pay for it themselves and I hope they just stay out of it.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (1:50 pm)A bit off topic, but I found it interesting that Consumer Reports has on their
web site an image of the Volt. They don’t talk about it, but it certainly
has some prominence. Take a look.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/resource-center/green-car-guide/green-car-guide.htm?EXTKEY=NW87ON0
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:09 pm)The way I read it, Andrew is right at #2. How does this help us? A $5000 rebate for a BEV with what, 100 mile range? The whole premise of the Volt is to get past the “range anxiety” syndrome. This just seems to be a way to set the whole thing up for failure.
Or maybe an incentive for the BEV Volt so many have suggested.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:13 pm)X-Prize has been successful using prizes to induce technology innovations. Typically entrepreneurs spend about 4 times the prize amount to win. Google and others have participated. It would be great to see the government use X-Prize or similar foundations to advance battery technology.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:18 pm)I don’t see why people would assume the Volt cannot be considered a ZEV. It clearly depends on the driving cycle that classifies it. If that cycle is less than 40 miles, then the Volt will probably be considered a ZEV.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:20 pm)I was just going to email Lyle this story when I saw it, come to find out it he already had it up…well done Lyle.
I guess it depends on how you define “zero emission” as one could make the case that for the 1st 40 miles of a charge the Volt is that, and that could be therefore written into the language of an eventual bill.
Certainly if McCain is not aware of the Volt and its promise, he should be greatly encouraged and wish to encourage its mass production, assuming GM would approach him about it.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:23 pm)OK I’m in… Send me my BEV Volt. If there is a rebate on the first Volt, send that one to me. I’ll be able to afford it with the rebate.
TED
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:28 pm)If a bill should pass, it will include the Volt, you can be sure.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:28 pm)$7k doesn’t seem out of line given the tax credit amount the Prius was given. Heck, even 8k seems reasonable, and either figures could bring the car near $30k for early adopters.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:33 pm)How about GM be as open with the price the dealers pay for the car as they are being with its developement??? So when I buy my $40k Volt the $5k to $7k tax credit doesn’t drive the cost up just as much. Even better… let me buy it DIRECT!!!!!
I can actually swing it with a $5k to $7k tax credit!!!But the thing had better be LOADED for $40k.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:36 pm)I’m impressed that McCain is actually aware that electric cars are a completely viable form of transportation. Finally something other than the usual (still) empty hydrogen fuel cell promises that we’ve been hearing forever. I bet 90% of the general public is not yet aware of the viability of electric cars.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:37 pm)I think government can serve a good purpose by providing rebates to the consumer to help us get off oil. I am against tax credits, grants or whatever the government wants to call it to big oil or any other industry unless it is in our direct national interest. But, McCain is moving in the right direction while Obama is spouting the same old tired language of its too late to start now, so let’s not do anything.
Both presidential candidates need educating about the Volt and its possible impact on our economy. We need to keep pushing GM and help them where we can. Letters to congress can and will help.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:37 pm)That $5K credit could really make things interesting. How about a sporty pure-electric Saturn Sky with say a 50 mile range for $20K, or $15K after the tax credit. Sort of a poor-man’s Tesla Roadster. That would sell like hotcakes I think.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:44 pm)It sounds like it will be 2012 or 2013 before the majority of us will be able to purchase a Volt. No telling what, if any, tax credit will be available at that time. Congress has got to understand that it will take some time to start getting the majority of autos off oil. They need to keep those incentives going for at least 5 years. Money spent for tax credits will pay big dividends for our economy in the following years as more and more of our oil dollars start staying at home. Some will be spent on electricity while the reminder will be available for consumer goods. American made consumer goods, I hope.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:45 pm)GM should ask for a rebate of $15K. They are consistently too cautious. People are in the mood for electric and want to see big changes now.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:47 pm)Hello new thread!
Of interest today:
GM extends summer shutdowns at plants.
GM cuts another 170K out of truck production.
GM announces across the board price increases for 09 (avg up 3.5%)
GM announces 0 percent financing to get rid of 08s
Citgroup downgrades sector, estimats sales of 13.1 mil from 16
Stock again hits the low of the low.
Currently at $12.84 off .95 cents of almost 7%
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:49 pm)CBK@#7 I clicked on the “most fuel efficient SUVs list (that we’ve tested)” from Consumer Reports. They have not bothered to test either the VUE or the Ford/Mercury Escape/Mariner. The latter is more surprising, since Ford has been leading the way in SUV hybrids for years. Anyone have an explanation as to why CR would not even bother to test the Ford?
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:49 pm)Off topic, but I saw my 1st pure EV on the road the other morning (in Wilmette, IL). I don’t know what kind of car it was, but it must have been done with a conversion kit (it was not a Roadster).? It was silently cruising along and with good acceleration. One of you perhaps? It made me so excited! Now, if I could just afford a Volt.
Cheers.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:51 pm)Having a BEV for commuting to and from work with a hybrid (Volt style) for longer trips would be in the best interest of all Americans. I see a future with quite a mixture of autos that are capable of all kinds of activities while saving us dollars and dollars. It will take some time, but in 5 years, we are going to have all the bases covered, I believe.
But, I do not see the hydrogen fueled auto as the way to go. It works good for the auto companies, the dealers and the service station network, but not for the average “Joe”. That would tie us to the apron strings of hydrogen suppliers the same way we are tied to gasoline suppliers. You had better believe that hydrogen fuel would be a speculative trading item, just the same as crude oil is now.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:53 pm)No vehicle is Zero Emissions….we are just moving where the emissions happen, be it at the Tail Pipe or the Smoke Stack.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:54 pm)A politician ‘proposed’ a $300million ‘prize’ to a battery manufacturer. That sounds good from the campaign podium, but assuming it actually came to pass, how does that help a Volt buyer? Well, OK, if you are the winning battery manufacturer and buy a Volt, that would be $40K-$300million – you come out ahead.
A politician ‘proposed’ a $5K rebate to buyers of a zero emissions vehicle. That sounds good from the campaign podium, but assuming it actually came to pass, how does that help a Volt buyer?
The Volt has an ICE and if there is a way for you to make it pollute, it is not a zero emissions vehicle. What will you do – report to the DVV (Department of Volt Vehicles) every night to have the odometer checked to prove you haven’t exceeded your 40 mile limit for the day? If you fail a day, you refund the $5K?
We need a Volt rebate, not a golf cart rebate.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:55 pm)MarkinWI
Sure, I have a possible answer. Consumer Reports (and I am a subscriber) has its bias just like others. They do not see a hybrid SUV as something desirable. So, just like the New York Times does not report good news from Iraq, they deem not to cover those vehicles except in a round about fashion.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:56 pm)Here’s a different perspective on McCain’s recent views.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aFZCWEWpWF3M&refer=home
Jun 23rd, 2008 (2:58 pm)This has got to be a joke.
I can only hope other leaders in government will more accurately reflect the importance of plug-in vehicles.
At a tax credit of $5000 per Volt, during the first year of the Volt’s production of 10,000 units, this credit will run a total of $300 million.
Other things that cost $300 million:
- 2.18 F-22 Raptor Aircraft
- 1.69 days of Iraq war funding
- 0.005% of the yearly farm bill currently in Congress
- 0.00000011% of the yearly budget
When will our leaders in government get serious about getting us off oil once and for all?
====
Sources
F-22 Raptor
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor ]
Cost of Iraq War
[ http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm ]
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food%2C_Conservation%2C_and_Energy_Act_of_2008 ]
2007 U.S. Budget
[ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html ]
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:02 pm)Drake
How did you get the $300 million figure? 10,000 x $5,000 = $50 Million. The $300 million was not a tax credit to the purchaser, but a prize for a battery contest.
$50 million is chicken feed in this economy and next to nothing to what our government wastes each year.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:05 pm)Statik (#21)
When you leave negative info about GM, you need to put this in perspective by including the same statistics about the other manufacturers.
GM and is not the ONLY auto manufacturer in trouble and auto manufacturing is not the only industry in trouble.
It’s NOT just the cost of oil. As they said during the last presidential election, “It’s the (global) economy, stupid.”
This is because the Fed is debasing of our (global) currency by keeping interest rates too low and printing too much of the fiat US $Dollar which lowers its value causing inflation.
They are doing this because the Democratic-Socialists can’t reign in spending on social(ist) redistribution programs and the right Neo-Conservatives can’t stop empire building by sticking our military in the affairs of foreign countries. Both parties REFUSE to defend our boarders against the “Invasion of the Government Handout Snatchers” which according to the US Constitution is the ONLY thing they are SUPPOSED to be doing.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:05 pm)22 Mark:
Because Consumer Reports awards and recommendations are bought and paid for like all the other “Automotive Awards”
This is coming from someone who tried to get them to rate our vehicle once upon a time.
Here is an interesting question that sort of shows how media can shape our opinion. What car company had the most negative press regarding rusting out vehicles and shoddy paint jobs in the 70′s and 80′s?
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:08 pm)This is McCain’s energy advisor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spgoo1ScnO4&feature=related
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:09 pm)Morgan
Was that the Chevy pickup? I remember something about some stories along those lines. Hope I am wrong.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:11 pm)Kevin Highland @ 25; emissions from a smoke stack can be better controlled then 100 million tail pipes.
akojim @ 26, would you first two paragraphs constitute political “double” talk?
Statik @ 21, if I don’t miss my guess, that may not be related to the posted topic and would be more appropriate for the Forum. People have enough trouble staying on topic here, don’t want to give them more fodder.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:11 pm)#21 Statik:
GM extends summer shutdowns at plants.
