Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM-Volt.com Viability Plan Suggestion: Massive Government Fleet Sales of Battery Warranty-Free Chevy Volts

November 24th, 2008 | Posted in: General

On December 2nd, GM will submit its plan for viability to the US government, which if accepted will result in a bridge loan for the automaker.

Congress also requires that in addition to demonstrating profitability, the plan describe how the loan will enable GM to “expand production of advanced technology fuel efficient vehicles.”

Certainly the Chevy Volt represents GM’s most important effort in that regard. However, due to the cost of the lithium ion battery of about $10,000 – $15,000 per car , GM has stated it wont be able to make a profit at a cost of $40,000 per car.

How can these two opposing attributes be reconciled?

An idea first put forth by Phil Toney (aka Nasaman) here on GM-Volt.com was by leveraging governmental fleet sales.

Phil, a semi-retired NASA engineer, noted that the US government’s way out of the Great Depression and World War II was through enlisting US automakers to build war machinery. He proposed that an organization known as the GSA which is responsible for procuring government vehicles, be immediately legislated to buy massive quantities of Chevy Volts to replace the current government fleet.

I support this proposition with the following additions.

These Chevy Volts should be sold to the government at premium and without a battery warranty. Each vehicle should be sold at a profit. And in so doing, and assuming sufficient battery pack quantities can be produced, they could be released earlier than the November 2010 deadline.

As well, supportive governments of the G8, and US utility companies should also be permitted to purchase these fleet Volts under the same constraints.

The result of this action could lead to contracts resulting in the sale of more than 100,000 Chevy Volts. Indeed, the current US government vehicle fleet amounts to greater than 600,000 cars.

Not only will this effort help ensure GM’s viability but it will help vigorously propel the US towards petroleum independence.

It will act as a stimulus for the eventual electrification of the entire US automotive fleet, will enable large scale public exposure to these US-made vehicles, and permit extensive field testing. Furthermore it well expedite economy of scale cost-reduction for large format lithium ion batteries, and make these cars more affordable for the public.

As Phil writes, “it worked in the 30’s & 40’s ….in fact, the US rose from a desperate, financially-anemic economy in the 30’s to the world’s strongest economy after WWII!!! ….due primarily, I believe, to the multi-billion dollar government contracts placed with the big 3 for the machinery of war! We know it works. So let’s do it again!!!”

Since the government is already spending billions on bad assets, how about a few billion on good assets!

I have emailed this proposition and post to the highest-ranking GM executives I have access to, and have phoned my Representative and Senator. If you too support this idea, cut, paste, and fax this post to your Senators and Representatives. The hour is getting late.

Posted by: Lyle

169 Responses to “GM-Volt.com Viability Plan Suggestion: Massive Government Fleet Sales of Battery Warranty-Free Chevy Volts”

beachliving Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Wow this really sounds good. I like the idea of getting them out there for everyone to see… And I’m first again… I wonder how long til I can get one off the government.. Life it good…:)

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

I expect a bold announcement from the Obama financial recovery team regarding the auto industry. The latest is that the new administration is calling for a restructuring of the Big Three. No word yet on follow-up plans.

Lovers of Japanese cars here at gm-volt yell “favoritism” when ideas like government fleet sales are proposed. But, we aren’t talking about job growth in Japan. We’re talking about our brothers, uncles, sisters, and cousins being kicked into the street.

Between the two holidays, filing tax forms, and automotive hearings… this will be a very interesting 5 weeks.

=D~

(Quote)
Yoyodyn Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

I’m afraid this plan would lead to anti-competition cries. Unless the same deal was offered to the other automakers.

(Quote)
HyperMiler Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Volt is not GM’s savior; Cruze is. I hope gm-volt.com’s administrators realize that.

(Quote)
beachliving Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

I think it should be a challenge to the build a similar car that will allow the government to buy clear air cars… If they have it.. Bring it.. we all saw what Chrysler claimed to have …. Well as they say let’s make a deal…

(Quote)
JEC Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

So, does this leave Ford and Chrysler flapping in the breeze?

I am against bailouts, and this plan, in my opinion is even more problematic. Ford is the stronger of the remaining Big 3, so the key should be to formulate a plan to address Fords viability first. GM and Chrysler are going to struggle, and possible dissolve.

Comparing building a Volt to building of war equipment is a real stretch. These were needed to support our boys in war. Now, trying to imply that the Volt would make us oil independent and therefore would save lives is a REAL stretch. Why not invest in solar and wind farms.

Sorry Lyle, I am just not buying it….

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

They need to sell cars now, if GM wants to sell Volts in the future. GM (& Ford & Chrysler) needs to sell cars now so they can pay their bills today. Otherwise it is no Volt (or others) tomorrow. It will probably be a government backed loan to the banks that are earmarked for (domestic/union) products. They could also do some sort of tax break. Kind of like the green home improvement credits.

I kind of like the idea of buying a car instead of paying taxes.

Red HHR (with no mortgage deduction)

(Quote)
Unlimited_MPG Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Does this mean they will sell the car to the Gov”t at $50,000 to $60,000 per car? Kind of like the $25k toilet seats?

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

I vote we don’t pop the corks on any government money going to GM based on the volt’s success until the volt’s success has been verified by independent testing.

Sorry to always sound like a wet blanket on the GM fire but I’m sick …Sick ….SICK of government money being spent like there’s no tomorrow to prop up a “free enterprise” economy that should need only prudent government regulation– NOT intervention, in the first place. What are we up to now? Something like $7 trillion in loans and most of it we don’t even know what it’s being spent on?!

I hope I’m wrong, but I fear we are all going to pay, and pay dearly for many years to come for these magnanimous indiscretions and the trampling of our constitution. We’ll have corporate greed, a corrupt political system, and ourselves to blame.

Sorry Lyle/Nasaman, but I’ve been watching too much news lately to stomach the idea of any more billions/trillions of government money being spent to “save” us.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Yes, deficit spending was a good way for many countries to get out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Japan was very successful in this regard.

Now before people that hate any government spending stand up and scream, let’s discuss.

Why deficit spending was good during the Great Depression:

1) The industrial revolution was only in the beginning stages. When countries geared up for war they built out heavy industry infrastructure. That allowed countries the infrastructure and knowledge to expand beyond military needs.

2) There was a general lack of confidence in the global economy. Sometimes psychology plays much more of a role than actual activity. If everyone is motivated and confident, productivity and economic action can skyrocket.

3) Only the rich had money and they were hoarding it. They were not spending it and thus there was limited economic activity. Things were in gridlock.

4) Things were so bad that going more into debt was a good risk to take because the rewords were so attractive. If the economy could get moving again the debt would be paid for very quickly. It was.

5) All of the other strategies like protectionism, bailouts, etc. were tried and had little success. Nothing like having a grand project for scared people to get their minds around and to build hope.

Why the same strategies can be useful today:

1) We need a massive amount of new infrastructure. We really need to break away from our petroleum infrastructure. If we want to have a significant impact in less than a decade we are going to need a grand plan and a grand project. Otherwise, we can expect a long and ugly recession (or depression).

2) People are scared and hoarding their money. Even banks! Without the ability to obtain credit it’s very hard for the economy to function. Hence the bank bailouts. Americans need a reason to spend money. Not just on useless trinkets from China but on building a new and strong infrastructure foundation so we can be competitive in the next 100 years.

3) A new technical revolution is right around the corner. Advanced electrical storage, solar and wind technologies, nanotechnology, biofuels, biotech, medical, informational technologies, etc. are just coming into play. Once we get the energy issue on the right tract we are going to see some amazing advances. Just look how nanotechnology is solving both battery and solar headaches. We are just at the tip of this technology spear.

4) The world was just starting to really move forward before the economic meltdown. However, this move forward was really a move backward. The world was moving forward with old, non-renewable and unsustainable technologies that would only make our economic and environmental problems worse. We now have the chance to put the world on a much better path. Initiating a massive project that starts building out renewable and sustainable infrastructure will be just what the world needs to jump on board.

5) This massive amount of spending will very likely lead to incredible amounts of return. We are talking about building out the entire world with renewable and sustainable energy infrastructure. It has massive market potential. American could be in the lead.

6) The alternative to getting out of hard economic times is for military build outs. I think everyone can agree that we can’t have another world war. Military technology is just to dangerous today. It would be devastating beyond imagination. It’s much better to spend all of that capital and effort towards energy infrastructure so more global economic activities can be realized. Building tanks, guns, bullets and bombs does get an economy moving but what real use are these technologies and products? The world already has heavy industry and the knowledge transfer from these military activities will be limited. Must less than in the 1930s. New energy technology is extremely useful and will go directly towards seeding global economic activity. Go Green, not Red.

7) It’s a perfect storm for change. The economy is in shambles, the old players are humbled and the government can effectively move sweeping changes though the system (almost all Democrat controlled). It would not matter which party was in full control because this truly is a bipartisan problem and solution. The people want change and they want it now.

Everything seems to be in place for a massive deficit spending project. The results will be even more amazing than those realized after we got out of the Great Depression. Instead of building out our military powers and killing each other, we will be building out our sustainable energy infrastructures and doing competitive business together. let’s fight it out on the business playing field. It’s exciting, rewarding and you get to go home to your families

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

If the Volt is a good idea, GM can spin it off and private investors will be happy to sign on. No need for fancy subsidies to keep it alive.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Obama is calling on congress to work on his plan and to have things ready for him to sign on inauguration day. Hit the ground running as his aids put it. The cost of this plan may well be past the $700 billion bailout plan. It has to be huge to have any effect at all. Now this will NOT be paid for by tax increases. Some are suggesting a two year refrain from tax increases. This will all be paid for out of debt. It must therefore be successful. If not, it would put un on even worse financial footing.

WARNING!!!!!

WE CAN’T FIX THE ECONOMY WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE PETROLEUM SUPPLY PROBLEM

The grand jobs plan MUST address our petroleum use. if Obama’s plan is successful but does not reduce our petroleum use from pre-financial meltdown levels we will just see the price of oil jump to levels seen this summer or higher. The oil supply problems have not been solved! They only seem like they are solved because the world is using much less than the 85 mbd of global petroleum supply we have been using for the past couple of years. The low price of oil is also keeping oil investments down which is only going to cause more petroleum supply problems down the line. This is a massive and dire situation.

WARNING!!!!

I just cannot stress how strongly I feel about this point. We can hold off on global warming and even my beloved solar panels. We need to aggressively attack the petroleum demand issue first and foremost.

Things that address petroleum use:

1) Transportation – EVs, Plug-in hybrids, high fuel economy vehicles (European and Japanese like numbers). These need to be build and delivered to the public. Incentives will be needed at first. Taxes to make people move from petroleum burning technology may be needed (cigarette tax, carbon tax, etc. ). I don’t like taxes but we need a way to reduce petroleum use. High price is the best way (just look what happened the summer – massive reduction in gasoline use).

2) Conservation – massive plans to reduce the amount of petroleum we use. Increases in efficiency of our daily operations. Engage all Americans on this. We need to increase the amount of economic activity we perform per barrel of oil. Turning off your lights will not help! That uses electricity. Our electrical grid uses almost no oil to generate electricity. Converting homes and companies from using heating oil or making those buildings and homes more efficient is a top conservation priority. How can we cut down on miles both private and commercially should be the question on every American’s mind.

3) Reduce the amount of Petrochemicals we use. Find alternatives for petroleum based products like fertilizer, pesticides, plastics, etc. This is a huge and demanding task. Great for some massive funding!

4) Engage the military. Not to fight but to transition. They should be directed to cut petroleum use every year from now out. A massive transition away from petroleum is just what the military needs reinvent itself. By doing so it will also provide massive amounts of jobs for Americans. Electrification of military vehicles, hydrogen fuel research. GET US OFF OF PETROLEUM.

5) Massive electrical storage technology investment. Almost everything depends on our ability to practically store electrical energy. We must invent and mass produce great batteries. It’s that simple. A great battery solves just about every major problem we have. From global warming to energy independence to global petroleum supply problems. Quick-charging batteries are the key.

6) Natural Gas investment. This is a short term solution (it is still a fossil fuel and thus is unsustainable in the long-term) but it burns much cleaner than any other fossil fuel and we have good reserves in North America. It will buy us time. Trucks, taxis, and personal cars around the world are running on CNG and so can we.

7) A huge job can be to get charging infrastructure for EVs and plug-in hybrids. Check out what Project Better Place is doing in California. Many do not agree with the business plan or swap-out stations and that is fine. We will still need an OPEN network for all of the new electric vehicles that are going to be coming out. Start with normal charging (not quick-charge) because they will be needed even for advanced batteries and they don’t require special electrical infrastructure (huge power delivery capability). Now that California has signed on for Project Better Place that can be a great pilot project for the rest of the country. We need the shotgun approach with many pilot projects. However, to create massive jobs and USEFUL infrastructure, it’s hard to deny putting in normal charging infrastructure (it should also be upgradeable for two-way communication via our future smart grid). Let’s not put in infrastructure that does not have a pathway to the future. That future is all electric cars with quick-charge capabilities that help store the nations electricity. The amount of energy stored in today’s cars is several magnitudes greater than what our electrical grid can produce. Intermittent resources (wind and solar) are a perfect match for the EV with it’s massive electrical storage capability. Ninety percent of American cars are idle at any given point. That means Ninety percent of our future electric fleet can be connected to the grid and being used as storage. Make sure the best minds in our country help design this OPEN charging network. If not, it will need to be torn down and rebuilt at great cost and effort (will take a long time).