-This has happened at certain plants for the last 2-3 years.
GM announces across the board price increases for 09 (avg up 3.5%)
-large but yeah, it is usually a 1.5-2.5 increase every model change
GM announces 0 percent financing to get rid of 08s
-They have done this every summer since 2001 or close to. 72 for 72 and three years ago they did it for a month.
Yeah, it is not good; just saying that, none of this is all that dire, unexpected, or totally abnormal
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:13 pm)34 N. Riley:
I might have misread your comment as asking what we tried to get Consumer Reports to rate.
If you are attempting to answer my rust and paint job question: no, it was not a Chevrolet product.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:14 pm)N Riley #30 – woops, those calculations are based on the 60,000 Volts that GM plans to build the second year of production.
60,000 * 5000 = $300million
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:16 pm)MarkinWI #22
Well, I’ve been a CR subscriber for a number of years. They are helpful,
but they are very Japanese orientated where autos are concerned. I too was
a bit surprised not to see ANY US made autos in their list.
But it shouldn’t come as any surprise, since most Americans believe that only
the Japanese can make reliable/efficient autos.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:21 pm)Drake
Even so, $300 million is a small amount in today’s government spending. A token amount to pay to start getting us off oil. We need to start somewhere. I say drill now, drill everywhere and start an incentive plan to move us away from oil. We need to drill for more of our own oil reserves, and we have plenty, thank you, along with getting electric cars and trucks on the road. This is a long term goal. We will not succeed over night. It will be many years and we will need as much oil independence from the middle east and else where as we can get in the mean time. Let’s get started.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:24 pm)CBK
I don’t think just the Japanese can build dependable autos. All of the three American auto companies have made giant strides in every area in the last 5 years. They have more to do, but we are getting there.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:28 pm)One word… EEStor.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:36 pm)N Riley #41
I did not mean to imply that only the Japanese can build dependable autos.
I only meant to point out that CR has a clear bias towards Japanese built
autos.
I own a 2006 Corvette and I am now driving a 2008 Malibu and I can tell you
that they are very good autos. I must admit the 2008 Malibu is recently
obtained so I have a very limited view of its dependability. But it is a solidly
built vehicle and rated 30mpg highway. I obtained 28mpg on a recent
round trip to Door County, WI which included a lot of local driving so I
think it was pretty darn good.
Reliability – time will tell.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:41 pm)N. Riley, #40. I respectfully disagree. We should not drill now, drill everywhere. We should not drill for more of our own oil reserves.
I believe this approach only keeps us hooked to oil longer.
Although I hate the current price of things today, I suppose it is necessary to effect change among us all. Does anyone believe
that if gas had stayed at $1.20, that the Volt would be anywhere on the table? I for one, don’t think any of us would be here and gm-volt.com would not exist and neither would the Volt.
I’m sorry, N.Riley. I just don’t think drilling is the right answer. IMHO
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:43 pm)What about Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles… why isn’t the government funding the effort for an infrastructure to support the technology that is already here… we could all be driving zero emission vehicles.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:44 pm)#42 MGD says, “One word… EEStor.”
Ah yes, if only it were true. (heayy sigh, head shaking back and forth)
If only it were true.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:45 pm)Wow, a $5,000~$7,000 Federal tax credit for the Volt.
In 2003, maximum Federal tax credit to purchase a vehicle 6,000 lbs or greater was $100,000
Also, a 300 million dollar prize for battery research does’nt amount to s h i t.
Are any of you aware that the American People are spending almost $450 million a day in Iraq?
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:45 pm)Of all the varied types of government assistance, this one is the best, in that it allows the consumer to pick the winner, and not the government.
Still, as Lutz said, the Volt will sell out its first year without the rebate, so perhaps its better for the government to wait and see how the market responds, as there is no shortage of buyers for the Tesla Roadster, Fisker Karma, Aptera Typ 1 and so on. Likewise, look how many are signing up for flights on Virgin Galactic. If the government acts too soon, it will just allow automakers to target too high an entry point.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:45 pm)Statik. #45 MGD brings up an interesting topic that I know you would love. Be sure to read and respond.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:52 pm)It seems that we get more blurts from conservatives/libertarians than from the other side. Maybe not; perhaps I’m more sensitive to those blurts.
People that complain about government involvement in electrifying the automobile need to consider what jbfalaska has been saying for a long time; the government has spent my money on propogating the petroleum-fuel age. I don’t know how much the government has spent to maintain our oil supply, but I’ll bet it is more than I can spend. Yes, government needs to spend money for the benefit of the people. Perhaps government spending to get us away from petroleum is a wise investment.
#3 Dale
I’ll bet Obama has a position on the matter. If you want to know where his position is, check his website.
#4 Gary
I think the Prius rebates stopped after about 65,000 units.
#17 N Riley
“Obama is spouting the same old tired language of its too late to start now, so let’s not do anything”
That doesn’t sound like anything a politician would say. Please cite your references.
#31 Tim
Why does Statik need to put his comments in a perspective that satifies you? He is speaking from his perspective. You can provide yours. That is how Morgan did it in #36. If the debate is interesting, we all win. Aside from telling Statik what to say, you raise good discussion topics.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:54 pm)#36 Morgan
“Yeah, it is not good; just saying that, none of this is all that dire, unexpected, or totally abnormal”
Your right, simlar things have happened from time-to-time in the past. I think taken individually, one might think it is not abnormal, and could be swallowed, but this is all in one day.
Estimating losing up to 20% on total auto sales is bad, GM will be under the ‘mean’ when it all pans out. Also, I think raising of the average vehicle price by 3.5% is pretty big too, I don’t ever remember anything like that. About the summershutdowns, they weren’t announcing them, they are extending them.
The 170,000 announced cuts to SUVS @ 40K a pop is a revenue loss of around 8 BILLION. (There is some mitigation here with around 47K in car production–about 1 billion).
GM has had almost the worst 5 business days in it’s history (2nd actually)…that is significant. (off 25%.)
#31 Tim
“When you leave negative info about GM, you need to put this in perspective by including the same statistics about the other manufacturers. GM and is not the ONLY auto manufacturer in trouble and auto manufacturing is not the only industry in trouble.”
I know they are not the only ones in trouble, but I really don’t care about the other auto manufacturers, when I’m posting here. But your right, Ford could go out of business before GM if that makes it easier to take. (Your last two paragraphs are a little over the top as well).
Anywhoo, either way you slice it, if GM has 14 more days like today (off 88 cents) they are worth nothing.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:55 pm)#49 Rashiid
Hmm…tasty hydrogen. All cars should run on hydrogen…and fly.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (3:58 pm)#33 OhmExcited
Thanks for the link. Yes I just learned that Woolsey was McCains energy advisor. As someone who has been following the PHEV movement since 2005, I have heard him many times speak out on the benefits of PHEV’s, and the dangers of relying on oil. Aside from being the former CIA director under clinton, he has since become one of the biggest PHEV proponents with the possible exception of Felix Kramer.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:02 pm)#31 Tim
“It’s NOT just the cost of oil. As they said during the last presidential election, “It’s the (global) economy, stupid”
Actually I have a story to tell about the general economy, my thoughts and how it is affecting me in a large way. But I’m taking the family out to supper…maybe later.
Stay tuned, edge of your chair and all that, lol.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:03 pm)There is no denying it… the hydrogen technology is here… GM has a fleet and honda is already producing it… so to make a hasty comment like #49… well just sounds uneducated on the topic… hey, but to each their own…
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:05 pm)51 Statik:
Stop adding points, I addressed specific comments for a reason darn it!
hehe
The 0% marketing plan has been on the books for at least a month so it wouldn’t be a one day surprise.
Stock price is worrying. The SUV and Truck —–> car revenue loss is not shocking (to me at least) you are going from a product that could absorb high labor costs (in benefits, healthcare, retirement) SUVs and Trucks and maintain a healthy profit margin to a car that can’t.
Our van chassis prices went up 2% a year invoice like clockwork and 2.5-3% MSRP.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:08 pm)I think an initial government rebate push is probably just what is necessary to tip this new concept into reality. It would sure put it into my $35,0000 max. Let’s face it, GM’s success is in our best interest. History tells us that costs will decrease with volumn. Go GM.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:25 pm)Tim #1
I wouldn’t be to upset by tax credits for battery technology, the government is always using your taxes for some incentive. For example, the wind farm folks didn’t put up all the money. In fact the government put up most of the money and now the individuals who invested are making huge profits and for what benefit ?
There must be some pretty good battery theories floating around out there for the government to offer $300 mil to win the prize. The government usually doesn’t offer that kind of money unless its within the realm possibility. As I’ve said before this is a very good time to be alive for optimists and people who like gadgetry.
Rashiid Amul #44
I couldn’t agree with you more, necessity is has always been the mother of most invention. Nothing is clearer than the development of arms during a war. WW2 brought us kicking and screaming into the modern world. Global warming and the oil crises will do the same for the automobile.
Look at computers, we probably wouldn’t have them if it were not for the space race.
Automobiles have pretty much stayed the same since the turn of the last century. They still rely on gas driven pistons for power. They are long overdue for a technology upgrade. Just think of the batteries we would have now if we had spent the last 100 years developing the best batteries possible.
Oil exploration can no longer keep up with demand so different technologies are definitely needed. Go McCain and GM.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:26 pm)I’m in favor of something to help the promotion of this technology. As for Obama, he has insisted he’ll throw billions at oil independence.
I guess I’ll believe it when I see it from either candidate, but I would think the Dem candidate would be more willing to subsidize this technology given their record.
My concern is if they do promote these vehicles, and really make a dent in our oil consumption, gas prices will come back down. I really hope a candidate has the courage to stamp a minimum price tax on gasoline as well. It’s the only way we will really reach independence.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:28 pm)I agree with the comments questioning Consumer Reports. I subscribed to CR during much of the 90′s. They always seemed to love Honda/Toyota, and were either apathetic or disparaging towards most everything else. Their bias was usually pretty subtle, but obvious enough if you were looking for it. For example, they would use more positive (yet ambiguous and vague) adjectives to describe Toyotas and Hondas. A Honda/Toyota engine might be “peppy” but a GM engine with the same performance might be “adequate” …. that type of thing. Sometimes they would get nailed on it … for example, CR lost a lawsuit brought on by Isuzu when they did their hatchet-job on the Trooper. The courts found that CR conducted tests on the Trooper (and only the Trooper) that competing vehicles would probably have failed too.
I continued my subscription mainly for the non-auto reviews, but even most of those were always somewhat superficial. Once the web provided more in-depth reviews for free (late 90′s), I cancelled my CR subscription.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:45 pm)Paul-R #60
good comments on CR, thanks. Makes one wonder if someone at CR wasn’t getting paid off
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:48 pm)#55 MGD “There is no denying it… the hydrogen technology is here…”
I have got to disagree. It is not here yet and I do not think it will ever be. The fuel cell in the new Honda costs between $85,000 and
$95,000 just to build. Here is a good article for you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/automotive.usa?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Take Care
Arch
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:51 pm)Statik #54
“Actually I have a story to tell about the general economy, my thoughts and how it is affecting me in a large way. But I’m taking the family out to supper…maybe later.”
Now here is a guy with screwed up priorities in life, he would rather take the family out for din-dins rather than chit-chat about cars. Me-oh-my what is this world coming to. heh-heh
Jun 23rd, 2008 (4:59 pm)To the folks advocating hydrogen, you may not know…
A fuel cell is basically just a hydrogen battery … it stores energy as hydrogen and converts it to electricity. Compared to lithium batteries, fuel cells are much more expensive, they are less efficient, and they are less practical. Fuel cells also require an expensive new infrastructure (to manufacture and distribute hydrogen) that won’t exist for many years (if ever).
Some believe that fuel cells are a just safe way for big-oil (and their supporters) to appear energy diverse while actually maintaining the status quo. Since fuel cells are so impractical, big-oil can safely advocate them. That is also why some refer to fuel cells as “fool cells”.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (5:09 pm)ThombDbhomb #50 says. “It seems that we get more blurts from conservatives/libertarians than from the other side. Maybe not; perhaps I’m more sensitive to those blurts.”
I seem to agree with this statement, although I would go a step further. I think they are all to blame. Reps, Dems, Libs, Cons, the works.
——
“People that complain about government involvement in electrifying the automobile need to consider what jbfalaska has been saying for a long time; the government has spent my money on propogating the petroleum-fuel age. I don’t know how much the government has spent to maintain our oil supply, but I’ll bet it is more than I can spend. ”
I’m with you here as well. The government wastes more freaking money on war and not enough on domestic. We absolutely must get off of oil. Period. If government incentives help, then so be it.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (5:11 pm)EVAPORATIVE emissions often get forgotten.
To qualify for the PZEV emission rating, the fuel tank must be sealed to prevent vapor from escaping. That means either a special pressure system or a bladder as part of the fuel system. Will Volt have this?
Of course, just having an engine on-board cancels the opportunity for a ZEV rating. (Remember, measurements are taken in 15,000 mile units for 100,000 to 150,000 miles of service.)
Jun 23rd, 2008 (5:29 pm)There sure seems to be a lot of errors in this story.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6259238/manufacturing/family-zero-gms-new-four-cylinders-to-be-built-in-flint/index.html
Take Care
Arch
Jun 23rd, 2008 (5:47 pm)It is wonderful that the Presidential race is going at least for a news cycle focus on shifting to domestic energy sources. McCain has said we should build 45 more Nukes, which would provide plenty of power for the increased load PHEV’s will cause.
As someone aptly observed: Waiting for Obama’s response. $7000 per Volt would be perfect, dropping the price from just under $40,000 to about $33,000. And the cost for say 1 million PHEV’s would be $7 billion, small change in our trillion dollar economy.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (5:56 pm)Does this 300 million dollars apply only to American companies? I sure hope so. Just hate to see American companies take a beating from unfair competition.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (5:58 pm)#40 N Riley – I don’t normally agree with tax handouts, but this is an exception. We are basically burning every dollar we send to OPEC. It’s money gone from our economy, period. Inflation is picking up, and our (USA) standards of living slide steadily downward. Rebates to keep US dollars in the US are a sound investment, much better than the “here and gone” recent Bush tax rebates. US dollars are kept here, with every gallon of gas we don’t pump. And THAT is exactly what OPEC is scared of – electric USA-fueled cars.
Now, let’s see how much Obama is willing to offer. “I have 5, do I hear 7 ? Yes, the gentleman for change bids 7. Do I hear 9 ? Nine ? The white haired gentlement bids 9 thousand. Do I hear 11 ? Nine thousand going once, going twice, third and last time ? Sold, to the white haired President for $9 thousand rebate.” So much for being for change. C’mon Barak, the Volt IS change. Let’s support it.
——————————————–
#2 Andrew – Rebate’s for BEV only ? Easy. Just have the Volt dealer rremove the gas tank before the sale, and presto, it’s a BEV. The dealer can install the tank in 15 minutes, after the sale is final. So much for the BEV problem, Mr McCain. (big “Larry the Cable Guy” grin) Git ‘er done !
———————————————
All – Want a range extender ? We have plenty of Natural Gas reserves, coupled with Ethanol, coupled with Hydrogen, coupled with bio-diesel – that’s a lot of energy, let’s use them all. E-flex can do it. Don’t forget thin-film solar panels on every roof. Honda is working on it now – cheap and efficient, using the same tech as printed circuits. All of the above is easier and cheaper than having a Home Depot bought gas power generator running in the back seat of your $100,000.00 Tesla.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:11 pm)A $7,000 tax credit would help, but at $33,000 it would still be a stretch for me. My price point is $30,000 (as of today’s dollars). I’m sure I could come up with the extra $3,000, but I would have to be really impressed to pay $33K for a car. In CA, this would be approximately $37K out the door. I have a Jaguar X-Type and Hummer H3 right now, which I both bought brand new, and neither time did I pay more than $30K out the door.
I seem to recall Toyota restricting their dealers from adding a dealer mark-up on the Prius. I hope GM has the guts to do this with their dealers as well. Otherwise, the early adopter will easily end up paying an additional $5K – $10K.
To all future posters: Please provide your price point for purchasing the Volt. Hopefully, GM is monitoring this sight and they will listen to their potential customers. For me, it’s got to be near $30K otherwise, I’ll be looking into the next generation Prius. Quite sad, since I’ve been a loyal domestic car owner for 30 years!!
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:12 pm)I thin you guy’s will like this comment. Why doesn’t EESTOR just show everybody what they have and take the 300 million. lol
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:21 pm)Why would the government be interested in getting off oil? Who do you think is paying to get these folks elected? They are likely to support spending money on research into the improbable (Hydrogen) or better yet incentives to big oil to build refineries they haven’t built or do exploration for new oil which they have done a little of and then cry “tax increase” if someone suggests we could stop paying big oil these incentives. This situation is too perfect for oil. They can charge what ever the market will bear, blame it on the Chinese and Indian increased consumption and spend nothing for infrastructure but reap record profits. Have you really noticed any shortage?
By the time the Volt hits the dealers the dollar will be so devaluated by all the money we are printing to finance the war in Iraq that it will be cheap at $40k. If they are only making 10,000 they will sell them.
The second generation 20 mile electric version at $20k will sell like hotcakes and because of the numbers will save more oil than the first generation. I will get one and save two of the three gallons a day I burn driving to work and back, and buy one for my wife who drives more than I do (if they use A123 batteries or something newer and energy dense that is inherently safe from starting a fire).
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:31 pm)A $300 million prize is a bad idea.
The object of a prize is to spur development in the absence of a clear market. For example, Google offers a $30 million prize to put a robot rover on the moon.
In the case of battery electric cars, there is already a clear market. If someone could invent an electric car battery that was a game changer, then $300 million would be relatively small compared to the profit on selling the batteries themselves.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:33 pm)Just as I suspected, GM is playing games with the price of the Volt in order to get more money from tax payers.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:33 pm)ED M #63. That was hilarious .
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:38 pm)The original Model A Ford cost about $700 when the average salary was well under $5 / day. People made huge sacrifices to be able to buy this new technology. It must have taken a kazillion years to pay for it back then. The average home back then cost less than $2000. Are any of you getting my point ? I’m sure Kent #71 could afford a Volt but won’t cut back on his beer habit. Just kidding Kent. Homes are a lot more pricey these days than 3 times the price of a Volt. It just seems to me that no one is willing to sacrifice a little to buy a Volt.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:42 pm)I think GM could produce a undependable piece of crap that’s battery powered for $25k but I for one would not buy it. I’m willing to go the extra $10k or $15k for a quality product.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (6:52 pm)#55,
MGD says, “… so to make a hasty comment like #49… well just sounds uneducated on the topic… ”
Gosh MGD, I didn’t really say much of anything when I said, “Statik. #45 MGD brings up an interesting topic that I know you would love. Be sure to read and respond.