Drive the country towards second generation biofuels. Our first generation biofuel efforts are ONLY good at moving us towards sustainable and high EROI (Energy return on investment) energy sources. Ethanol produced by food crops is not sustainable and useful by itself. It usefulness is in helping to build the infrastructure for biofuels. Let’s make that clear to everyone. Algae, cellulotic waste, advanced fungi and bacteria, etc. we need massive research and development and well funded pilot projects for promising technologies. You will not know if something is good until you get it to volume production. Only then will you know the problems and the promise. Only expect a small percentage of successful projects. We need the shotgun approach but a massive, nationwide infrastructure build out must only use a proven technology. That is why we need large scale pilot projects.

WE MUST ADDRESS THE PETROLEUM PROBLEM FIRST. ECONOMIES CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ENERGY. WE HAVE A MASSIVE ENERGY PROBLEM.

Posted previously in the forum section.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Now if GM wants to go with a no promise deal then they have to bring out the Volt next year. GM may be hurting but they are still playing games. They are not dead yet. Lets see what kind of plan they come up with before congress.

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

#10 Texas,

So we’re drowning in a sea of debt, and you want us to drink our way out?

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

This is a perfect opportunity to bust the unions! Let the big three go down in flames. We will be roasting marshmallows on the burning remnants… (hehe)

Well there would be a lot of people out of jobs, they will get over it. Look what Ronald Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. Fired them all! Then what happened? They named the airport after him. Well the government rudder has been shoved to the left and the ship of state has taken a different tack. Everyone to the starboard side! We are a healing to the left. Put up the spinnaker and lets go!

I think a $10,00 dollar max tax credit on an approved car would work. Cars would be rated at the Union/domestic content. The more Union/domestic content, the bigger the tax credit. Make the credit retroactive to the 2008 tax year. Then stand out of the way and watch the recovery!

Unfair you say! Well watch the transplants line up to be unionized. That will level the playing field. Then see who survives.

Red HHR (with unknown content)

(Quote)
Texas Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

#6 JEC

The reason that just building out solar and wind farms will not solve the problem is that there is a major difference between electrical energy generation and energy generated by petroleum products.

This is a huge difference that people fail to realize. You could have the entire grid on solar and wind and we would still have the exact same petroleum problems. Exactly! We need alternatives to petroleum, not coal, NG, hydroelectric, nuclear, etc. (at least not at the moment – all non-renewable energy resources will eventually need to be transitioned to sustainable resources).

I listed above many solutions that address our petroleum problems. We should also be working on other alternatives to non-renewable resources but the priority should go to solving our petroleum problems. If these problems are not addressed a Great Depression would be the least of our worries. Can you imagine global resource wars over remaining petroleum resources? No, it would not be pretty.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

carcus #9

There you go again, thinking GMs out to screw you.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Developmental_Issues/Electric_vehicles_all_the_buzz_at_LA_auto_show/articleshow/3753934.cms

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Jerry Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

If they build it, they will come. nuff said…
Oh by the way carcus. shut up.

(Quote)
MQ Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

I have a better idea. Drop the unions making these cars by starting a new company that can make affordable electric cars like the volt. Otherwise, we the people can no longer afford to support the greedy unions and their lifetime benefits.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Well, not a bad idea and from ideas creativity kicks in.
At the end of the day…the failed batteries still end up being paid out of our pockets. But a heck of a good suggestion. How do we improve on this. I still say we buy the battery firm. Why farm this out. Why isn’t the battery firm backing their product…are we bailing them too…
Just who is accountable for their actions anymore?
They have to get the Cruze out now also.

(Quote)
Firefly Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

#6 JEC

Have you lost your mind? Ford stronger than GM at $1.56 per share? GM isn’t much better but at least their stock currently is at $3.59. $2.03 isn’t earth-shatering, but multiply that by several million and you understand why the Blue Oval is scrambling to revamp their lines also. No offence, but last time I checked, F150 sales haven’t been busting through the roof as of late (late being the past year and a half…). The point Lyle was trying to make is that it would be far more preferable to invest in your country’s own energy infrastructure rather than keep a foreign needle in your veins…unless that’s the kind of thing you’re into…

#8 Unlimited_MPG

At $25k for a $25 toliet seat, that is a markup of 1000%. If that were the case, a government fleet Volt would cost about $4 million each. If that doesn’t generate a profit, I have not the slightest clue what will…

#9 Carcus

…well said…but a guy can hope, can’t he?

(Quote)
Texas Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

#14 carcus,

If we look at our history and at our current situation, a good argument can be made for deficit spending. However, should be successful we must be diligent in reducing our debt. Now is the time for investment in our infrastructure. We are not going to be paying off our current debts with our current economic position.

We have a chance to turn our ship in the right direction, pump out the water, patch up the holes and move forward. We need to take a chance and I do believe now is as good a time as any. These changes I am recommending will be needed eventually. Why not become the global leader in these transitional technologies and thus be market leader. Many around the world are shaking in fear. Why not us Americans jump in and reap the rewards of a victorious solution. It’s our history and I hope it’s our future.

(Quote)
Eric C. Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Lyle,

One other thought I mentioned before, though it’s not directly related to the Volt.

The US Postal service needs hundreds of thousands of replacements for their urban delivery vehicles. You would think that if somebody could open their eyes and order electric versions from Ford, GM, or other, than that would help accelerate battery production and lower resulting costs for the Volt.

Wouldn’t it be great if all these delivery vehicles could be replaced with electric-only versions? You don’t even need the E-REV concept in them since they don’t travel more than 100 miles per day, just need a large battery.

Edit:
FWIW, they started to roll these out in 2002, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible now. See the following articles:
http://ecoworld.com/features/2001/04/27/ford-delivers-electric-vehicles-to-post-office/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5584/is_/ai_n23553343

(Quote)
avatar Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

GM had better get the Volt in production. South Korea will be a player in this new world market as well. 50 mpg hybrids that sell for $14,000 or less?

Hyundai is breaking with the rest of the industry by betting lithium polymer batteries are the future. Krafcik says they deliver the same power as the nickel-metal hydride batteries found in the Prius but deliver 10 percent greater efficiency while weighing 30 percent less and requiring half as much space. They also offer greater energy density in a smaller package than lithium-ion batteries while being more durable, easier to cool and cheaper to build, he says.

Besides the hybrid, Hyundai plans to offer high-fuel economy models of the Accent and Elantra that feature improved aerodynamics, low-resistance tires, transmission tweaks and engine modifications aimed at improving efficiency. Hyundai didn’t offer any specific fuel economy figures but says the “Blue Editions” will be cheaper than the conventional Accent and Elantra, which start at $11,070 and $13,970, respectively.

Read it yourself

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/for-hyundai-blu.html

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

#17 Ed,

carcus #9
“There you go again, thinking GMs out to screw you.”
____________________________________________________________
No, . . . Ed,

GM just wants your money so they can help. . . . you. You Ed. Go take out all your life’s savings and write a check to GM. They’re here for you Ed. They’ll protect you and keep you safe. They just want to help you get to that big rainbow in the middle of that beautiful cool green pasture . . . . where the world’s not too hot. Not too cold. It’s just right. Let GM take you there . . . Ed. Give them your money. Give them all your money. GM is here to help.

When I count to three, you will awake. 1 . . . . 2 . . . .

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

#12, Texas

I agree that we need to use much less oil than we do now. $50 a barrel is just to low. You think we are hurting, just imagine what is happening to the folks that are selling it to us. I have advocated a gas tax for 30 years, before it was called carbon. The profits would be used for alternative research.

As much as I would like to quit cold turkey, there is something to be said for incremtalism. If we used 10% less energy than we did the year before, we soon would not have a problem. So if I trade my 20mpg car for one that gets 25mpg… We are doing better.

Some of the industries for alternative energy can not survive at $50 oil. I was hopping to be working for one, however they put on a hiring freeze. Uncertain if their customers would pay for the alternatives to oil. I gave up working in the auto industry, it became to much of a cost cutting commodity.

Let the government subsidize the cost of the automobile, then tax the fuel! (hehe)

Red HHR (looking for a parking lot)

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

#4 (HyperMiler)… if you haven’t realized it yet.. Lyle is a single issue (Volt) person with tunnel blinders on and is not looking at the big picture. I think he has even deluded himself to believe he is the Volt’s father writing over at http://allcarselectric.com/about/ that this site “played a major role in convincing GM to move the Chevy Volt program into production”.

Of course the government should NOT be picking winners and losers. If you want to compare this to the WW2 war machine, the government did not pick a single company to be the sole winner!

The government should (and I have hopes the way I’ve been hearing Obama talk that he will be pushing for this) be making mandates that government agencies should be buying highly fuel efficient vehicles and companies should bid to compete, and more than one company can be picked to meet the demand. Requirements can also be explicitly stated that vehicles must be made here in the USA (w/a certain percentage of the parts also made in the USA, 100% may be impossible though). Even the Volt will have the most expensive component made OUTSIDE the USA, ie. the batteries cells. We should also be providing incentives or requirements that the batteries also be made in the USA!

So did anyone hear that the big 3 are taking their cue from Saturday Night Live… they are driving to DC the next time, no joke!

(Quote)
Bearclaw Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Interesting Ideas.

I could be wrong but I thought I remembered a post on the time needed to ramp up production on the battery. I thought they were going to need to the end of 2010 to get it going. If true speeding up the process doesn’t sound possible.

I do like the idea of government fleet vehicles though. An EREV police cruiser would be cool.

In not leaving Chrysler out. I just wasn’t impressed by their van, jeep and EV. How much thought did that really take to say lets put a huge battery in a big heavy van and one in a jeep that is the least aerodynamic vehicle we make and sorry but the public’s range anxiety is going to kick in on the Dodge EV.

(Quote)
Bailers Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Nasaman,

Not a bad idea, although I see a couple of problems with this.

1) GSA is obligated to sell fleet cars around 60,000 or so for non-LE cars.This is what helps them to make the “profit” that they do off of the cars. When they do, what happens to the secondary buyers?

2) I’m sure you know the Government procurement cycle. What sounds easy really wouldn’t be.

3) Not every agency wants or needs or can use a volt. Many need something bigger. Heck, my agency buys alot of SUV’s because we need the space to store material and gear in. And I’m EPA.

4) Unless you were going to concentrate the vehicles in one area, you have a massive problem with repairs and service calls. That is one of the challenges no matter what GM does, but limiting the roll-out to just Gov fleet would only compound the issue.

5) Expect backlash from agencies that don’t get the cars. GSA has enough problems without adding to thier woes by making agencies hostile toward their car purchase.

Like I said, an interesting idea. But I doubt congress would go for it. That would require creative thinking, something they leave to those outside the beltway.

(Quote)
ThomC Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Bailers #30
>> Not a bad idea, although I see a couple of problems with this.
1) GSA is obligated to sell fleet cars around 60,000 or so for non-LE cars.This is what helps them to make the “profit” that they do off of the cars. When they do, what happens to the secondary buyers?
2) I’m sure you know the Government procurement cycle. What sounds easy really wouldn’t be.
3) Not every agency wants or needs or can use a volt. Many need something bigger. Heck, my agency buys alot of SUV’s because we need the space to store material and gear in. And I’m EPA.
4) Unless you were going to concentrate the vehicles in one area, you have a massive problem with repairs and service calls. That is one of the challenges no matter what GM does, but limiting the roll-out to just Gov fleet would only compound the issue.
5) Expect backlash from agencies that don’t get the cars. GSA has enough problems without adding to thier woes by making agencies hostile toward their car purchase.
Like I said, an interesting idea. But I doubt congress would go for it. That would require creative thinking, something they leave to those outside the beltway.
—————————————-

Most of these “problems” are only problems in the context of bureaucracies.

Six months ago, many people were calling for “Manhattan Project/Moon Shot” level national efforts to get the US off of foreign oil. When T. Boone Pickens brought up the national security issue of send $700B annually, there was a lot of resonance, but it never really took hold.

The US (and much of the global economy) is staring down the barrel of a global depression and everyone’s attention is pretty focused. This seems like its EXACTLY the time for something creative.

(Quote)
Bearclaw Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

If anything it would make sense to have the government buy all the overstock of vehicles collecting rust before they even hit the roads. That would be improving profitability now and not in 2 years.

(Quote)
John Inc Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

This idea is more than a little self serving. And what good is a Volt without a battery?!? No good at all! I have a better idea – GM should do as congress asked – simply write a plan how they would use the $10-12 billion dollars (their portion of the $25 billion asked for by the big 3), so that congress can justify lending the money. Then follow that plan. And as part of the plan, they should build cars that people will like and that are reliable. If Europe and Japan can do it, so can we, only better. And is it too much to ask that in addition, they also make the cars more energy efficient and a step away from being solely reliant upon petroleum? If in this process, they can manage to create something unique and better, then they show the true qualities of being American – innovative, unique, better. One last thing – do it without gouging us!

(Quote)
ThomC Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Lyle
I used the core of your piece for my e-mails to my congressCritters. I did expand the content to include Ford and Chrysler offerings.