”
I don’t know why you think I’m uneducated from THAT statement.
But hey, I’ve been called worse. But while we are on the topic of me being uneducated (I have a degree in IT) let me add some fuel to the fire with my thoughts about Hydrogen.
It is a total crock. HUGE waste of money. It is not here, won’t be here for years to come. Where can I buy it now? No where.
It is very expensive, both the fuel cell and the making of H.
Where as I have a plug in my garage and can charge the battery at any time. Electricity is ubiquitous. Hydrogen fueling stations are not.
Battery technology is what we need to improve upon. Not H.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:05 pm)I read somewhere that ex-CIA chief turned green technology venture capital guy, Jim Woolsey, is advising McCain in his campaign this year. This is good. Maybe he’s having a positive influence on McCain when they get together to talk about energy policies. McCain will be a big player in Washington even if he doesn’t win the White House in November.
We need support from BOTH sides of the political aisle in order to get plug-in hybrids like the Volt on the road as soon as possible. Woolsey is a huge supporter of plug-in hybrids for reasons of energy independence and the military implications of our oil addiction. Gas prices and the environment too. He has a bumper sticker on his plug-in Prius that says “Bin Laden hates this car”.
He also has batteries in his basement and solar panels on his roof, so he’s got the the “green street cred”. He walks his talk. That actor Ed Begley in California with the green technology TV show would approve of him. I bet he’ll be an early buyer of a Volt once it comes out.
If you haven’t already seen it, he gave a really good speech at the Brookings/Google.org Plug-In Conference a few weeks ago. There’s a lot of video for people to watch if they are just learning about plug-in hybrids and the issues around it. GM-North America President Troy Clarke gave a good speech about the Volt in one of the videos.
http://www.stefanoparis.com/piaev/WhyWeNeedPlugIns/2008.06.11PlugInConference/2008.06.11PlugInConference.html
We need all the incentives we can get like this $300 million X prize type thing to make sure that plug in hybrids get a very strong foothold in the car industry and STAY that way … even if gas prices go down … which is pretty unlikely the way China and India keep growing like crazy.
As a future Volt owner, I’d definitely prefer the $7,000 tax credit. People should realize that the Volt has benefits not only for the Volt owner by saving him/her on gas but it also has a lot of benefits for SOCIETY. That should justify a generous tax credit shouldn’t it?
Early Volt owners should be congratulated for doing their part to help with our oil addiction. The Volt will help a lot with global warming and it will be a “demand destruction” kind of car that will help bring down the prices of gas since it REPLACES gasoline with electricity. Some Volt owners will only fill up 4-5 times per YEAR instead of 24-30 times with our current gas guzzlers.
We need to work hard on destroying DEMAND for gasoline and diesel. Hopefully, it destroys it completely in about 20 years or so.
That’s what Big Oil and OPEC are REALLY afraid of. They want to keep us addicted to oil JUST enough so that we don’t all go to hybrids like the Volt by the million. They don’t want prices to get TOO high. Unfortunately for OPEC and Big Oil … it’s TOO LATE.
Electric cars are coming and they’re going to be here to stay. Just like Bob Lutz said in his YouTube video the other day, lithium ion batteries are likely to go down dramatically once the R&D expenses are covered and the big factories get built. There should be pretty good competition for automotive batteries. That leads to more innovation and reasonable prices. Exxon Mobil better be getting into the lithium ion battery industry like they CLAIM they are doing on their “feel good about us oil companies” commercials.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:09 pm)#44 Rashiid Amul:
I totally agree with you on no more drilling. Thank you for your courage in continually driving that point home here.
I was taught in Sunday School that God created the Earth, and all of the plants and creatures thereupon, in 6 days. On the 7th day He rested, and He saw that it was good.
I have come to the conclusion that, when man finally destroys one too many of God’s animals or plants, or desecrates one too many of His beautiful places of Creation, that God may decide that even He can make a mistake, and do away with man once and for all.
To drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to prolong our unsustainable lifestyle for a few more months, is to massively increase that risk, IMHO. Ditto for our beautiful and irreplaceable coastlines.
As God supposedly told Noah, “This time it’s the water, it’s the fire next time.” Could that be a nuclear exchange triggered by one too many oil wars? Can it be global warming? Whether or not anyone believes this stuff literally, or only sees it as a parable, it is a cautionary tale, IMHO.
So amen to you Rashiid, my dear friend. Whatever happens, you will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you were on the side of the angels. Maybe Nemesis will let you cross over the river. I would think so.
#47 Guy Incognito:
God’s honest truth, every word of it. You are a good man, and I honor you for it.
What does all of this have to do with federal tax credits for the Volt? Only everything.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:12 pm)Noel, I am truly humbled by your words. Thank you, my friend.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:13 pm)Ok, back to my story on the economy and how it is affecting me. (Side note: Dinner was lovely, I had the sirloin, with 3 cheese baked potato and a side of mushrooms–love those with my steak)
As many of you know, I’m not all that positive on the economy, or GM’s representational portion of that pie. To that end I have adjusted my portfolio to a mostly cash with a small portion of high yield guaranteed papers (about 95%), with 5% still in equities. I’ve stated this position before…also not news.
However, as I examined my position the last month or so, I have come to realize that the asset I have worked most at, the one I have feverishly pay off, my home, is under considerable risk.
I live in Canada, so up until this point we have not shared in the downtown like our neighbours to the south. As a matter of fact we have had high single digit to double digit growth for the last 6-7 years…until recently, for May the housing market was only up 5% (average Canadian house was $314,000 vs $299,000), still not bad right? The curve however is dropping quickly.
I live within 50 miles of the GM Oshawa Truck plant, so maybe I can see the wave coming quicker than most. So this week I put my house on the market. Now let me be clear, I love my house, I could very well stay where I am am not be affected by the downturn (except for the depreciateing value on my property). I have flipped in and out of houses all along the way…but this one was to be ‘the last one,’ sadly the pressure to ‘cash’ out and put my equity into something with a nice guaranteed yield has become greater than staying in my house.
My neighbour down the road was not so lucky, he bought the most expensive house in the most expensive subdivision, then proceeded to drop 150K in options into it…just to find out his job had been transferred away. Now he has left, but too bad for him, he still owns it, it is now available to be rented for about double in what I pay in taxes.
I guess the moral of the story is, regardless of your opinion of myself, or where you think the economy is going, it is always worth taking a second look at where you are right now, and where you are headed.
Do you have cash in the bank? Do you have equities? How secure are they? Do they have a good currency asset mix? Do you have equity in your home now? If so, how much? If the economy continues like this for another year how much will it be? Or two years? Are you OK with that?
Everyone will have different answers and solutions to this economy. Some will change their investments, some will get out of the housing market. Some will try to ride it out where they are. Some will take a major hit, some are taking one now. Unfortunately for others, they will lose it all…some already have.
Hopefully in a few weeks I will be 100% liquid, and having my equity working for me as hard as it can, as safely as it can. That is my solution, that is my comfort zone.
At first I was bummed to sell, I won’t lie, putting the sign on the lawn was tough, this was where I was going to spend the next 30 years. But now, I couldn’t be more excited to be 100% bulletproof. Maybe in 5 years, I’ll buy it back for half price.
Cheers, and good luck.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:23 pm)#79 Rashiid
The hydrogen debate has given you another vicious intenet lashing papercut wound.
You know I’m with you on the hydrogen. I only want real world answers…right now. For me that is electric and solar. For others it may be something else…but thats what I’m putting my wagon behind, nothing else.
My motto is, “I make the power, I use the power” Anything that doesn’t fit in that mold isn’t good enough.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:31 pm)I wonder where the state and federal gas tax will shift as cars move away from gasoline. The gov isn’t going to give it up that easy.
Statik: The only reason I am down on hydrogen (excluding the fact that it’s not practical at this time) is that only the oil companies can afford the infrastructure costs. I want them to be the last one’s we turn to for power. Make them stick with crude oil only. They’ve had their chance to help out and didn’t. I know it’s not their job to help.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:36 pm)Statik, It is sad, but perhaps you can seek comfort in knowing that you are not alone.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:37 pm)Here comes Santa Claus,
Here comes Santa Claus,
Right down Santa Claus lane.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:44 pm)Statik, #84. We are 100% in agreement.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:53 pm)Statik #83
I’m not sure that you’ve done the right thing by putting your house up for sale because the housing market is up and down regardless of the economy, and prices generally boil down to the law of supply vs demand. Right now your anxious to sell because you anticipate a lesser demand over the next 5 years. There’s others also in your position and that could mean an abundance of property for sale in the near future and you may not get your price with the looming plant closure. In 5 years the demand could significantly tighten and owners tend to hang onto houses when the prices are going up. If the price goes up too much then you’ll be priced out of the market.
In my area back in 1991, I had a friend that was so sure that the housing market was crashing, he sold his house at a nice tidy profit and was willing to sit out the pending downturn until the market hit bottom, then he was going to buy back in at a much lower price than he had sold.
The problem was the market didn’t go down much and then quickly rebounded before he could buy back in. His house is now about 6 times the value he sold it for and he’s stuck renting.
Moral of the story, don’t believe everything you read in the papers about the economy.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (7:55 pm)Fuel cells cost $70 – 80K apiece, and they’re the most highly developed part of the “hydrogen economy.” If you’re not stripping CO2 from Natural Gas, you’re turning electricity into hydrogen by splitting water — much less efficient than charging a battery.
There are some things that will never run on batteries (airplanes), and some things that only hydrogen can fuel (hypersonic airplanes), or which very few other things can fuel (spacecraft). Except for spacecraft, there’s nothing really compelling to develop hydrogen for, at this point; unless some aviation company/agency decides to take some unlikely steps.
There needs to be another way to make hydrogen. Plants do it with photosynthesis, it’s tempting to think something similar could be developed artificially — but it would have to compete with improving PV technology. A source of heat high enough would spontaneously split water — and ordinary steam-to-turbine electric power could be a co-generation scheme: but concentrated energy is difficult to arrange.
There needs to be better ways to store/deliver hydrogen. I won’t even go there, I’m sure there are others who can press that argument.
This is why I say that, except for niche applications, Hydrogen won’t be relevent for 50 years at the earliest. It is for a world drenched in energy from fusion / polywell reactors, orbiting solar power stations, extensive nuclear power from Thorium, or who-knows-what which might be invented: needing only a lightweight, environmentally friendly way to make it portable. That world is decades (maybe a century) away.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (8:20 pm)#3 Dale
#17 N Riley
I did a little checking on the Obama web site. He does have an energy and environment position (see http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy). It doesn’t sound anything like, “its too late to start now, so let’s not do anything.” It does sound like campaign promises. Like Rashiid Amul suggested in #65, we’ll see what the big democracy sausage tastes like after everybody adds their ingredients. I hope we all make something palatable.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (8:22 pm)If you follow the legislation, you will find that H.R. 6049 contains a significant tax credit for plug-in hybrids, but also has a s—load of other credits, many of which are a bit tough to swallow. What McCain is doing is just politics….trying to get out in front of the wave of support for PHEV’s without commiting to legislation.
He should be in front of cameras telling the Senate to support H.R. 6049 and get the show on the road! Pass it now !!! I hear a lot of complaints about the “do nothing” congress, but they have delivered a good bill to the Senate and it’s languishing there.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (8:32 pm)At the risk of turning this blog political (which I do not like), I have to say McCain at least understands tax credits are needed–and he’s willing to put the people’s money where his mouth is–in terminating our dependence on foreign oil. He has my vote… We just need to make sure it isn’t lip service.
Lord help us.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (8:35 pm)#83 Statik
I am sorry to hear what you have said. IMHO you have to make a stand somewhere. Something has to be your base. I bought my 100 acre farm in 1970. The energy prices killed the value of the farm in the 70s. Now the game has changed. Land I paid $500 an acre for is worth $5000 an acre. I do not know what has happened to city prices so I could be all wet here. I am just glad I made my stand here.
Take Care
Arch
Jun 23rd, 2008 (8:44 pm)why is it the government’s role to redistribute our tax dollars to automobile corporations who cannot sell products that the public wants to buy at a price we can afford them? and make no mistake–even though the tax gets credited to you, the money for the sale is credited to GM, whereas without the tax credit, GM makes no sale… if you MUST use public money for this sort of thing, why not put it all towards battery technology research?
Jun 23rd, 2008 (8:54 pm)Well that seals the deal. John McCain got my Vote.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (9:09 pm)For the curious –
Obama’s plan
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/us_senators_int.html
introduced A YEAR AGO but did not get into the final energy bill.
” *
A tax credit for consumers who purchase plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Freedom Plug-in Credits would cover the consumer purchase of vehicles which use batteries and which plug into the electric grid for at least part of their power. This would include plug-in electrics, plug-in hybrids, and others.
The amount of the credit is a $2,000 base plus $400 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery pack capacity in excess of 2.5 kWh, with a cap of $7,500 for passenger vehicles of up to 10,000 pounds. A GEM (gasoline-ethanol-methanol) flex-fuel plug-in or a plug-in vehicle warranted by its manufacturer to run on biodiesel receives an extra $150. The same is true for heavier duty vehicles, except that the caps are scaled up for each vehicle weight class and range from $10,000 to $20,000.
*
A tax credit through the end of 2010, for consumers who convert their existing hybrid electric vehicles to high quality plug-in hybrid vehicles. The credit is either the amount calculated as above (with a $4,000 cap), or 50% of the cost of the conversion pack, whichever is less. Only kits that are of a standard configuration, mass-produced, and certified by NHTSA would qualify for a Freedom Conversion Credit.
*
First-year expensing for the US manufacture of plug-in vehicles and of major components of plug-in vehicles, such as batteries, electric motors, and electronic controllers; and
*
A tax credit for electric utilities that provide rebates to customers who buy plug-in vehicles. The amount of the government reimbursement would be based on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions for each utility.”
Sounds like McCain is cribbing some. The credit idea from Obama and the X-prize model from Newt.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (9:29 pm)I know this will never be accepted and may not be lawful, but there should be a “silent” tax incentive. The bill should be to create an incentive program geared to accellerate the proliferation of plug-in electric vehicles. The goal should be one milion annual production of qualifying plug-ins with 10KWh or more of stored energy from external eletrical source. The bill will provide a table of energy storage capacity incentive levels. In the beginning of each year, there should be a blind congressional vote for what the incentives will be for each incentive. The actual incentive amounts for each level will be an average of the votes for that level. The results of the vote are to be sealed until Feb. 15 of the following year. This will continue each year until one million qualifying plug-ins are sold in the previous year.
This will pressure the manufacturers to keep the prices a low as possible, thereby guiding more of the incentive to the taxpaying consumer. Downside is that the consumer doesn’t know for sure what the incentive will be at the time of purchase.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (9:35 pm)#92 Dave B
Your comment was blatantly partisan (i.e., political); both candidates are on record as understanding that tax credits are needed. If you don’t want to turn this blog political, then don’t submit propaganda.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (9:48 pm)60. Paul-R,
The CR/Isuzu incident is often taken out of context by those who are out to discredit CR. CR found that the trooper performed so poorly on their avoidance tests that they tested it further and made some statements that cost some people a lot of money. Perhaps they went too far, but I am glad they didn’t say “hmmm… it tipped up on two wheels, whatever”.
What is more interesting is that a company which is so often accused of bias in favour of the Japanese apparently went after a Japanese company in this way. The only SUV’s to receive a “not acceptable” rating from CR are Japanese.
To everyone else who claims CR is biased… I had a math teacher that kept claiming that 1+1=2. While it is possible he was biased in favour of 2, it is also possible that 1+1 really did equal 2. As someone who grew up with American cars and gave up way too many too much sleep to take them to the dealerships, I am more than happy to own a couple of trouble-free Japanese products. In my experience CR is spot on, and that includes when they single out problems with Japanese products.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (9:59 pm)Is this a refundable or non-refundable tax credit? Is it one time only?
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:05 pm)Rashiid # 44
“N. Riley, #40. I respectfully disagree. We should not drill now, drill everywhere. We should not drill for more of our own oil reserves.
I believe this approach only keeps us hooked to oil longer”
*** **** ****
Rashiid just when I think you’re full of sense I realize you’re chock full of it! Let the price of crude rise as it will. In the LONG RUN this will be the best thing that ever happened. Short run will not be pretty, we’ll all suffer in our own way. In the Long Run what needs to be done will BE DONE and that’s how we’ve always responded to adversity. The Volt will be produced and E-Flex will proliferate, just expect OPEC to play games by artificially lowering price when it feels the threat.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:09 pm)IMO, E-Flex is global and every E-Flex global consumer should share the cost of the E-Flex battery (not the American taxpayer).
If not, then maybe the French will pitch in with a tax credit of their own ? Hmmm…
__________________________________________
Dinner: Frito Pie and a side of Cheesy Tots
House: Staying put for 30 years @ 4.5%
Investment Portfolio Allocation: 80% cash 20% Real Estate
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:14 pm)If anybody watched all of the Bob Lutz dinner videos, you may recall the amount of direct labor in a conventional automotive battery – 4 minutes!
This is a result of the high degree of automation that is used in the manufacturing process. The goal is to utilize this same degree of automation with Li-Ion batteries. However, this will require a large investment in a new manufacturing facility.
Thus, the US government introduces the $300 million “prize”. In essence, this is a rebate to a battery manufacturer who takes the risk to build a high volume production facility that will drastically reduce the cost of the batteries for E-REV’s and BEV’s.
Couple this with a $5000 dollar rebate for new Volts, and we could be looking at a significant jump start for EV’s.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:19 pm)Doesn’t surprise me that every politician would want to be on board of this for ostensible reasons. The biggest questions are what specifically qualifies as an ZEV?
Our congress is so corrupt and owned by lobby that we have to take this with a grain of salt. It’s been mentioned on this site that the hurdles to producing the Volt are tremendous. I agree, and want to warn the public that it just may be that GM will have to go this one alone. Sad as it is, we can’t count on our representatives to do the RIGHT thing. The silver lining is that ultimately the will of the people will prevail, but it will take persistence.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:24 pm)I mentioned this in another thread regarding tax incentives… if there is going to be one… it should be based not on battery size, but EV only range. Otherwise we’re going to see the biggest tax credits on big SUV’s that may have gaint battery capacity, but only gets 10 miles range due to it’s bulk and high drag coefficient.
And if not based on range, then the Volt, nor any other vehicle, should get a tax credit for battery capacity that it doesn’t use. Ie. the Volt may have a 16kwh battery pack, but it’s only using 8kwh of that. Ie. the Volt should NOT get the same tax credit as another battery EV that also has a 16kwh pack, and actually uses more of it’s capacity (and hopefully meaning it also has a bigger battery EV only range).