Nasaman,
Great idea and I whole-heartedly endorse it.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Fleet? JGTVWOTR

NO PLUG NO SALE, (my house) =D~~~~~~~~~(my volt)

(Quote)
J in MN Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Forcing the government to buy fleets of Volts at premium without warranty is about as dumb an idea as Medicare buying medications at premium from the Pharmaceutical companies.

I would rather see my tax money go towards creating something new (wind farms, solar farms, transmission lines) instead of arbitrarily buying unneeded cars (and having them sit in parking lots) just for the sake of propping up an unprofitable private company.

Please, Lyle, don’t let you passion for the Volt cloud your judgment.

(Quote)
RamZ Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

For years I had seen lots of fleet veicles running around wishing I could buy an electric car or a CNG car but the only ones who seem to get their hands on them is the Utility companies and the goverment. How about GM sells them to us instead. I have an ex- university 2000 Ford Ranger EV which is eight years old. I have an ex Transit Authority 1996 Ford Crown Victoria CNG car. I hope I don’t have to wait ten years to get a worn out Volt that was an ex-goverment trashed car.

(Quote)
TDJ Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:09 am

Not to be snarky, but why would another G8 country want to buy a Volt at a premium but without a battery warranty?

(Quote)
Frank D Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:10 am

I think this is a great idea. We now have a war on global warming and an imperative need to get off of oil for many other reasons. This Country also needs new technologies like the Volt for the future of all auto transportation. It seems that a consolidation (with the aid of the government) in combining GM and Chrysler, and the use of the E-Flex platform, there will be more types of vehicles that can be offered. Ford should also have access to this platform by licensing this technology through it’s governmental assistance.

(Quote)
imflyn Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:13 am

Wow, I visit this site almost daily and this is the worst post I’ve seen to date. The U.S. gov’t can’t afford brand new fleets. We’re running a 1.5 trillion/ year deficit. Time to cut back. I’m sorry but this is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:17 am

#14 carcus – “So we’re drowning in a sea of debt, and you want us to drink our way out?”

So if I take $50,000 from my money market account and invest it in the stock market I’ve just added to my debt? I don’t think so.

I am befuddled by the constant whining about the government going deeper into debt when it is doing no such thing. You have to differentiate between investments and consumption. TARP is not consumption, it’s investment. Now some of the investments may go south, but overall most will not, and those that don’t will enjoy a healthy return. Right now the US taxpayer is paying .02% for funds. It just loaned to Citi at 8%.

When last I checked, borrowing at .02% and loaning at 8% is definitely NOT a recipe for going into debt. This is not rocket science, and it shouldn’t take an advanced degree in finance to understand that we may be taking on more debt but we’re making more profitable loans. By your measure all the world’s biggest banks are drowning in debt because they owe so much to their depositors: the bigger the bank the more depositors they have so the more debt they have. Trust me that they don’t look at it this way. They and the rest of the financial community look at it as the more assets they have the healthier they are.

GM may be more problematic but it’s the same principle, which is why congress wants to see a plan. (Chrysler worked out fine for taxpayers if I remember correctly). Moving along the continuum, the stimulus package will be more akin to consumption than to investment, but in reality it’s more like taking a loan to go to college. You pay money upfront in order to make more later. Infrastructure projects are similar. However, I can understand why you’d question infrastructure projects. I can’t though understand how borrowing at low rates and lending at high rates is “drowning in debt”.

(Quote)
Mike J Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:45 am

I think that a volt government pre-order is a bad idea. If there is any cache in driving a volt, it will be completely destroyed if it is the same car that the postman has been for mail delivery. Some people will want a volt because it is the right thing to do, but many will want it because it is cool. If the postman is driving a volt, it loses all cool.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:04 am

This is way off topic but I think its funny.

Bush resigns now, Cheney becomes president and appoints Condi Rice VP

then in a couple of weeks Cheney resigns and we have the first Black woman as president

whoo do you think the libs would be Pissssssd

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:05 am

Mike J #42

Its just a matter of time until everyone is driving an electric vehicle. Including the Police, the postman, and every Government diplomat. These vehicles are all ICE and that doesn’t effect the coolness of sports cars.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:27 am

Carcus #26
Well right now Wall Street has got a much bigger chunk of my money and for what ? just so they can bleed others dry ?
The car makers are asking for a lot less and at least there’s a plan to pay it back.

“big rainbow in the middle of that beautiful cool green pasture” how did you know what my back yard looks like ? heh heh

MQ #20
Union organizers follow business around like fleas follow dogs. You can start a new shop but unfortunately you can’t stop the brotherhood from taking over.

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:04 am

This is a great idea. Don’t listen to the downers Lyle.

”

So, does this leave Ford and Chrysler flapping in the breeze?

I am against bailouts, and this plan, in my opinion is even more problematic. Ford is the stronger of the remaining Big 3, so the key should be to formulate a plan to address Fords viability first. GM and Chrysler are going to struggle, and possible dissolve.

Comparing building a Volt to building of war equipment is a real stretch. These were needed to support our boys in war. Now, trying to imply that the Volt would make us oil independent and therefore would save lives is a REAL stretch. Why not invest in solar and wind farms.

Sorry Lyle, I am just not buying it….”

It doesn’t matter whether the vehicles are saving lives. You missed the whole point of this operation. The point is that GM will have to wait two years if they have to fully test the batteries so that they can warranty them for ten years. In this plan, GM will be able to raise the capital they need to survive without the government just giving them money. Yes it’s true we have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit, and it’s growing every day, Bush can’t get out of office fast enough, we all know, I’m sure tomorrow we’ll have bailed out another bank for $300 billion.

The point is that the government will get nice, efficient, reliable vehicles, they won’t keep the vehicles for anywhere near 10 years anyway, so the warranty won’t even matter. They’ll keep them for 3 years tops I would imagine. The government will save money on gas, and we all know the government already pays a premium for fleet vehicles. They pay a premium for the white house toothpaste I bet.

The difference between the pharmaceutical companies and GM is that pharmaceutical companies are just doing it because they’re selfish, GM is doing it to keep the economy moving and saving jobs. It’s true, at this point, we need to work together to come up with a solution even if it’s less than ideal because we are running out of time, running out of oil, and running out of clean air. Someone has to take the first risk, once average Joe citizens see the government driving Volts, they will not think of the Volt as unproven technology. There’s all kinds of benefits to this plan.

You whiners who say it won’t make a dent in oil dependency, well, maybe not much of a dent, but that’s an average of 500 gallons of gas saved per year per vehicle. If the government were to buy 100,000 of these, that will save 50 million gallons of gas a year! Every little bit helps lower our oil dependency. That’s $150 million dollars in gas savings per year at $3 per gallon. That $150 million can go to fund tens of thousands scholarships, or to whatever other worthy projects exist.

(Quote)
If U Fly the American Flag Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:49 am

2000 TAX CREDIT for the NEXT 3 Months to buy a Vehicle with AT LEAST 50% USA/CANADA PARTS content that gets at least 20 MPG highway.
Go Silverado NO Tundra He He He.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:33 am

Texas #10 and #12

Just thanks, I hope the public servants will read your posts.

JC NPNS

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:41 am

hi Maynard Keenan #48,

“… I like what the Volt already did for the electric car progress… ”
_________________________________

This is very true. The Volt has already done great things. The world is reawakened to the oil dependence = war deaths connection.

Wealthy groups and organizations are manipulating economic conditions, they are also manufacturing them. This echos each time we hear of a “bird flu crisis” or a foreign leader being offended by the new administration to the point of wanting to war.

I hope the mostly uninformed public know, that this is a test to see how much we will tremble with fear and is a reaction check. Example: Twin Towers=war movement

_________________________________

When talking with the man on the street we hear comments about “fear” and “disaster”. Why? Because we are being led along by manipulative powers. When you are asked to discus how bad things are, or how dangerous a situation is, simply say that you are not going to discus the issue because it has been contrived to scare people.

_________________________________

EV’s have advanced further in the last 5 years than the 30 years prior. So much so that previously uninterested foreign parties are getting on board with the EV / E-REV idea of energy independence. One Japanese vehicle maker has mentioned building a series of recharge stations prior to launching their electric car. NASA technology and public science are providing the tools for the completion of these bold moves.

_________________________________

I see a much better world than what is being painted and portrayed by manipulative powers. We are healthy and strong.

My suggestions for for the common man are these:

1>You will feel compelled to place 1/2 of your existing 401k money into a “now low priced” stock market. Resist this and carry on with a guaranteed 3-4% CD account. Remember how the government wanted to place Social Security funds into a “robust and rising” market just a few years ago? Based on, “We’re running out of money and this is your only hope of collecting”.This sounded like a great idea. It was just another fear ploy.

They nearly had us. We would now be poor beggars. At the mercy of whatever policy the powers would present. This would have been the end of freedom and life as we knew it.

2>The reality of street able EV / E-REV technology is now here. When your local dealer has a shipment of EV or E-REV do not buckle under and agree to a “lease program” offer. If you do, you’ll never own an EV or E-REV. We must demand ownership. Let the cars sit on the lot. We don’t want to lease.

We want to own…not be owned.

3>If something looks too good to be true, then it probably is. We will see many temptations and diversions in these next 5 years. Each geared at diluting what is left of freedom and personal wealth. This is a contrived effort to erode the ownership of our lives. Keep your eyes open and think before acting.

4>Once we are aware, we cannot become unaware. We base future decisions on “facts” stored in our brains. False realities are and will continue to be presented. Keep an open mind and be aware that 1/2 of what you see and hear may not be truthful. As hard as it is to believe, realize the matrix persona agenda exists.

=D~

(Quote)
Canuk Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:30 am

Texas @10,

Excellent post! I thorougly agree with your reasoning and have advocated the same thing myself. As a Canadian from a non war-mongering country, it was refreshing to hear an American say this sort of thing — Stop building war machines! Its’ killing us all! The same talent that is used for building the best killing machines in the world, would be much better for the world if it was used for building a new technology energy and transportation infrastructure.

(Quote)
blkstne Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:10 am

MSN just posted this article about electric cars
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27900919/
according to this article:

“production of the new cars will be limited. GM, for instance, plans to produce only a little more than 10,000 Volts in the model’s first year.”

“Eager to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Obama proposed a $7,500-a-vehicle tax credit for plug-in vehicles during his presidential campaign. Roughly half of Americans don’t earn enough to take advantage of such a big tax credit. (A head of household would need to earn almost $50,000 to have a federal tax liability that large.) Many others don’t have the cash to purchase an expensive vehicle then wait for a federal refund. To spur sales of new vehicles, the price must be reasonable at the point of sale, say many industry experts.”

“Womack warned that it takes time to design a new vehicle, change assembly lines and then turn a new product into a profitable one. “For anything that’s really new it’s still about four years,” he said. “To get your money back, you need to make that product for eight to 10 years with only cosmetic changes.”

“In 10 years are they [at GM] going to solve the technological problems with respect to the Volt? Sure,” says Maryann Keller, an automotive analyst and author of a book on GM. “But are they going to be able to stake their survival, which is really more of a now to five-year proposition, on it? I’d say they can’t. They have to stake their future on Malibus, the Chevy Cruze, and much more conventional technologies.”

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:23 am

Hey Lyle,
I just heard the Rick Waggoner is going to carpool with the rest of the auto executives to Washington next time. I hope it is in a Volt. The Government wants to see a plan before the money is released. What better a way than to see them drive up in a Volt and ask where they can plug it in. They want to see the plan. The plan is the Volt. And other eREVs to go along with it. Every dollar we do not send out of the Country for oil just keeps going around and around in the United States and fires up the economy. It doesn’t matter who buys the cars, Government or the general public, every Dollar not spent on foreign oil is an investment in our economy.
Take Care,
TED in Fort Myers

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:31 am

hi Canuk #50,

“Stop building war machines! Its’ killing us all!”
___________________________________

Build batteries, not bombs.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/volt%20badge.jpg

See you all next week, off on vacation. No computers, no buttons to push, no clocks to punch. Just turkey and relaxation. Life is hard.

http://garfwod.250free.com/HAL%20goodbye.wav

I’m just a regular guy saying, “Happy Thanksgiving all!”.

=D~

(Quote)
Ed Buratti Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:41 am

GM can’t build the Volt for $40,000? Come on here, who’s fooling who? Doesn’t Honda plan to release a sub-$20,000 50MPG hybrid in 2009? Does the Volt require $20,000 MORE in batteries than a hybrid? This is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that we should be required to buy them at a premium price, just to prop up Wagoner’s bonus program. GM (and GM’s not the only company) needs to have some serious changes made at the TOP. Until that happens, we’re throwing our money away.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:44 am

Obama is already on record on this issue:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Here’s a quote from page 4:
• Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug-ins as security permits; and
• Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012

But plug-ins are only part of the solution. Let’s not forget the big picture. There are around 40 million registered cars in the U.S., so even 1 million by 2015 is still a small percentage. The hope is with 1 million on the road, there will be enough volume so that plug-ins become affordable and ramp up in a big way.

The United States imports around 2/3 of the oil we consume. Oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)

Let’s say plug-ins got to 80% market penetration. The Volt would eliminate about 80% of the gasoline used in those cars. The total amount of oil consumed by the U.S. would be 28% less (80% * 80% * 44%). While this is a big deal, it’s less than half the amount of oil we currently import.