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:32 pm)Although we have talked about options for the Volt like solar panels, navigation screens, V2G, and even ejection seats (wanted by NZDavid for his daughter’s loser boyfriend), I foresee other options for Volt 1.0, especially since most will go to California.
As this article states:
“Los Angeles seeing more people living out of their cars”
http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20080623/485f1fc0_3421_1334520080623-178919643
So now we can see GM adding options like a refrigerator, plasma screen TV, Direct TV antenna, multiple convenience outlets, toaster ovens, full curtain set, etc.
Think of the Marketing potential – “With the money you save in rent, you could purchase a new Volt”.
I’m sure the solar blankets would also be a big hit! See, we aren’t just changing the world’s transportation habits, we are revolutionizing the way the world lives!
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:48 pm)#47 Guy Incognito
I couldn’t of said it better myself. Buy a car that gets 10mpg and we’ll give you credits up to 100K (pretty much the full price).
Buy a car that has more upside than imaginable in our current fuel climate and we’ll give you 5K.
Buy a car that will help to preserve the enviroment for our children 5K.
Buy a car that will be a total 180 of what you are use to from almost every aspect of an automobile, except the steering and braking 5K.
Buy a car that will definitley reduce the amount of our defense budget because it will almost eliminate the oil highway, and our need to defend it 5K.
Buy a car that has the possibility of saving the american automotive industry 5K.
Buy a car that will help our economy because consumers won’t be so broke from fuel cost rising 5K.
I can’t even list the things our government spends 5K on each day and that’s what we get. I would feel better if they (pretty much the entire administration) had enough principal, and common decency to say ” we want you to keep burning gas, it’s profitable for us, we know there’s a million reasons why we should stop but were making a boat load of cash. And hey were in charge and you elected us.” If Americans weren’t so brainwashed and lied to constantly we would be able to identify our enemies and act accordingly.
To me this is just another sign that almost everyone in a position of power (govt/big oil/defense contractors/etc.) except GM (the automaker who makes their money on the car) will do everything to make it as hard as possible to get off oil.
I love this country, and this is hard to even say, but were living in embarrising times, it’s hard to feel proud.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (10:59 pm)To keep it fair the credits need to be computed on actual performance. A simple formula like:
Miles driven on non carbon fuel
————————————— = Score
Real cost to fill up the “tank”
This puts full battery electric cars out in front. Hydrogen would do better than the Volt but looses because of the high fuel cost. Since the Volt can only go 40 miles It’s score is kind of low.
I say real cost to fill up the tank because hydrogen is heavily subsidized. The actual cost to produce and distribute the fuel will be a lot higher than gas when the station owner has to actually pay for the equipment. As station that cost over $1.2 million that can only supply 8-10 cars a day sounds pretty expensive to me.
Jun 23rd, 2008 (11:06 pm)_____________________________________________________
How about an EV tax credit for those Caddy lovers?
CHEVROLET-VOLT in 2010.
CADILLAC-VOLT in 2010?
We know that the Chevy VOLT is a high profile 2010 GM product launch but is GM stealthily working on a 2nd EREV 2010 product launch? How about a 100mpg+ EREV Cadillac using the VOLT componetry? After watching the below Lutz interview video clip, I would wager that there is a GM engineering team working on just that. Lutz and his GM associate acted like the cat that got the yellow bird when the subject came up. Most of the development work would be in-common with the Chevy VOLT project. Therefore, in theory, it would not be much of an added stretch to extend the 2010 Chevy-VOLT launch to also include a limited 2010 Cadillac-VOLT launch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1N2Ir64yNs&feature=user
———————-
Following the above line of very speculative logic, perhaps the VOLT branding will become a suffix branding designation to the entire GM portfolio line?
CHEVROLET-VOLT
CADILLAC-VOLT
BUICK-VOLT
PONTIAC-VOLT
GMC-VOLT
SATURN-VOLT
HUMMER-VOLT (?)
Would it be possible for GM Marketing to apply KISS (wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle ) to the VOLT technology platform? Never mind…that would be way too easy.
_____________________________________________________
Jun 23rd, 2008 (11:28 pm)GXT, I just wanted to clarify regarding CR…
I didn’t say they were pro-Japanese, I said they were pro Toyota/Honda. In the 90′s, they seemed generally less thrilled with the other Japanese makes.
As for Isuzu being a Japanese company, they were partially owned by GM at the time of the CR Isuzu story. GM owned 49% of Isuze shortly thereafter. Today Toyota and Mitsubishi own the biggest chunks of Isuzu.
My analysis of CR is based on reading that mag in the 90′s, so i haven’t read CR in about ten years. So I can only debate the CR of the 90′s. Regardless, one cannot debate that CR was found guilty in a court of law for deliberately targeting Isuzu. Granted the U.S. court system is far from perfect … heck look at the OJ trial. But I think it’s safe to say that if CR was really as unbiased as they claim (not accepting advertising and all that), then they would have been found innocent. After all, CR is in business to sell magazines, and a dramatic controversial cover story definitely helps do that.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:57 am)Statik 82:
It sounds like your house was already paid for. Why sell it, risking that you can’t afford to get back into the real estate market if there is an unexpected upswing?
What did you have to lose? It’s not like SUVs as of late where people are trading them in for less than what they owe on them. I’ve also heard stories from other doom and gloom know-it alls who were convinced that the housing market was going to take a dump, so they sold their house, the market shot up, and now they can’t afford to buy again.
Bad move.
Jun 24th, 2008 (4:11 am)#107 JonP – Oh boy ! You’re on trouble with Thomb now.
To quote #98 ThombDbhomb “Your comment was blatantly partisan (i.e., political); both candidates are on record as understanding that tax credits are needed. If you don’t want to turn this blog political, then don’t submit propaganda.”
Oh, wait – no, no, no, no, I forgot, that only applies if you’re FOR McCain. I guess if you’re against the current administration, the Thomb doesn’t have a problem with that. Just McCain. Otherwise, he would have already posted the above partisan charges against you, not just #92 Dave B. I guess you’re not being partisan and spreading propaganda, after all. My mistake.
————————————————————–
Hence the danger of self-appointed censors.
Jun 24th, 2008 (4:19 am)Hold On everyone. A tax CREDIT is NOT the same a rebate. A 5000 (or 7000) dollar tax credit is a value that is deducted from your taxable income. This reduces the total amount of tax that you will pay on your income, but it doesn’t come anywhere close to being 5000 dollars (or whatever the tax credit is set at). A rebate on the other hand is deducted or paid back to you at exactly the dollar amount specified (so a 5000 dollar REBATE would actually lower the price of the vehicle by 5000 dollars). McCain quite clearly indicated a 5000 dollar CREDIT.
Jun 24th, 2008 (5:50 am)A tax credit is the same as if you had paid the IRS that same amount through payroll deduction or whatever. If you are getting a refund for that year, the $5,000 would be in addition to your regular refund. If you owe the IRS money for that year, the amount you owed would be deducted from the $5,000 and you would receive the remander as your refund. It is not the same as a rebate from Chevrolet, which could be deducted instantly from the purchase price. I don’t think one could use the $5,000 as a down payment, as one wouldn’t actually collect the money until after they filed their income taxes the following year.
Jun 24th, 2008 (5:59 am)A tax credit is not the same as a tax deduction.
A tax credit is generally more valuable than a tax deduction or tax allowance of the same magnitude because a tax credit reduces tax directly, while a deduction or allowance only reduces taxable income and so the reduction in tax is only a fraction (the marginal tax rate) of the deduction or allowance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit
Jun 24th, 2008 (6:08 am)#82 Statik You recall that I am sometimes accused of being your clone, and it is true that we share certain attitudes. Therefore, it is with greatest respect that I think you are making a mistake in selling your home, assuming that it is substantially or entirely paid for. As you are well aware, there is the risk of the market price of your home going down. On the other side, there is the risk of a highly inflationary period, during which all real assets rapidly increase in price.
The fact is, we don’t know what the future holds, so one is better advised to have eggs in more than one basket. Your home is a good basket, because you get a value from it every day that you live there. It also provides you with a home base from which to think great thoughts and make great plans. Maybe you should think again, and keep it.
Jun 24th, 2008 (7:12 am)#31 Tim says “Both parties REFUSE to defend our boarders against the “Invasion of the Government Handout Snatchers” which according to the US Constitution is the ONLY thing they are SUPPOSED to be doing.”
===========
Tim,
Keep that border thing on the “down low” you don’t want to give Statik any ideas.
Jun 24th, 2008 (7:18 am)The tax credit would be a big incentive for people and corporations to buy the Volt and get us a step closer to enegry independence.
Remember the tax credit on large vehicles that the Hummer, Big SUV’s and Pickups fell under?
Our government in action… Things that make you go hummmmm…
Jun 24th, 2008 (7:32 am)# 111 Gary
“It sounds like your house was already paid for. Why sell it, risking that you can’t afford to get back into the real estate market if there is an unexpected upswing? Bad Move.”
And also in reference to:
#83 Arch
#115 RB
I hear what you guys are saying, and I think it gets touched on by RB, somewhat. From my situation, I am not a young adult that has been renting for 6-7 years and is afraid that if I don’t get into the market, it will leave me behind.
The basis for ‘you better get into the housing market’ is off the principal of borrowing to get it. If you buy a house at 200K, and you borrow 190K, then after 10 years, your house is worth 275,000 and you only owe 150K, presto, 125K in your pocket (well after paying 70K in interest–55,000 net, but you’ve had somewhere to live…you have to factor in tazes too, but…well y’know).