So it’s obvious to me that we need other solutions in addition to plug-ins. These would include:
• Ethanol from non-food sources ( see coskata.com )
• Bio-diesel from algae ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0 )
• More domestic oil production (stripper wells, oil shale, tar sands, offshore drilling)
• Convert home heating oil and industrial fuel oil to natural gas or electricity wherever possible.
• Conservation

(Quote)
BillR Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:56 am

Lyle and Nasaman, I think your plan has merit.

At a recent energy forum, the Army stated it is looking for 4000 electric vehicles. Mostly for on base use, I believe.

Combined with the other branches of the military, the US Postal Service, and other government agencies, there is probably a need for a number of E-REV’s by the govenment.

However, I say E-REV’s instead of the Volt, because the Volt is a commuter vehicle. It will be fine for Congressmen in DC or as light passenger transport on base, but to compliment this, GM needs an E-REV van or utility vehicle.

Also, to resolve some potential issues with US government sourcing, I believe GM needs to share/license this technology to Ford and Chrysler so that they can also participate. Remember, this bail our package must be for the Big 3.

I noticed an article that stated the new 2-mode V6 Vue would have an estimated EPA rating of 28/31 city/hwy. This is also a venue to promote the plug-in Vue, only with the largest battery pack possible (maybe the one from the Volt).

I also believe that if the something like an E-REV Tahoe with a small engine generator set (maybe a 2.0L) that can get 20 miles AER and 30+ mpg would be a winner. The military, government agencies, and the general public all like these types of vehicles.

(Quote)
brad Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:57 am

This is a great idea. I’ve suggested something similar before. The Volt is the only car planned for the next few years that is completely different than what is on the road today. The price premium is worth it for the latest technology so why not for the latest technology in automobiles. Once this is on the road it will drive demand by itself. 100% torque at 0 rpm.
Not going to the gas station.
LED lighting
Solar Panel Option – car always a comfortable temperature
Nearly silent all the time
Large amount of space for drivers and passengers
No exhaust fumes
The ablility to chage your car with home grown energy

Show me a prius or cruze that does all that.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:00 am

Back in early October or before, I said GM should put the Volt on the market less the battery pack. This would provide GM with a high MPG vehicle and they could put out an upgraded version with the battery pack when they get the bugs worked out. Funny almost no one thought that was a good idea at the time. GM could probably have had it on the market by 2009 less the battery pack. Oh, Well

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:05 am

We didn’t dominate the post-WWII world economy simply because of our superior invigorated manufacturing. We dominated it because the factories, railroads, and ports of every other industrialized nation had been reduced to rubble. In other words, we had no competition. Just thought I’d interject that bit of historical perspective.

Also, why on earth would anyone buy something without a warranty? If there is a high degree of confidence in the product, then most of them shouldn’t fail. Therefore, GM should be able to warranty each Volt sold for a small cost (if one out of every 100 vehices fails, then the warranty cost per vehicle sold should be 1/100 of that single vehicle replacement or repair). It’s not like GM needs to build the cost of a replacement battery into each car. That’s not a warranty; that’s gouging. Not sure of the battery life? Fine, make it a 3-year warranty. But not warranty at all? That’s just crazy.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:08 am

#14 carcus Says: “So we’re drowning in a sea of debt, and you want us to drink our way out?”
————————————————————————————–
Actually – yes. The short term solution is more debt. Conservative and liberal economists both agree on this.

I’m a fiscal conservative. The national debt is one of my most important issues. If you take the national debt, divide it by the number of people in the U.S., and then multiply for a typical family of four, your portion of that national debt is about $140,000. That’s like another mortgage.

But if we don’t get the economy going again, then more people will lose their jobs, income taxes will diminish, unemployment benefits will rise, and we’ll end up in deeper in debt anyway.

So the idea is to increase debt short-term until the economy gets going again, and then pay down the debt over the next 10-20 years.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:25 am

Red @ 7,

I agree, the inventories of today need to be sold to make room (and cash flow) for the cars of tomorrow…have the government replace its current fleets with what is available now. Gas guzzlers or not.

I do like the plan, but unless the timetable of the Volt’s released is moved up considerably, it will be too late.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:27 am

#55 Dave G

Thanks for the info on oil consumption. It is also important to note that consumption in this country is about 16 million barrels per day, and about 85 million barrels per day globally.

To put global consumption in perspective, imagine 1000 barrels of oil (42,000 gallons) on your front lawn. This is the amount of oil being consumed every second in the world today.

Another solution that you didn’t mention, which I believe will be the bridge to the future, is coal. I expect to see coal-to-liquids and clean coal power plants with carbon capture get us through the next 40 to 50 years until we can transition to nuclear and renewables.

The US emits 6 billion metric tons per year of CO2. About 2 billion from transportation, and 2.4 billion from power generation (of which 2.0 comes from coal). E-REV’s will help to reduce “direct” CO2 emissions, but if your electricity comes from older coal plants, your actual CO2 emissions may increase. Therefore, we need to update the grid (replace older coal plants).

With coal we can produce liquid fuels (solar and wind doesn’t work well for jet aircraft), make clean power, and increase domestic energy supply. Thus we create jobs in America and reduce our trade deficit. But we need the utilities to stop practicing business as usual and building conventional coal plants. The next 10 years will be interesting indeed.

(Quote)
Joshua Bretz Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:29 am

I think that US government subsidies make sense only if the batteries are made by a US company.

(Quote)
statik Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:30 am

#22 firefly said,

Have you lost your mind? Ford stronger than GM at $1.56 per share? GM isn’t much better but at least their stock currently is at $3.59. $2.03 isn’t earth-shatering, but multiply that by several million and you understand why the Blue Oval is scrambling to revamp their lines also.
———————————————————

Market Cap 101: share price is not indicative of overall value

Shares Outstanding:

GM: 610 million =2.2B cap
F: 2.39 billion = 3.7B cap

(Quote)
User Name Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:35 am

Warranty-free batteries invites Chinese junk.
They may be government employees driving them, but they’re still Americans.

(Quote)
statik Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:11 am

Not to burst anyone’s bubble but this breaks about a dozen competition rules in the US’ own governance for acquistion of assets for use…before we even get to just regular old competition laws. How can it be a ‘GM only’ contract, and not the other two anyway?

Additionally it violates more than a few WTO laws.

WTO trade law sets the level and type of support that a member county is allowed to grant their domestic producers.

The government paying a premium for a vehicle over what the public would pay to ensure profitabilty of a domestic supplier and then also buying that same product with no legacy warranty, which is also a legislated minimum for all automakers to adhere to is a MAJOR violation.

Unless the plan also includes withdrawal from the WTO and ripping up all the domestic laws on competition…this plan is a non starter. Jose Manuel Barroso (European Commission President would have a proverbial cow.

This isn’t the US great depression, it is a worldwide recession, big difference. This action is protectionist in nature…which is the last thing you want to do right now, as it has a domino effect.

Do you believe there will not be reactionary measures taken by other companies citing this event as the rationale?

Besides that, all of a week ago, the G20, all went to WASHINGTON to agreed to NOT to impose additional economic trade barriers in the next 12 months, and to encourage worldwide trade. Nothing says worldwide trade like having the government exclusively buy electric cars at a premium to the market.

Sorry for the ‘dark cloudiness,’ but I just had to voice my opinion that this seems like a good idea for us at ‘GM-Volt’ in a selfish way, but not so much in the big picture. For the marginal good it would do for GM or the ‘electrification’ of the automobile…it would be disaster for the world in general.

/when did the battery pack get to $10,000 – $15,000 per car? Are we allowing for GM’s ‘double pack’ up front charge even if the government gets no warranty? I thought Lutz said GM made money if the ’second pack’ was not utilized?

//and here I thought the Great Depression was born out of government policies and protectionist trade

(Quote)
Maynard Keenan Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:20 am

#67:
Thank you static!
I’m still wondering how Lyle got up with that funny plan…
And that awful picture – it’s getting a little bit creepy in this forum.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:32 am

I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of the people here are wrong. Everyone has a different answer so which of you is right?

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am

LYLE

Sorry I haven’t read all the posts here, but I think the other 1/2 of theplan that you did not mention should also be included.

All of the N.A. big 3 should be offered the contracts. Vehicles like Electrics given priority minimum range 150 miles, or EREV’s. This allows all 3 to offer.

Competition be damned. I work with tenders all the time..write the spec right, and the others “simply do not qualify” because they do not meet spec.

BUT THE BEAUTY is using electric and EREV requires electricity!! What does Obama want? investment in INFRASTRUCTURE like GREEN power..

NOW the gubermint has a reason to invest…it could be the greenest governement EVER. I am not a tree hugger, but MAN the Credibility!! the JOBS, the IMPROVEMENT in infrastructure, investment in green technology and mostly ENERGY INDEPENDANCE!!

Alternatively if you want to keep the production to US manufacturers…let the finanacial assistance be repaid in product..

GM here is $10,000,000,000…at $40,000 per volt, we’ll take 250,000 in the next 5 years for our fleet.

Ford, here is your …we’ll take…for our fleet..(you get the picture)

Same idea, and its not competion oriented, its terms of repayment.

Offer the same the the G8…this creates orders, generates revenue, costs nothing as the fleets need replacing anyway..service will have to be dealership done.

Investing in green power generation and an improved infrastructure…

WIN!

(Quote)
old man Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am

#58
I agree with you regarding a no battery Volt. But I go further, I think all cars could be built with the ICE/generator concept at a price competitive with todays cars. This conversion could be done faster than building enough factories to produce enough 40 mile batteries required to make them all E-REV.
I think such a fleet could easily reach an average 40 mpg.
This seems a good stop gap till the quanity of batteries we are able to produce catches up with the number of cars we need.
I wonder if the generator can be improved as we assume batteries can be. This would allow an even smaller ICE to be used.
And the electric motor gets rid of the expensive, heavy transmision that is full of oil.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am

Yes, this does sound like a good idea. I would state that, as long as the government was going to be replacing some vehicles anyway, it may as well be with the alternative fuel vehicles they insist we all drive.

Should this program not also extend to any domestically produced Prius’s, Aptera Type 1e’s / 1h’s, etc., and not just the Chevy Volt? There are many alternative fuel vehicles produced here in the US.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am

Well, if the government just says we are going to buy plug in electric vehicles.. and the GM volt is the only one available, I dont see how that is protectionism. Now if every car company had one, then they would have to buy from everyone.

(Quote)
old man Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am

statik, good grief I get to finally disagree with you! To get around the trade agreements is simple, just write the specs around the car,truck,van that the gov wants to buy. The spec could regard the size,shape,weight of the battery, the center of gravity. the list goes on. When I was selling machine tools I found gov specs to be a pain in the a**. My machine could be far better for the application but did not meet enough of the specs so it was not even considered. To successfully sell the gov you get the specs written around your product.

(Quote)
statik Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am

This is kind of a ’side note’ but this year’s Detroit autoshow is turning into a stinker. This used to be the ‘main event’ for the car universe:

After Nissan’s pullout yesterday, I have the list of non-participants so far as the following:

Nissan/
Reneault
Mitsubishi
Land Rover
Rolls-Royce
Suzuki
Ferrari
Porsche

(have I missed any?)

We also have some other automakers saying they are scaling down…so I’m not sure just exactly what to expect.

Link to Nissan pullout:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2008/11/24/nissan-cancels-detroit-auto-show-appearance-first-of-many.aspx

I had the show circle on my itinerary of things to do in January, but I’m not sure it is worth the trip (about 4 hours from Toronto for me), I was really hoping to get a close look/hop into the Mitsu i-Miev or have a look at Nissan’s Cube (their EV platform).

Personally, I still have the Toyota Plug-In Prius/next gen to look forward to (I hope) and the Honda Insight (which I am ‘on the list’ for, but I have yet to see in person)…and the ENVI lineup from Chrysler (although I suspect they will be sectioned off, so the basically just looking at the Lotus Europa EV conversion…the Jeep and van are basically identical, with a EV sticker on the side)

(Quote)
Dave99 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am

sorry, but I think this is a bad idea. a pre-release before the vehicle is fully ready may lead to less-than-ideal functioning and a bad image. for the public to fully accept this vehicle, it will have to work smoothly like an Apple, and not Windows. additionally, rushing the battery manufacturers (who are already the limiting factor) to pump out units prematurely would draw attention from the public launch and I suspect may detract from the initial quality of those first non-government vehicles.

I am for the bailout because no other industry relies as much on a combination of consumer credit and access to capital. the problems that the banks have created are disproportionately affecting the auto industry. the reasoning: what bigger purchase than a car does the average individual make? the only answer that is easily agreed upon is a house, and that takes much less capital investment to manufacture. so between squeezing from the consumer demand and investment to build a car, Detroit is having a really hard time. of course, I am in favor of the Big Three having a good plan to return to profitability, but I only ask that this requirement also be placed on corporations such as Citi.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am

Offtopic.

Tesla has gotten their production line vehicles updated with the new motors…

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/11/24/autobloggreen-visits-our-founder-to-try-out-his-tesla-roadster/

(Quote)
statik Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:11 am

#72 old man

statik, good grief I get to finally disagree with you! To get around the trade agreements is simple, just write the specs around the car,truck,van that the gov wants to buy. The spec could regard the size,shape,weight of the battery, the center of gravity. the list goes on. When I was selling machine tools I found gov specs to be a pain in the a**. My machine could be far better for the application but did not meet enough of the specs so it was not even considered. To successfully sell the gov you get the specs written around your product.
—————————–
I do a fair bit of government contract work myself, so you are certainly right there is a lot of ways to escape pesky technicalities.