When people say “you better get into the market or it will leave you behind” are talking to people not with a big pile of cash, they are talking to people that have little cash and are going to borrow to get on the ladder. If a person has 20K, that is useless in the big picture (whats the interest on 20K), but if that gets them a $200,000 mortgage that they scrimp to pay off…that gets them on the ladder (200K+appreciation). They are leveraging themselves.
However, as RB alluded to, my situation is somewhat different. I own my house, big difference. Let’s say I clear 500K for my house, I’m pretty confident I can get a mixed-secured yield of around 5-6%, so I make about 25-30K/year for when I’m not in the house, cumulatively. Inflation means nothing to me, as I can match that curve on my securities.
Side note: I’ll not rent actually, I was just throwing out my neighbour as a example of ‘what happens.’ I’m going to ‘buy’ a 2,000 sq footer just outside of town and take advantage of low interest rates and get a 4.15 mortgage on it. (costing will be all of $600/mth, $200 less than I pay in taxes now).
I’ll set up a seperate trading account, plunk it in there…and consider that still ‘my house’. To me, by making this move, I’ve got a guaranteed appreciation…and still own a house on the side (albeit smaller) that to my wallet (factoring in my saved tax bill) is free.
Principal:500,000@6% (and it will curve to match inflation, if any)
Yr 1 :530,000
Yr 2: 562,000
Yr 3: 595,000
Yr 4: 631,000
Yr 5: 670,000
I have thought this through pretty well. I don’t really see how it doesn’t work out. Conversely, if the market is flat or down (which is the direction it is trending), I make a massive leap forward, partly because of the devaluing of the house versus my savings and partly because of me willingly choosing a ‘lessor’ lifestyle temporarily.
Jun 24th, 2008 (7:37 am)Grizzly # 101 says, “Rashiid just when I think you’re full of sense I realize you’re chock full of it!”
Grizzly, With this statement, it is hard for me to say whether we agree or disagree.
Drilling is the wrong thing to do. Providing more oil is the wrong thing to do. We must get off of this stuff. We must kick the addiction.
N.Riley wants to drill more. I just disagree with that strategy.
Jun 24th, 2008 (7:45 am)This is how the rebates should work…
$5,000 for Chevy Volt (6K would be nice)
$7,500 if it is equipped with photovoltic recharging system
$15,000 if purchased in conjunction with a solar photovoltic system for one’s home or business capable of re-charging the Volt.
Jun 24th, 2008 (7:50 am)119 Rashiid:
Disagree. We will need to drill it eventually. People always forget. Oil is dead useful stuff! Long chains of hydrocarbons are used in a variety of industrial processes.
Removing the whole burning it in automobiles and as a heating source doesn’t remove the demand from the plastic and various other industries.
Jun 24th, 2008 (8:37 am)Statik @ #82 You are the first person that I have ever heard of who believes that their best financial choice is to sell their real estate, divert 95% of their wealth away from stocks, and bet the house on cash and cash equivalents. I’m sure that you know more about personal investing than I do. But there is a sign above my favorite bar. It reads, “Don’t believe everything you think.” I think that you may be out-smarting yourself.
Jun 24th, 2008 (8:45 am)Morgan, 121, I agree that we can’t remove it completely yet.
Oil is an integral part of our daily lives (transportation and heating not withstanding). But transportation and heating are such a huge part of it, demand will drop significantly when we stop using it for such things.
That is why I think drilling for more (which won’t make it to the market for years anyway) is a foolish idea. There is enough oil for the other stuff. We need to be rid of it from a transportation / heating perspective.
Jun 24th, 2008 (8:47 am)McCain and his $300mil piddling ‘reward’ = PANDERING
(but at least its something)
Depending on the US Government for handouts = DELUSIONAL
(but something is better than nothing)
Drilling domesitcally = DIVERSIONARY
(but can we promise to keep pushing alternatives if we do? or better yet promise to restrict ALL domestic oil from being used for transportation purposes so we can at least get more cars like the Volt on the roads)
Jun 24th, 2008 (9:01 am)DRILL HERE… DRILL NOW.. PAY LESS…
America needs to drill and use our natural resources. Here is my EVIL plan:
1 – We drill and produce all the oil we need and surplus to sell to China to offset the trade imbalance.
2 – All cars use another enegry source other than gasoline and we sell more oil to China to offset the trade imbalance.
3 – We quit sending money to people who would rather kill us.
4 – We run this country like a business instead of a welfare state.
Jun 24th, 2008 (9:13 am)(Everybody else, please ignore the following. I’ve got a bully to deal with…)
#112 Terry K
I agree with the points made by #107 JonP. Saying he was in trouble with me seems presumptuous and illogical. You went off irrationally again. You would be more credible if you made sense. I have some advice that may help you get your message out; petulant irrationality turns people off.
You have a semi-informed, rancorous attack dog style, which is a classic conservative approach exemplified by the likes of Joe Pyne, Morton Downey, Jr., Wally George, Jerry Springer, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage… You pattern yourself after those sad models. You are not happy and have something missing in your life. You should look outside your comfort zone if you wish to grow into a decent human being. I have noticed some cogent thoughts from you, here and there. You have the potential to be more than a tiresome ranter. Try to develop that and get rid of your anger. It is eating up your life.
Also, what is this “self-appointed censor” thing? You’ve tried that one before. You came out looking hypocritical. We can go into that again if you like. We should do this privately. Log into the forum, look me up, and send me a private message.
Jun 24th, 2008 (9:18 am)#122 MarkinWI
“Statik @ #82 You are the first person that I have ever heard of who believes that their best financial choice is to sell their real estate, divert 95% of their wealth away from stocks, and bet the house on cash and cash equivalents. I’m sure that you know more about personal investing than I do. But there is a sign above my favorite bar. It reads, “Don’t believe everything you think.” I think that you may be out-smarting yourself.”
The nice thing about it is…if I change my mind, I can be back in anything I want in mere hours.
I may be wrong. Like all things, they have risk.
For myself personally, I don’t see my house going up in value by 30K this year, or the next. Open rates in Canada are at 4.15%. Rates are certainly trending upwards again now…I just don’t see how people can afford more house if the rate goes up 50% (6ish percent).
Maybe I just don’t see how a person making $50K should be in a $400,000 home, it just ‘feels’ wrong. Like something we will look back on and say, “what the heck?” (Nasdaq 5,000 anyone?)
Certainly in my area with the local GM workforce going from 15K to 5K in a matter of a few years…thats 10,000 jobs @50K+ going away. The region only has 300,000 people…thats a big hit considering average household is 3.5 people…35,000 of those 300,000 just got hammered.
Although they got nice buyouts, Iine workers can’t replace those jobs, I doubt they are going out and buying 500,000 houses, more likely is, come Fall of 2009, they will be selling. I think this scenario, or scenarios like it are happening in a lot of places.
Time will tell. If the market gets stronger, I will certainly move my asset mix to stay inline.
Jun 24th, 2008 (9:32 am)Today:
“U.S. home prices extended their record slide in April, with every top metropolitan area now posting annual losses and many showing double-digit declines, according to the Standard & Poor’s/Case Shiller home price index reporton Tuesday”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25342498
The S&P/Case Shiller composite index of 20 metro areas fell 1.4 percent in April from March and slumped by a record 15.3 percent over the year.
15.3%? I just don’t understand if you own your house how you can put up with this? How can you live with the drain? Housing market isn’t like the price of oil. It moves in a steady, sustained direction.
I understand real estate is a good investment all too well, I’ve made good money flipping in and out of houses. But there is something else entirely going on here. Why not get the heck out of Dodge and come back when the market posts it’s first year over year upswing?
(I realize if everyone thought that way what would happen, btw. But for many, there is no equity, or little to make this possible).
Jun 24th, 2008 (9:45 am)It IS the federal governments job to fight and win wars for (and with)us, the citizens of this fine federation of states. What better way to win a potential, future war (let’s say maybe a war over, hmm…, I don’t know, ENERGY!!!) than to never have to engage in war in the first place. What if we just didn’t need no stinking energy???? I’ll buy that for a dollar! A tax dollar, that is. Score one for John McCain!
Jun 24th, 2008 (10:45 am)#121 Jason The Saj:
That’s what I’m talking about!
Jun 24th, 2008 (11:54 am)How about a rebate/tax credit that works like this:
$1.000 for every 10 miles of ev only range (using US06 cycle) up to $10,000.
Guarantee it for 10 years, but decrease it every year by $100.
It wouldn’t matter if the car were BEV or E-REV.
The Volt would qualify for a +- $4,000 credit and GM (as well as other manufactures) would be encouraged to maximize the range.
But only cars that can recharged by the grid (plugged-in) would qualify.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:14 pm)Hey, for all those Hydrogen haters… take a look at this…
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html
oh… and by the way… I do believe the quickest way off oil is electric vehicles… Otherwise I wouldn’t be on this website daily… the next big question is how do we electrify… Nuclear… I don’t know about you, but that is not something I would want in my backyard… Gas… have you tried heating your home with this and still raise a family… Clean Coal… when it gets here… I am just as excited as all of you to see what is the next big Idea that will take us to the next century… and I hope it gets here before the energy war begins (WWIII)!
Oh… and to #79… I have a BA in Architecture and Environmental Science, as well as, a Minor in Business…
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:30 pm)There’s three ways GM can get zero emissions from the Volt:
1. Battery Swap – not the main Li-ion battery but the optional high energy density battery that’s offered instead of the ICE range extender.