However, this is a different because of circumstances and scale. The high international profile sheds far too much light on it. Somehow I think the WTO/EU would see the ‘ruse’ in this case.

(Quote)
George K Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am

I knew we should put Nasaman on GM’s Board!

http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/13/poll-should-the-us-government-give-emergency-loans-to-gm/
#59

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:32 am

#66 Statik

Spot on.

Protectionism is the wrong answer here and that’s what made the Great Depression so Great. If I was Japan, I’d respond by placing a tariff on imported Boeing planes….and we get into a downward spiral which harms everyone.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am

#66 Statik – WTO issues

There really aren’t any WTO issues. Why? Because you don’t write the bill that way. You don’t say “Order 200,000 Volts.” You say “Order 200,000 energy efficient cars that have at least a 16 kWh battery pack, committed for delivery from X date to Y date.” There would be exactly one car that meets that criteria. But there is not a protectionist issue.

The WTO ultimately rests on the members acting in good faith and in defending their own interests. For some reason I’m thinking that under the new administration the Chinese will not be able to engage in the types of currency manipulation they’ve used during the last eight years.

To illustrate the nature of the problem, here is a question: is the provision of health care an unfair trade practice? If not, why not?

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:59 am

IMO free trade is more trouble than it’s worth. When you consider the 4:1 import/export ratio with Japan and the 7:1 ratio with China, the restrictions in place that prevent the US from exporting products over there, the competitive advantages handed to them in our market.

The cummulative effects of all this add up to the US becoming a consumer economy. We end up doing nothing but selling stuff to each other, suing each other, borrowing money from each other, and flipping burgers.

The WTO can take a long hike off a short plank. The UN can follow their lead.

(Quote)
Bud Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am

Dumb idea. This is not the Soviet Union and I would not buy a Volt if there were 100,000 of them out there painted white with US Govt. on the side.

(Quote)
JHCIV Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am

This is an interesting idea, but only one element of a bigger picture. First off – it needs to be a program where the government buys EREVs and advanced hybrids (as in new Ford Fusion – which in a few months is going to be the most advanced and efficient hybrid on the market – suck on that, Prius) from every automaker to encourage more innovation from ALL of the players, both foreign and domestic. As the fleet is electrified, they must sell the current fleet at discounts to help the struggling consumer base.

But even more importantly, the Obama administration must invest tens of billions in energy storage and manufacturing research. EVs CANNOT get off the ground unless battery and manufacturing costs go down dramatically. This is what America is good at and it will happen with research, it just has to be given funding.

We can put America back on top – through the innovation that got us where we are. Without it, the automakers will fall – as will the USA’s place in the world.

(Quote)
Darius Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Chevy Volt for the moment is tiny part of the game. It is future prospect but GM needs food today. The question for GM board is how long they are going to suffer cash deficit and what measures shall be undertaken to minimize it at the same time heavily invest in the new developments (PRT, Volt ….) which under certain circumstances might be game changers. GM has to consider what product segment might be profitable and how to boost sales with car lease which might be supported from 700 bailout.
On other hand GM should propose fuel tax after Volt and Volt powertrain hit the market if GM Board really serious about engagement.
For international markets there is urgent need of quality control.

(Sorry all mistakes I have made and will make and imperfect wording but I hope you will get meeaning of my comments)

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am

I don’t want to rain on your parade, but the government is not in the habit of paying for vehicles prior to manufacture. Plus, there are so many rules, regulations and laws governing vehicle purchase that it would take a tremendous effort to overcome the “strings” attached to such a deal. Maybe this would help if the congress could pass the bridge loan bill and have a purchase contract as part of the bill along with proper statements removing restraints to such a purchase for a temporary period. But who knows. It may work. To me it would be much “cleaner” to just give them the bridge loan with some assurances of how the money will be used and agreement to restructure the companies by eliminating low volume lines and reducing inefficient vehicles manufacture.

No matter what is done, GM has to have enough cash to get them well into 2010 after the new UAW contracts go into effect. Even then GM has all those dealer contracts to deal with that are controlled by separate state laws. Congress needs to give them the loan and then pass a bill that allows the auto companies to go into a “special” chapter 11 that would allow them to rid themselves of unnecessary dealers, etc. Kind of what Mitt Romney had suggested last week.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am

#58 Bob McGovern Says: “Back in early October or before, I said GM should put the Volt on the market less the battery pack. This would provide GM with a high MPG vehicle …”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt won’t work without a battery.

The whole point of the series hybrid design is that the ICE only produces average horsepower. Peak horsepower comes from the batteries, even after the ICE turns on. That’s how the Volt gets 150 peak horsepower out of a 70 horsepower gas engine.

If you lose the battery, then you would need an ICE with twice the horsepower, and your MPG would go down the toilet. At that point, a regular gas engine car would be more efficient.

In addition, the size of the battery must be significant enough to supply the peak horsepower. Bigger batteries not only have more energy storage (kWH) but also more instantaneous power (kW). So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it.

By the way, people on this site have been asking about this since the summer of 2007, and the answer has been the same. It won’t work.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am

This is about as ridiculous as I have heard. I don’t know how old Phil is but he doesn’t seem to know much about WW2.
1.A lot of companies made a lot of products for the war effort not only auto makers.
2.Unions did not control the companies.
3.Quality standards were very high due to individual attitudes.
4.Production levels were also high due to people’s attitudes.
5.The dollar wasn’t the driving force behind the products being made.
Selling the Volt to the US Government at Premium Price doesn’t follow good business practices. Volume sales are generally less than individual sales saving the purchaser money (The Taxpayer). What would the Government do with a 3 passenger doodle bug? The 40 mile-per-day average for the average driver wouldn’t work too well for Government employees. This might work fine in the DC area but elsewhere it probably would come up short. His idea that this thought be implemented immediately also doesn’t take into consideration that the batteries are still in the test stage. His being a retired NASA engineer explains his train of thought. I grew up just north of Cape Canaveral and saw and heard a lot of the problems the engineers had go up in smoke. Without a $10,000-$15,000 battery warranty!!!! Whose side is he on? I say no to all of his ideas. GM cannot solve all it’s problem with the Volt. It is almost like a grocery chain solving all their problems with a one can addition to their inventory.

(Quote)
BobC Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I enjoyed following this site because the various milestones for the Volt were intriguing and exciting. However, given the current economic situation and the U.S. automakers situations, the Volt is a small factor in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, this site has gone ‘off the deep-end’. I think the Volt is a great idea, but there is momentum for electric vehicles from other companies and other form factors. The Volt may or may not last but we will probably see electric vehicles with or without the Volt, or GM for that matter.

The U.S. automakers need to get smaller to size themselves for the current conditions. I support any effort to do that. However…
NO MORE BAILOUTS.

The Concorde flew for 25 years and lost money on every flight. It was NEVER profitable. The British and French governments lost a lot of taxpayer money supporting an enterprise that destroyed capital. I fear that the Volt could be another capital-destroying enterprise. There has been enough of that already in this economy!

(Quote)
coach Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

1. i’d say wagoner shd. use Volts to come to washington with his entourage .

2. or , use cars made for the brazilian market using alcohol.

GM just have to be bold . there is nothing to lose !

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Works for me.

#50 Canuck:

Well said. One of the best comments I have seen in all of these long months. Thank you.

If Ford and Chrysler feel left out, let them manufacture Volts under license. That’s what was done in WWII with small arms, Jeeps, aircraft, and many other products where the original manufacturer could not keep up with demand. As I said once before, my M1 carbine was made by the RockOla jukebox company!

Consolidated-Vultee designed and initially produced the B-24 Liberator. When they could not keep up, the Ford Willow Run plant was built from a green field and ramped up to produce thousands of B-24s, all in the space of 3 years. If memory serves, Willow Run was the largest building under roof in the world at that time, something like 44 acres.

FDR wasn’t too concerned about the niceities of restraint of trade when he handed out the war production contracts. Make sure they all make some money for a change, and they’ll stop whining about same. And if they don’t, have the FBI and the MPs drop by to counsel them.

To echo Texas, Canuck and Jean-Charles Jacquemin, if we can turn our talent for making the world’s best killing machines to making the world’s best energy saving machines, we can change the course of history.

Some 30 years ago, Jimmy Carter famouly said that energy independence is the moral equivalent of war. Too bad we didn’t have the good sense to listen. Now maybe we’ll get one more chance.

(Quote)
jscott1000 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

This might actually work. When the Prius first came out the City of Houston made a conscious decision to purchase nothing but the Prius for city vehicles.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

For those of you who are saying we should offer the same kind of deal to the “other” automakers, you must remember two things. One, they are “foreign owned”. That makes a difference when it comes to taxpayers money, to me. Secondly, the Japanese government does all kind of financial assistance to their native auto companies. The other foreign owned companies get help in one form or another from their governments. The U.S. is about the only government that does not help their industries but does try to hinder them with all kinds of laws, rules and regulations. Some of the laws, rules and regulations are good, but many are breaking the backs of American industry and either running them out of business or to overseas operations that does not contribute to the American economy.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

The Eagle doesn’t look too happy. I guess he sees what a shambles our (his) great nation is in.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

In order to see if an auto industry bailout makes sense, you have to look at the risks on both sides.

All too often, I’ve seen people make one-sided risk assessments. It goes like this: “If I do this, then something bad might happen, so let’s not do it”. But the other question that’s usually forgotten is: “What bad things might happen if I don’t do this?”

In the case of the auto industry, no bailout could lead to 3 million lost jobs. This would cost the federal government about $100B in lost tax revenue and unemployment benefits. And this all assumes that the negative impact of 3 million lost jobs doesn’t spread to other sectors that aren’t directly or indirectly related to the auto industry. In other words, with current economic conditions, 3 million lost jobs could send the whole economy into a tail spin.

If you let the auto makers go chapter 11, then they won’t have to pay their bills, but that has 2 very big risks:
1) Who wants to buy a car from a bankrupt company?
2) If GM doesn’t pay their bills, who else goes chapter 11? Where does it end?

On the other side, loaning the auto industry $25B has 2 risks:
1) $25B may not be enough, depending on macroeconomic conditions.
2) American cars need to be more competitive, especially on reliability and fuel efficiency.

So if I were making the decision, I would definitely lean toward loaning $25B in order to not to lose $100B, but I would want some sort of plan that shows the loan could actually work. Sound familiar?

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

The Big Three can survive if they will just take a lesson from the Japanese. They can downsize and make fewer models with higher quality. We don’t need Ford to make 6 models of SUV’s. Downsize to a small model and a larger model. This has proven to work for other companies. GM does not need 5 different labels for essentially the same vehicle. Drop Pontiac and Buick and make fewer models and they will survive also.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

#25 avatar:

Thanks for the excellent, if scary, link.

Aerodynamic, engine and transmission tweaks for the Accent and the Elantra? Low rolling resistance tires? Don’t you suppose Daewoo could do this with the Aveo? These ideas have been used to good effect on the Cobalt XFE, but it is not available with an auto. GM is well aware what percentage of cars are ordered with sticks, so clearly the market for this is extremely limited. Raise your game with your auto trans guys.

I have been suggesting this stuff since I started posting on Fastlane, what seems like a lifetime ago. Every time I see something like this, I feel like somebody just walked over my grave.

(Quote)
THOM Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Great Idea….NOT.

Use taxpayer money to knowingly pay far more something is worth AND not even developed yet??

Kinda like getting the token Tootsie Roll when you give a certain amount of money to a charity…but less cause tootsie rolls do EXIST!

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

*********************
IMPROVED IDEA
*********************

For US gov vehicles I would like to see an option of a grid-tie inverter plug-in. This would be especially agencies like FEMA.

The Volt would be able to provide 8KWh of emergency power, plus much more with the efficient ICE/generator running. After hurricane Katrina there was a shortage of generators.

Actually I would like to see this option available on all Volts.
However for agencies like FEMA this should be a huge selling point.

The inverters would be an optional extra that can be plugged into the Volt, thus avoiding carrying around the extra weight.

Alternatively, if the on-board generator can be configured for 240/120v 60Hz no inverter would be needed.

It also improves US security and preparedness.

If GM is not providing a warrentie on the battery to Uncle Sam, then worries about abuse of battery by using the generator/inverter would be moot.

(Quote)
KentT Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Charlie h at post 11 makes a point but it is really a contrast between large corporations and entrepreneural startups. Tesla “succeeds” or rather survives by investors. Corporations succeed by being profitable. For GM the entrepreneural stage passed decades ago. There are no investors except shareholders. New products are funded by profits not by venture capitalists.

SO

For those opposed to a “bailout” how about looking at as an investment? If GM goes under there is no Volt! Washington should act like a venture capitalist. Also, for all the haters out there GM, of all the automakers, HAS made tremendous strides in productivity, union relationships, resolving to a large degree pension and health care liabilities. And by the way, have any of you driven a GM car in the last five years? They are FANTASTIC! RELIABLE with more features for the money than ANY imports. Stop living in the past. Trade in your 1998 Honda, yes it was the best car of it’s day but drive a Cobalt or Malibu. Yes, Honda still makes class leaders but GM is TOTALLY competitive. Look at the Car and Driver test and see where they placed the Malibu IT BEAT OUT THE CAMRY.