2. Metal-Air Fuel Cell – swap fresh metal plates with depleted plates that are then regenerated at the service station ie. Electric-Fuel, PowerZinc, eVionyx, MagPower, PowerAir, …
3. Hydrogen Fuel Cell – with on board methanol reformer to produce hydrogen on demand, produces CO2 and H2O but those are not considered “emissions”.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:35 pm)MGD
I quote from the article:
“The process could, in theory, also be used to replace gasoline for cars and trucks, he said.”
They might be onto something, for sure. Even if autos are not in the picture now, think of the savings to our environment with running small engines for lawn mowers, hedge clippers, weed eaters, chain saws and such with this technology. That by itself would be outstanding.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:41 pm)MGD, #133 says, “…..I have a BA in Architecture and Environmental Science, as well as, a Minor in Business…”
MGD, congratulations on your hard work.
But H is still bunk for many years to come.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:50 pm)Rashiid Amul
“N.Riley wants to drill more. I just disagree with that strategy.”
I am saying we need to find more crude for the short term (5 – 15 years) while we convert over to hybrid and electric autos. I am not suggesting we drill forever. I want to kick the oil habit as much as anyone. Drilling for crude would help reduce mid-east dependencies for crude and therefore would reduce our money flow to them. Not stop it, but reduce it. We have to start somewhere. I do not think we will convert to hybrids and electrics any sooner than 15 years. In the mean time, we would be keeping more of our money at home and providing more jobs.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:50 pm)MGD. I didn’t get back to the editor fast enough. The link to Purdue was very interesting. The only thing they left out was, How long until we can have it in our hands? Sounds like they need to get the cost down. If they do and it works, I may reconsider my position on Hydrogen at that time. But for now, it is too costly. Just way to costly.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:56 pm)N.Riley. I understand what you are saying. I just don’t think it will work. I heard somewhere that from the first drill put into the ground to the first car’s gas tank to be filled is approximately 10 years. That is too long in my opinion. That number could also be wrong for all I know. I just seem to remember it.
Another point I would like to make is: I don’t believe the oil companies are mandated to sell any of that oil to us. They could ship it elsewhere and it won’t help us one bit.
Then we have the environmental factor of drilling for oil.
You’re a good guy, N. Riley. You and I are just going to disagree on this one point.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:56 pm)As to my comments about oil drilling and conversion to electric vehicles: a lot depends on many factors of which we have little control. If governments around the world gets behind the conversion to electric vehicles, the process could go by in less than 10 years. I just don’t know how we convert our larger vehicles to not use oil products until a hydrogen converter is available as described in the link provided by MGD. So many questions and so few answers.
Jun 24th, 2008 (12:59 pm)#60, #61 re: Consumer Reports. This is why there is a move to cumulative consumer based opinion. Unfortunately the “experts” in many fields succumb to influences like grants, advertising buys, perqs etc. So, we now have the ability to read hundreds of personal opinions and ratings to help make purchase decisions. Far more democratic and valuable in the long run IMO.
On topic, this tax credit package should be offered to all PHEVs meeting some kind of minimum range and or kWh capacity. It’s only fair for government to help build the new transportation fleet that increases security, grows jobs, and gets us off foreign oil.
Jun 24th, 2008 (1:04 pm)Rahiid,
The 10 year figure is not correct. If more drilling is allowed in the Gulf of Mexico, we are looking at less than a year. The outer continental shelf on the east and west coast would require about 3 years. The Arctic would be 5 or more. The 10 year figure is used by those who do not want any drilling and they throw out the 10 to 20 year figures as a way of turning off people to the idea that more drilling could help. It is not an instant solution – what is. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed the ANWAR drilling bill in the mid ’90s, we would be receiving that oil now. If George W Bush had not bowed to political pressure from his Florida Governor brother, we would have that oil now. And I can go on where politicians have caused us a lot of the pain at the pump we are presently experiencing.
Jun 24th, 2008 (1:12 pm)In this year’s presidential campaign, I am for the candidate who promises each American a hybrid or electric vehicle in every garage. (Kinda like a “chicken in every pot” promise.)
I would not wait too long for those promises, if given. Come on GM, let’s get it done.
Jun 24th, 2008 (2:59 pm)McCain talked about a $5000 tax credit for zero-emission vehicles — which would be straight battery electric vehicles (or fuel cells, maybe someday in the distant future.) The Volt won’t be a zero-emission vehicle by any established definition. The bill would have to be changed in some way to make the credit apply to the Volt. The Volt may need some new designation, but it’s not a ZEV. The Prius is an ATPZEV (Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle). We also have LEVs (Low Emission Vehicles), SULEVs (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles), etc. Maybe the Volt would qualify as a SATNZEV (Super Advanced Technology Nearly Zero Emission Vehicle). GM calls it a REEV (Range Extended Electric Vehicle). I think it should be an EVER (Electric Vehicle, Extended Range). Alphabet soup, for sure!
Jun 24th, 2008 (6:06 pm)McCain is just trying to get the Democratic vote. Do you actually believe that number?
Jun 24th, 2008 (9:05 pm)As long as GM will offer me intrest free financing I’ll be buying the VOLT. Leave the oil alone so our kids kids can have some. I wish we would stop being so selfish.
Jun 24th, 2008 (10:37 pm)Thomb 128 – After that stream of bile you launched in #128, you call ME a bully ?
I was proud of you for a while. You stopped calling people names, and you debated ideas – not whether the ideas were “partisan” or not. Then this happened.
Go ahead, do whatever you want. I’m tired of being attacked.
I tried to lighten up the forums with a little humor, now and then. I tried to discourage name-calling in the forums. I tried to point out hypocrisy where I found it. Only one person ever backed me up, and you attacked him, too.
I’m tired. I think I’ll just lurk for a while, perhaps 29 months or more. I’ll just watch the rest of you rip at each other, over the LONG 29 months until the Volt arrives. Should be fun. I’m out.
Jun 24th, 2008 (11:15 pm)The government should play a key role in the effort to diversify the energy sources of the automobile, and electric drive vehicles can help achieve significant diversification.
A tax credit could help get the “ball rolling”, but it should be limited to certain amount of vehicles.
Jun 24th, 2008 (11:31 pm)Rashiid # 121
“Grizzly, With this statement, it is hard for me to say whether we agree or disagree.”
*** *** ****
I agree that statement could have gone any number of ways.
Sorry! We’re in TOTAL agreement on this one. Just so you know I don’t always agree with friends.
Jun 24th, 2008 (11:36 pm)A free government is given the role of representing the collective good will of it’s people – creating a nation. There is absolutely nothing good about this country’s oil addiction. Drilling does one thing – delays the price spikes and sickening spasms of a nation addicted to oil by that much longer.
A tax rebate/credit/incentive is a Win for this country no matter how sliced. $7,000 goes into the American made product, and $7,000 doesn’t go overseas for oil addiction. And that $7,000 multiplies many times by the car, thus the individual, thus the country becoming free of the Oil vein of dependency. $400,000,.000,000.00 dollars annually goes overseas to Oil Barons and Sheiks who despise our culture, our values, our form of government, and our people.
CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED. Keep the money here.
US AIR FORCE Retired.
Jun 24th, 2008 (11:47 pm)Reading a few minority opinions above, about how the “government should wait” and “free market” will solve all this. Get real. Our oil isn’t coming from a free market. Our oil is coming from religious zealots who have monopoly pricing power with no diminishing economic elasticity in the price but up in sight. That’s the kind of thinking that got us here. Let’s not interfere with the Middle-East dictatorship control over the flow of oil.
Switzerland subsidizes their people’s car buying and manufacturing as they turn to electric means. Electric cars will be SUBSIDIZED at 50% of the purchase price, and gas cars PENALIZED. Now guess which country has the highest per capita GDP/GNP. Look at our debt burden to add to the realization we’re going in the wrong direction and oil is the primary driver at the wheel these days.
Bring the Volt to my driver. Counting on 40 MPC (miles per charge).
Jun 25th, 2008 (1:14 am)#147 Terry K
(I feel a little wierd doing this in front of eveybody)
I’m sorry you feel like a victim. But, it seems like you went crazy first. If you attack me, I guess I am not big enough to let it lay. You may be the one to teach me to turn the other cheek.
—————————–
JonP made some comments, which I wholeheartedly support. Somehow, you jumped to a conclusion that JonP would suffer my wrath. I still don’t follow the logic of turning JonP’s comments into an attack on me. Then you finished with some name-calling (“self-appointed censor”). If you tried to discourage name-calling in the forums, then don’t name-call. If you tried to point out some perceived hypocrisy of mine, you failed to elaborate it clearly. What did I say that was hypocritical? Your territorial barking to stifle my comments, with a call for people to speak their minds, sounds hypocritical to me. You are doing yourself a disservice by being so rash.
Can you explain yourself, without anger? Understanding your position would be the first step towards better relations.
p.s., Seperating partisanship from true give-and-take is an important consideration in a debate. Blind partisan rhetoric will not advance us much. It is just one side against another. There is no winning, except through war. We are all in this together. Solutions will occur when reasonable people come to reasonable solutions.
Jun 25th, 2008 (7:07 pm)Good for McCain. Now Obama needs to do the same thing. I suggest $2500 for GM, $2500 for consumers. Then states can pitch in whatever tax credits they want to offer.
Jun 26th, 2008 (9:00 pm)We need more nuclear power plants and cheap ev’s
Oct 23rd, 2008 (7:21 pm)[...] Motors had been lobbying Congress for higher tax credits on the Volt, claiming that its large, advanced battery pack would push the [...]