It’s time to believe in American industry and workers. It’s time for the Democratic party to make good on the campaign speeches and help main street not just wall street. Give money to industries that hire the middle class for real wages not Wal-mart wages and how about some talk about chapter 11 for the Citibank suits out there instead of another kick to the n_ts for the blue collar worker?

Bailout? No investment. We will not see a dime from AIG but loan money to GM and you’ll have that money back with interest and with jobs and a paradigm changing vehicle that will change the world.

Wake up people! If Bush doesn’t support automaker INVESTMENT then the Republican party jumps onto the ash heap of history! They will become footnote in American politics being led by the Sarah Palins of the cultural right. Are YOU going to vote for the party that shut down GM when they had a chance to save your job, your father’s job? Your uncle’s?

GM is not a car maker. GM is a car ASSEMBLER. GM does not make cars. By going to thousands of vendors, tire makers, steel plants, plastics, electronics, glass, cloth, and on and on. THESE ARE THE COMPANIES THAT ARE IN DANGER OF FAILING. THINK PEOPLE THINK!

And by the way, not a bad idea there Lyle. It WOULD be nice if the government got something tangible for it’s money. But again for all the haters out there, think of the money as an investment, not a bailout or $500 toilet seat. America needs your support and GM is too much a part of America to let it fail. GM is a good company and in good times in makes tons of money. In bad times it loses tons of money but the bad times will pass. Trust me. The good times will return and we will all get any money back that the govenment loans it. You know this is true. So let’s stay calm and do the right thing by helping GM weather this unprecedented economic storm. The INVESTMENT will pay off in the long run.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

#98 Mark Bartosik Says: “For US gov vehicles I would like to see an option of a grid-tie inverter plug-in. This would be especially agencies like FEMA. The Volt would be able to provide 8KWh of emergency power…”
————————————————————————————–
Grid-tie inverters are much more complicated, costly, and unnecessary. A regular inverter would be better for emergency power. If a line goes down, supplying power to that line would be dangerous. For safety reasons, grid-tie inverters are required to shut down when there’s no power on the grid. This is why you would want a regular inverter instead.

Besides, regular inverters are much cheaper. For example, here’s a very small grid-tie inverter for just under $2000:
http://www.affordable-solar.com/xantrex-gt-28-inverter.grid.intertie.htm
and here’s a 1500 watt digital pure sine inverter for just over $400:
http://www.invertersrus.com/pwrig150012s.html

I’ve long said the Volt should have 110 volt AC convenience outlets with 1500 watts total power. This would be great for:
• emergency power
• remote locations (camping, construction, etc).
• powering home devices while driving

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Now we are even making the news.

http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/blogs/marty_blog/2010/chevy-volt-a-60000-mail-truck-in-the-near-future/

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Bradyb Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

This is from my Congressman Bob Bishop R-UT:
Writing bills in secret and allowing absolutely no amendments by anyone on the floor meant legitimate ideas aimed at protecting the taxpayers and limiting the taxpayers’ potential liability were never allowed to be explored or voted. That was frustrating. This year we had more bills on the floor with no chance for amendments than during anytime in the history of Congress. That did not make for a better process, and I fear that did not make for a better product either.”

“I backed a conservative alternative that along with others deserved to at least be considered. But on all of these proposals, including the one we were forced to vote on today (with only an up or down vote), there was no committee work, no public input, no amendments allowed, and no chance to improve it on the floor. Had we been given the chance to discuss and vote on alternatives, we could have at least verified how much further we could have pushed taxpayer protections and a solution that would have been more free-market-based.”

I emailed him the above info along with my senators.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

#99 KentT

Helping the Detroit automakers may be a good thing, but it’s hard to ask for $25B and not be able to tell congress how much each company needs and how each company intends to use their share. (It was unbelievable when asked about the break out all the CEOs just looked at one another in bewilderment. The corporate jets didn’t bother me that much but had they all commuted together perhaps they might have co-ordinated better).

I have no idea what the CEO’s expected but they sure did a very poor job of presenting and selling the idea.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am

#58 Bob McGovern Says: “Back in early October or before, I said GM should put the Volt on the market less the battery pack. This would provide GM with a high MPG vehicle …”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt won’t work without a battery.

The whole point of the series hybrid design is that the ICE only produces average horsepower. Peak horsepower comes from the batteries, even after the ICE turns on. That’s how the Volt gets 150 peak horsepower out of a 70 horsepower gas engine.

If you lose the battery, then you would need an ICE with twice the horsepower, and your MPG would go down the toilet. At that point, a regular gas engine car would be more efficient.

In addition, the size of the battery must be significant enough to supply the peak horsepower. Bigger batteries not only have more energy storage (kWH) but also more instantaneous power (kW). So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it.

By the way, people on this site have been asking about this since the summer of 2007, and the answer has been the same. It won’t work.
————————————————————————————
Dave G:
According to this site it will work. Depleted or removed, the range extender still works the same doesn’t it ? Since the entire project hasn’t been finalized would it be too complicated to work around the battery feature?

http://www.greencar.com/features/volt-facts/

5. Volt Has a 400 Mile Total Range
After battery power is depleted, the Volt should offer another 360 miles of range with the gasoline engine/generator providing the juice, for a total of 400 miles. The range extender design makes the Volt much more versatile than a pure electric car because there’s no wait to recharge batteries if you have places to go. The small six or so gallon gasoline tank can be refilled in a matter of minutes for extended travel.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

11/24/08:

Mark Perry, Nissan’s director of product planning speaks with Hybridcars.com about the company’s electric car plans.

Why not a plug-in hybrid?

“It’s a bridge technology so you’re not zero emission. So you’re basically carrying around 2 power plants, you’re basically carrying around double the amount of weight, for the chance that, and the only reason you do a plug-in hybrid is because you’re not confident in your battery. So a plug-in hybrid that only goes 40 miles is good. I mean for somebody who only needs 40 miles of zero emission range, that’s good but you’re not zero emission. A pure battery electric vehicle, you’re zero emission all the time…”

See the whole interview on Nissan’s electric car plans here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0LkwBgQdtg

We need MORE competition, not gov’t central planning and corporatism.

Make room for new ideas by letting the old ones die along with the Big 3!

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

If some believe that the US came out of the depression by building military equipment for WWII, then they are sadly mistaken. The Depression did NOT end until 1946, more than 7 years after US iindustry got its first war orders (from Britain/France). Previous economic histories failed to understand that putting 12 million unemployed male workers into uniform and off the welfare roles did not mean that there was enough employment. Nothing much was produced during the war for consumers either – no stoves, cars, tires, etc. etc. NOBODY was better off because of the giant increase in wartime production. Building tanks doesn’t do anything to raise the standard of living – we simply don’t use tanks in everyday life. The New Deal had zero effect on the depression in terms of economic activity, and in fact had been thoroughly descredited by 1937, when the country entered into a drepression-within-a-depression. Unemployment in 1941 (when adjusted for men in uniform) was exactly the same as it was at the deepest time of the downturn. The New Deal was a total failure that had lost virtually all of its political support amongst the general populace by 1937. Having the people suport an industry thru govt buys rather than individual buys, achieves zilch and has no meaningful purpose. Products must stand on their own and justify their existence. The problem with the US automakers is so easy to understand it’s quite embarrassing to hear leaders doig everything they can to avoid it – the labor rates extorted by the unions are killing the auto industry in exactly the same way they killed every other industry in this country. If you’re unionized and have foreign competition, you’re dead. If not, you simple rape the US consumer. Both are unacceptable.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

#104 Bob McGovern Says: “Depleted or removed, the range extender still works the same doesn’t it ? Since the entire project hasn’t been finalized would it be too complicated to work around the battery feature?”
————————————————————————————–
In this case, the term “depleted” doesn’t mean the battery is empty. In the Volt, the gas engine turns on when the battery gets down to 30% charge. A controller varies the gas engine output to keep the battery at 30%. GM calls this 30% charge state the “customer depletion point” or CDP. See here for details:
http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/

This isn’t a Volt specific thing. In order for any series hybrid car to work efficiently, it needs a large battery. This is not a feature GM can change. It’s physics. Nobody can change this.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

#97 Thom:

The military does it every day. Cost reimbursable, massive cost overruns, procurement from MAYBE two sources, development costs shouldered by the taxpayers, and nobedy even blinks. I’ll trade you Volts for MRAP trucks any day of the week. Never mind F-35s at $49 million apiece and counting.

#103 DonC:

Hey, they handed Citibank $20 billion, and accepted the risk for about $200+ billion of their shaky loans, after a few secret meetings and conference calls over the weekend. Did anyone see any Congressional hearings over that? Any “plan”? Wanna bet some Citibank “managers” arrived by Gulfstream?

I agree with what you’re saying, but there sure is a double standard at work here. Or maybe triple or quadruple, considering the different orders of magnitude of the money involved.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Kent (#106) is absolutely correct.

The ONLY thing accomplished by the “new deal” was to extend the depth and duration of the depression by making people afraid to invest their time, money and energy because of the ever changing gov’t regulations. (Paulson is already changing the bailout plan daily) Why invest in a business when the gov’t is investing you tax money in your competitor while working to central plan all business activity from Washington, DC?

If the gov’t would only GET OUT OF THE WAY and let bankruptcy take care of the problems, the market would absorb GM’s (or any other company’s) assets and more aggressive companies would quickly spring up to fill the void.

Will there be a great sucking sound? YES.
Will it hurt? Yes.
How long will it last? About a year is the gov’t gets OUT of the way and about 10-15 years if the gov’t tries to manipulate the NATURAL course of supply / demand economics with socialist central planning.

Power hungry, egotistical socialists (Democrat and now NeoCon) NEVER learn from history because they are too busy blaming somebody else for THEIR failures.

(Quote)
Jonathan Friedman Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to my senators, representatives, etc… I’m posting it here in case anyone wants to reuse it. I basically cleaned up the post above in order to make it more likely that my officials will take it seriously. Cheers! -Jonathan

Abstract:
———
In addition or as an alternative to a loan, the US Government should simply offer the Big 3 a fleet contract for vehicles capable of >30 miles of All-Electric Range (AER). The government fleet is huge (> half a million vehicles) and will spurn economies of scale (lowering costs for the public), substantially increase oil-independence, encourage public recharging infrastructure (job multiplier), and bring the general public into closer contact with (and thereby acceptance of) electric technology. All 3 big US automakers (and most of the smaller ones) either have or plan to offer vehicles which meet this specification. The GM Chevrolet Volt has garnered the most press recently and I urge you to consider its product literature if you have further questions on vehicles of this type.

Letter:
——-

Senator Boxer,

On December 2nd, GM will submit its plan for viability to the US government, which if accepted will result in a bridge loan for the automaker.
Congress also requires that in addition to demonstrating profitability, the plan describe how the loan will enable GM to “expand production of advanced technology fuel efficient vehicles.”
Certainly the Chevy Volt represents GM’s most important effort in that regard. However, due to the cost of the lithium ion battery of about $10,000 – $15,000 per car , GM has stated it wont be able to make a profit at a cost of $40,000 per car.

How can these two opposing attributes be reconciled? — by leveraging governmental fleet sales (an idea first put forth by Phil Toney).
Phil, a semi-retired NASA engineer, noted that the US government’s way out of the Great Depression and World War II was through enlisting US automakers to build war machinery. He proposed that an organization known as the GSA which is responsible for procuring government vehicles, be immediately legislated to buy massive quantities of Chevy Volts to replace the current government fleet.

I support this proposition with the following additions:

(1) These Chevy Volts should be sold to the government at premium and without a battery warranty. Each vehicle should be sold at a profit. And in so doing, and assuming sufficient battery pack quantities can be produced, they could be released earlier than the November 2010 deadline.

(2) As well, supportive governments of the G8, and US utility companies should also be permitted to purchase these fleet Volts under the same constraints.

(3) A substantial partial payment should be made up front to sustain the automakers during this period of turmoil.

The result of this action could lead to contracts resulting in the sale of more than 100,000 Chevy Volts. Indeed, the current US government vehicle fleet amounts to greater than 600,000 cars. Not only will this effort help ensure GM’s viability but it will help vigorously propel the US towards petroleum independence. It will act as a stimulus for the eventual electrification of the entire US automotive fleet, will enable large scale public exposure to these US-made vehicles, and permit extensive field testing. Furthermore it well expedite economy of scale cost-reduction for large format lithium ion batteries, and make these cars more affordable for the public. As Phil writes, “it worked in the 30’s & 40’s ….in fact, the US rose from a desperate, financially-anemic economy in the 30’s to the world’s strongest economy after WWII!!! …due primarily, I believe, to the multi-billion dollar government contracts placed with the big 3 for the machinery of war! We know it works. So let’s do it again!!!”

The government is already spending billions on bad assets, how about a few billion on good assets!

Sincerely,
-Jonathan

Bio:
—-

Jonathan Friedman, MSEE CNA GSR is an electrical engineer and Chief Executive Officer of Atla Labs, Inc. a firm which designs solar-power energy harvesting and data acquisition equipment for pollution and contamination monitoring. He also voted for you!

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

#104 Bob

Remember that the ICE in the Volt is not connected to the drive..it is a series hybrid meaning all propulsion comes from the electric motor.

No battery, and the ICE simply runs a generator that has no load connected to it

(Quote)
DonC Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

#108 noel park – “but there sure is a double standard at work here”

I agree completely.

#109 and #106 – Claims that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse and the Great Depression ended in 1946.

Yes, and the Holocaust never happened. Get real. Of course governments spent their way out of the Great Depression. And the Great Depression ended in the US when we geared up for WW II. From Wikipedia: “The end of the depression in the U.S. is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939.”

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

#101 Arch:

Thanks for yet another cool link. You are THE MAN!

How does it feel to be “opinion leaders” guys? (LOL)

BTW – NPNS!

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Dave G:
I am on my 4th Chevrolet since 2000 and with the bugs I have had I can imagine what the Volt is going to be like. Can you imagine getting up to go to work and finding a dead battery (Lithium-Ion)? Or you reach your CDP and the ICE doesn’t kick in. Or you have 20 miles on your battery and your ICE starts up. GM needs a lot of test time on this jewel before it hits the market. Plus a lot of dealer service training.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

#112 DonC:

Yeah, and global warming is a hoax.

Thanks. I was beginning to believe that everything I had been taught in my history classes all my life never happened!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

#111 Mitch Says: “No battery, and the ICE simply runs a generator that has no load connected to it”
————————————————————————————–
The ICE/generator also connects to the electric motor, and that’s definitely a load (except during regenerative braking or coasting). Most of the electricity from the ICE/generator uses this path, bypassing the battery and going directly to the electric motor.

It’s only during acceleration or steep uphill driving that the battery path comes into play. That’s when you need peak horsepower.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Lyle,

I reworded it some, but I sent it to all three.
But they are fairly useless, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

(Quote)
Gordon Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Our Government should have the VOLT powertrain retrofitted to the aging fleet of U.S. Post Office delivery vehicles. The small ones that visit the neighborhoods. I’ll bet the wheelbase on those is pretty close to the mark.

I do have one question: I have read on this website that there is a limited supply of Lithium in the world, and that battery production might somehow be limited. Is that true? And if so, wouldn’t giving the government all of the first vehicles cut deeply into the availablility for the public?

(Quote)
Bill Cosworth Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

GM need an internet team to protect the american car companies.

Toyota and Honda and they have there goons all over the internet.

I have heard that Toyota and Honda are paying PR people to make sure the big 3 go under.

They are posting things on-line and spending millions in Washington.

I have to give it to them. This spend millions in Washington now. Kill off the Big 3 then make billions off the Americans later. Japan gets richer.

A friend of mine who owns an automotive website says he traces the IP address from comments and a lot of the anti Detroit comments come from Japan.

So in a weird way Japan has declared a war against the USA and wants now to finish us off.

Not with bombs but with economic warfare.

(Quote)
Cindy Hillendale Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

So in essence they have internet sweet shops not to steal you credit cars but to cause bad press towards American products.

This is funny I suspected this.

(Quote)
Jp Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

You can’t have No Warranty at all… Imagine the Pizzed-off Taxpayers & congressmen, not to mention bad PR for GM, when some of those Fleet Volts become junkers ….
However, I would suggest perhaps an 18-36 month, vs. 10 year warranty. That, & sell it at the Consumer price, since the 10yr warranty is “built-in” to that price, giving GM some profit by chopping off 7 or 8 yrs of the warranty @ the same retail. This will also bring down the cost of parts & batteries by factoring in the large fleet sales.

(Quote)
bruce g Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

The Volt seems to me to be so unlike all other cars that I wonder if any country could prove damage to their trade at the WTO. But I am no expert and this seems a good idea to me, your congress can thrash out the details.. good luck.

(Quote)
Richard H Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

First, the American auto industry is in a very difficult position largely due to its own shortsightedness. GM saw Toyota and Honda grow from very small companies. GM failed to realize they needed revolutionary products. When they had the opportunity to build revolutionary products (I.E. GM EV1) they fought against it instead of embracing it. They had the winning product and they blew it.

Secondly, GM has to do more to survive than force the GSA into purchasing over priced, unproven vehicles from a company that has been known for making lemons. The Chevy Cruze would make much more sense or a shorter range Volt with a smaller battery. Much of the advantages of the Volt can be realized with a small battery.

Thirdly, the government should take an active role in assuring that any plan that is approved is strictly followed. This should be done by an oversight board that actively works with GM to assure that the company is turning itself around. While I have great respect for much of what GM management has done recently, new management may be needed and the government board should have the power to monitor and replace key people.

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

RE #100
inverters.

Yep, normal inverters may be best.

However, grid tied inverters can be used in parallel. Well, maybe I didn’t mean GRID tied but “inverters that can be used in parallel – or tied together”. Thus allowing 4 or 5 Volts to act in parallel and provide maybe enough power for a small hospital in an emergency. Just disconnect at the main breaker(s) and plug in your Volt(s). Some grid tied inverters can operate with or without the grid (Outback make some, and so do SMA).

Either way my sales pitch to Uncle Sam is Volt is great for disaster management. That’s when electricity is in short supply, as are generators, and gasoline. The Volt can make electricity and is frugal with gasoline.

Of course all inverters would be required to be made in USA.

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

As an alternative solution to the government buying today a product to be made in the future, a product without a warranty…
(A concept almost as laughable as showing up in a jet with a tin cup looking for a handout.)

My proposal…
A new tax credit established at 20% of the value of the domestic content of a new car. In addition if the domestic content is union made an additional 20% would be added to the credit.

This would encourage automakers having unions. More unions would have more health care plans. There would be less of a burden on the government to provide universal health care. More importantly it would help end the two tier system that we have now where we have full fledged employees with benefits and temporary workers without benefits doing the same jobs. Kind of like a health care initiative…

I am sure that there would be a lot of bugs to be worked out. In the end the numbers could be tweaked so that things could be fairly competitive. Like a NACAR race.

Then, just for good measure, add a 50cent gas tax.

Red HHR (still have not written to anyone)

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Below please find a decent article on the exposure of banking industry to risk from automakers. Makes me think even less of the whole Bush approach to this crisis (money for banks, insurance companies and credit card bandits; no money for manufacturing).

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/some-regional-banks-heavily-exposed/story.aspx?guid=%7B5DFBA16F%2D647B%2D4999%2D88C3%2D2E6E9B72E15D%7D&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN

BTW: I’m good with the Nasaman proposal. If we’re going to be putting billions at risk in order to save the private sector AND/OR to move us off of oil, we might as well get something for our money. The only thing that I add is that we should pump up our battery manufacturing companies as well. Getting off of oil will take plenty of batteries, and right now, getting batteries up to volume (and so down in price) seems to be the real limiting factor.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

#43 Casey:
I can’t resist an off-topic response to your off-topic presidential succession scenario (Bush resigning, then President Cheney appointing Condi as VP, then Cheney resigning, making Condi the first Black president). Actually, the scenario you describe wouldn’t make “libs” angry at all. The 1947 Presidential Succession Act requires that any appointment to the position of Vice President be approved by the House and Senate; both of which are strongly controlled by “libs”. Welcome back to the world of a three-branch government, my friend.

#112 DonC:
Actually the New Deal did significantly repair the economy, but in 1938 FDR decided we were out of the woods and slashed public works spending in a premature effort to eliminate the budget deficit. So there was a backslide in 1939. Once those measures were eliminated, we started to rebound again, which coincided with the onset of the war. The New Deal worked. But yes, WWII was definitely an unparallelled shot in the arm. There is no denying that.

(Quote)
jefro Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

USA in fact tests out cars (and other vehicle’s) on the tax payers dime but at the same time hopefully freeing us from IMPORTED OIL.

I’d walk a mile to free us from camel jockies.

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Headline should include “and overzealous volt enthusiasts”

Why Nobody Wants to Bail Out Automakers, Except Bureaucrats
http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=107

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

If someone else has already mentioned this, sorry; but I don’t have time at present to get through all the earlier replies.

Correct me if I’m wrong, Phil, but weren’t the wartime equipment contracts frequently the best design of several submitted, farmed out to all the manufacturers? Think of the Jeep’s earliest history as an example. The company which invented the thing wound up only getting to build the trailers for it.

I would think that as a precondition, all 3 manufacturers would be given the best EV or EREV design to build, regardless of who came up with it.

That means Ford Chrysler and GM Volts.

Or Ford Chrysler and GM Somethings.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Not yet out.

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10731

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

We made the news AGAIN

http://www.autonews.com/article/20081125/ANA01/811259967/1186

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

The New Deal Debunked
Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Macroeconomic model builders have finally realized what Henry Hazlitt and John T. Flynn (among others) knew in the 1930s: FDR’s New Deal made the Great Depression longer and deeper. It is a myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt “got us out of the Depression” and “saved capitalism from itself,” as generations of Americans have been taught by the state’s education establishment.

This realization on the part of macroeconomists comes in the form of an article in the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis,” by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. This is a big deal, since the JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world.

“Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939,” the authors write. And, “Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939.”

This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for US Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of “economic salvation” at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–1940.

Cole and Ohanian write as though they were surprised—even shocked—to discover these facts, not so much because they were bamboozled by the Myth of the New Deal, but because of their devotion to “neoclassical model building” as opposed to the study of economic reality. They label as “striking” the fact that the recovery from the Great Depression was “very weak” (a dramatic understatement). And why is it so striking? Because “[t]hese data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory.”

The neoclassical theory of depressions might well be thought of as a Frankenstein’s Monster theory. As explained by Cole and Ohanian, “The weak recovery is puzzling because the large negative shocks that some economists believe caused the 1929–33 downturn—including monetary shocks, productivity shocks, and banking shocks—become positive after 1933.” Thus, according to neoclassical theory, the economy during a depression is somewhat like a prostrate Frankenstein’s Monster, with economists playing the role of mad scientists who “shock” the beast into becoming a living being once again. They do this with various “injections” of government spending or easy credit that will supposedly cause a “roaring” recovery (just as the rejuvenated beast roared as he left the laboratory to terrorize the townsfolk in the movie, Young Frankenstein).

“The monetary base increases more than 100 percent between 1933 and 1939,” the authors write, making the case that such a “monetary shock” should have returned the economy to normalcy. They invoke the authority of well-known macroeconomists Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping, who once proclaimed that “positive monetary shocks should have produced a strong recovery, with employment returning to its normal levels by 1936.”

But as Murray Rothbard showed in America’s Great Depression, it was the easy money policies of the early and mid-1920s that created all the malinvestment that was the trigger for the Great Depression. The only wise thing to have done was to allow the liquidation of hundreds of overcapitalized businesses to occur. Instead, the Fed increased the monetary base by 100 percent in five years, causing more of the same overcapitalization problems that were the source of the problem in the first place.

On top of that, virtually every single one of FDR’s “New Deal” policies made things even worse and prolonged the Depression. Austrian economists have known this for decades, but at least the neoclassical model builders have finally caught on—we can hope.

Cole and Ohanian apparently emerged from the rarified world of macroeconomic model building for a long enough period of time to discover that the so-called First New Deal (1933–1934) was one giant cartel scheme, whereby the government attempted to enforce cartel pricing and output reductions in hundreds of industries and in agriculture. This of course was well documented in John T. Flynn’s book, The Roosevelt Myth, first published in 1948. Henry Hazlitt had also written about it some 15 years earlier. “New Deal cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery, accounting for about 60 percent of the difference between actual output and trend output,” the authors write.

The fact that it has taken “mainstream” neoclassical economists so long to recognize this fact is truly astounding. For generations their own neoclassical textbooks have taught that cartels “restrict output” to raise prices. It has also been no secret that the heart and soul of the First New Deal was to use the coercive powers of government to prop up wages and prices by cartelizing the entire economy.

FDR and his advisors mistakenly believed that the Depression was caused by low prices, therefore, high prices—enforced by threats of violence, coercion and intimidation by the state—would be the “solution.” Moreover, it is hardly a secret that if less production takes place, fewer workers will be needed by employers and unemployment will subsequently be higher. Thus, the First New Deal could not possibly have been anything but a gigantic unemployment-producing scheme according to standard neoclassical economic theory.

FDR’s tripling of taxes, his regulation of business, and his relentless antibusiness propaganda also contributed to a worsening of the Great Depression, but his labor policies were probably the most harmful to the employment prospects of American workers. In this regard the most disappointing thing about the Cole-Ohanian article is that they do not even cite the pioneering work of Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway—Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America—first published in 1993.

Indeed, it is somewhat scandalous that they do not cite this well-known work while making essentially the same arguments that Vedder and Gallaway do. They recite many of the same facts about labor policy: The NIRA codes established minimum wages for less-skilled and higher-skilled workers alike; employers were told that they must bargain collectively with unions, which were given myriad legislated advantages in the bargaining process, all enforced by the newly-created National Labor Relations Board. All of these policies made labor more expensive. Consequently, as the economic law of demand informs us, the inevitable result has to be less employment.

Strike activity doubled from 14 million strike days in 1936 to 28 million a year later, and wages rose by about 15 percent in 1937 alone. The union/nonunion wage differential increased from 5 percent in 1933 to 23 percent by 1940. Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it.

Vedder and Gallaway conducted an econometric evaluation of these labor cost-increasing policies and concluded that most of the abnormal unemployment of the 1930s would have been avoided were it not for these policies. They estimated that by 1940 the unemployment rate was eight percentage points higher than it would have been without the legislation-induced growth of unionism and government-mandated employment costs. They conclude that “The Great Depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of New Deal programs” (p. 141).

Cole and Ohanian reach the exact same conclusions, but express them in the somewhat convoluted language of the “top economic journals”: “New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression. . . . Instead, the joint policies of increasing labor’s bargaining power and linking collusion with paying high wages prevented a normal recovery by creating rents and an inefficient insider-outsider friction that raised wages significantly and restricted employment . . . the abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s.”

This last conclusion—that the abandonment of FDR’s policies “coincided” with the recovery of the 1940s is very well documented by another author who is also ignored by Cole and Ohanian, Robert Higgs. In “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War” (Independent Review, Spring 1997), Higgs showed that it was the relative neutering of New Deal policies, along with a reduction (in absolute dollars) of the federal budget from $98.4 billion in 1945 to $33 billion in 1948, that brought forth the economic recovery. Private-sector production increased by almost one-third in 1946 alone, as private capital investment increased for the first time in 18 years.

In short, it was capitalism that finally ended the Great Depression, not FDR’s harebrained cartel, wage- increasing, unionizing, and welfare state expanding policies. It’s good to see that the Journal of Political Economy, the University of Chicago, and UCLA are finally beginning to catch up to the libertarian scholarship of Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, Robert Higgs, Jim Powell (author of FDR’s Folly) and such predecessors of theirs as Henry Hazlitt, John T. Flynn, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, William H. Hutt, Benjamin Anderson, and others associated with the Austrian School.

Better late than never.

______________________________

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and author of The Real Lincoln (Three Rivers Press/Random House, 2003). His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, 2004) (tomd@ mises.org).

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

WOW this should wake you up!

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-153639

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

http://www.craveonline.com/videos/garage/00009894/volvo_recharge__technology.html

http://www.craveonline.com/videos/garage/00009893/volvo_recharge__exterior.html

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Arch Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

You saw it here!

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/fiskers-plug-in.html

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Boxwell Hawkins Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

There are a number of incidents of flawed thinking about our energy dilemma discussed in these blog comments. The attached book by William Tucker covers the history of energy from the beginning in a manner that will appeal to many in the “Volt” fan club. The book is new, complete and very readable. Enjoy!!

http://www.amazon.com/Terrestrial-Energy-Nuclear-Revolution-Americas/dp/0910155763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227656533&sr=1-1

(Quote)
blkstne Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

@Arch 135

That Volvo plug-in electric car link was great. That Volvo sounded cool driving around the track. It was interesting that it could be charge in under 3 hours to full charge. I wonder what range it’s got?
It would be nice to see an independant car magazine do a comparision drive of the four or five plug-ins coming out over the next year.
Looks like 1 or 2 electric cars will already be avaliable before the Volt hits dealerships.

(Quote)
jkh2000 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

In my opinion “this is a bucket of excrement and it stinketh”. I am totally against any kind of a bailout without reorganization. Why should our government pay extra for the Volt with our taxpayers dollars. I can just see the writing on the wall, then GM will say, well if is good enough for our government then the consumer can pay the same. This is a bandaid fix for GM and the fat cats on top. Let them fail and reorganize and come out lean and mean. I still do not see any bailout money coming for us small rural hospitals, who take care of Rural America.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

It looks like Auto News picked up on Lyle’s idea for the government to buy a LOT of Volts. Lyle is getting to be a regular in the auto industry news these days. Maybe Congress will have him come in for a hearing about the “electrification of the automobile” and the Volt, etc.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20081125/ANA01/811259967/1186

(Quote)
Tim Tom Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

If you think the government can print billions of dollars to address a failed company, son, it will be setting yourself up for failure. It is more than favoritism by lending GM billions of dollars. That is protectionism. The same type which got us in the mess in 1929. We do not need GM and the other two. The government would be allocating resources in failed companies instead of doing something else with money we do not have. We need a competitive company which can see a little further and understand that Tahoe (with or without hybrid), Mustang and Camaro are pieces of unfashionable cars which must be secluded to a museum.

Dave K. Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

#133 Tim,

Thank you for injecting some common sense via DiLorenzo’s lesson into this forum.

I would ask everyone to please read the post at #133 and try to use your logical mind to understand what has happened in the past, and what is happening now.

We, as a nation, have borrowed and spent way too much . . and we now have inflated prices (specifically — housing prices) as a result. These prices need to correct. If we throw government loans at them in order to try to price fix, we are prolonging agony and stalling a necessary correction and recovery. Many people in the nation do not have the money/savings for new cars right now– and they should not be encouraged or forced to spend money they don’t have because we think it will save GM (or any other ). The market knows best. Let it work.
Our nation, our free will, our constitution, our beliefs, and our future are more important than any bank or car company.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 5:53 am

In addition, the size of the battery must be significant enough to supply the peak horsepower. Bigger batteries not only have more energy storage (kWH) but also more instantaneous power (kW). So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it.

By the way, people on this site have been asking about this since the summer of 2007, and the answer has been the same. It won’t work.
___________________________________________

Cut what? The engine runs at an optimum for efficiency. A bulk of that resulting electricity gets used immediately for propulsion and the small amount remaining goes to the battery-pack for use later during moments of peak draw. That’s no big deal. In fact, Prius has been doing it since 1997.

It almost sounds like you are implying that there is a shortcoming with charge-sustaining mode. We’ve been told that Volt will deliver 50 MPG under those conditions. But that post gives the impression that you can’t drive for several hundred miles without plugging in. Please explain. What won’t work?

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 7:30 am

Carcus #142 and Tim #133

Thanks for your contribution to the reasonable economic thought.

All what Dilorenzo wites makes sense but cannot discriminate between some types of problems to be solved. Are we (Was the Great Depression) in a demand shock, in a supply schock, in a real shock, in a monetary shock, etc. ? As I posted before we are left with the traditional dilemma between schools of thought.

The deregulations of the 80’s and ’90s seem to have created the problems we encounter now, it was an illusion to think that the financial sector was able to regulate itself.

Regards,

JC NPNS

(Quote)
KHL Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 7:56 am

Lets not forget City, State and Municipal fleets. New York City has purchased hundreds of Toyota Prius’s. Let the Fed offer a subsidy of $$ per car purchased by other levels of government. Together this would probably result in sales of several hundred thousand units. And while we’re at it, why wouldn’t all those greenies in CA purchase these cars just out of civic duty?

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 7:57 am

Jean-Charles Jacquemin (#144)

All “shocks” begin with a central bank pumping the FIAT paper currency supply to Centrally Control the economy. First they inflate (add liquidity) , then they deflate (tightening lending requirements) causing and then popping economic bubbles. They control ALL aspects of the economy! They caused the roaring 20’s by inflating then the 1929 crash by calling loans which caused the and resulting depression. They caused the dot.com bubble and collapse and they caused the housing bubble (cheap and easy credit and cash) and then collapsed it with built in balloons. All of this was created so that we would eventually swallow a single global fiat currency that THEY print out of thin air.

THE BORROWER IS A SERVENT (SLAVE) OF THE LENDER!

We were ALL warned!

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
- Thomas Jefferson

This is why ONLY gold and silver can be LEGAL tender in the Constitutional Republic of the USA. But the traitors in Congress work for the Legislative Democracy US which is DC (not a state) Guam (not a state) and Puerto Rico (not a state).

We have a corporate country (US) operating within and under the guise of a Nation (USA) and our ignorance of THIS is what allows Congress and the president to ignore their oath of office to the Constitution.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 8:13 am

Thanks Tim #144

Especially for The Jefferson citation.

I just have to add (for the sake of the debate) that some demand and supply shocks are not Central bank made, consider the oil embargo of OPEC, the dioxin crisis, the asbestos public health problem, etc.

Also (see my remainder of Adam Smith defiance with the merchants in post #26 of “Will the Volt Lead the DC Caravan? And Bob Lutz on How We Can Help GM” that I cannot resist to cite again) :
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”[Smith (1776) Book I, Chapter 10, para 82]

I wonder if in the 80’s and 90’s such “conspiracies against the public” have not been too numerous, also creating a big shock.

Regards,

JC NPNS

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am

#144 Jean-Charles Jacquemin,

I think every congressman should be forced to write a 5 page essay on the history and their understanding of Credit Default Swaps

If you’re looking for how all these bad loans got traction, then CDS are where the rubber hits the road.

The S.E.C. , the Attorney General, the Fed, and most of Congress were all asleep at the wheel when they failed to regulate CDS under rules set up for insurance.

Credit Default Swaps: The Insane Problem and the Radical but Sane Solution
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/CREDIT-DEFAULT-SWAPS–THE-by-Chuck-Simpson-080924-49.html

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:04 am

Lyle.
This is an attractive and whimsical idea but not a solution. The government may buy any car it wants of course – That’s a free market – GM could offer a contract to the Congress, as others may also. But it would not solve the basic economic problem that GM has; trying to pass a watermelon. The blockage must be excised.

Spin off the Volt and go forth into this Brave New World.

(Quote)
carcus Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am

60 Minutes: The Bet That Blew Up Wallstreet,

(Video)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml

(Quote)
Jerry Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am

Article posted in the Army Times Tuesday:

Note the last paragraph- they are thinking about the Volt, even if they don’t need it now.

Army to buy electric cars

By Kris Osborn – Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 25, 2008 7:26:14 EST

Aiming to save fuel and advance alternative-energy plans, the Army, Navy and Air Force intend to buy thousands of battery-powered, 35-mile-an-hour electric cars and light trucks to provide on-base transport, senior Army officials said.

“The Neighborhood Electric Vehicle [NEV] will be at Fort Belvoir, [Va.,] before Dec. 15. Our goal is to have the secretary [of the Army, Pete Geren] there to drive in one of the first ones,” said Paul Bollinger, deputy assistant Army secretary for energy and partnerships. “We are having bumper stickers put on and decals on the doors which say ‘Army Green, Army Strong.’ ”

The Army plans to order the street-legal NEVs from E-Z-Go, Native American Biofuels International and other electric-car makers. E-Z-Go, which is a subsidiary of defense giant Textron, makes golf carts that are listed online at about $1,300 each.

“We’re excited about this,” said James Cooke, CEO of Native American Bio-fuels International, Arlington, Va. “We’ve been working on alternative energy for about three-and-a-half years. We’ve innovated with Native American tribes all over the country.”

Next year, 800 cars will be delivered and 4,000 over the next three years. Ultimately, “we should be able to go to at least 10,000 vehicles overall,” Bollinger said.

The Army’s plan has persuaded its sister services to jump on board.

“The good news is that the Air Force and Navy have come to us and said that they want to piggyback on the order. Previously, the Air Force was looking at low-speed vehicles, which are actually still gasoline vehicles. We’ve skipped that and we are going straight to electric. We are eliminating the fuel issue, period,” Bollinger said.

An Air Force official confirmed his service’s involvement in the electric car purchase, but could not immediately provide details.

The Army is moving quickly; the purchase plans were unveiled last month as part of the service’s ambitious new energy strategy, which also calls for the construction of solar and geothermal facilities.

Bollinger said each electric car would use an average of about $400 in electricity per year, compared to the roughly $2,400 in fuel needed to run a gas-powered car, citing General Services Administration figures. Moreover, the 4,000 electric cars will save 11.5 million gallons of fuel per year, he said.

Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Va.-based think tank, noted that the price of fuel is nearly half of its record high earlier this year.

“In a few months, the savings that they could have expected has dropped by half,” he said.

The first batch of vehicles will likely be leased per year from Native American Biofuels International, Bollinger said. The Army expects to continue to lease the electric cars on a yearly basis and possibly buy them down the road.

“We will not be paying any more for the NEV than for a standard gasoline-powered vehicle,” Bollinger said.

The NEVs, now powered by lead-acid batteries, may one day be operated by lithium batteries, which are able to store and dispense larger amounts of energy at a lighter weight compared with lead-acid batteries.

The Army hopes to inspire a broader market for electric cars and has been telling automakers about the plans.

“Chevy is looking at making the Volt, a street vehicle that will go highway speeds. We don’t need that because the speed limit on our installation is 30 mph. We don’t need something that big or expensive, but we might need something that powerful. So in the future, if they are able to make it, that is great,” Bollinger said.

———

(Quote)
Matt Keegan Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am

Not a good idea and for so many reasons. I’ll share one: protectionism.

Yes, if the federal government is perceived as giving GM an extra bit of help over the competition, be it foreign or domestic, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea would cry “foul” and justifiably so. I would expect some sort of retaliation in the form of special credits for European carmakers in the E.U. save for Opel.

If the federal government floated this offered to any and all automakers, then that argument goes away.

Still, I believe Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the best course of action for GM to take. With it, they’ll be able to redo union contracts, close excess factories, and close down unneeded brands. They might then find that they have plenty of money to bring the Volt online and at an earlier date too. Right now, we still have to wait two more years before the Volt is available which is forever in the life cycle of this business.

If GM’s Volt technology is as good as they say it is, allow GM to share it with Ford, Chrysler and whoever else wants it to spread its costs. I’m not for throwing good money after bad either — the federal government doesn’t need to essentially become a stakeholder in the automotive industry.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am

#149

Absolutely right.

100K cars * 5 K premium = $500M. May be after a year or so at best. If thats all GM wants – I say give that money now for free.

What we need is massive restructuring and possibly major reduction in capacity. Completely rewrite contracts with suppliers, dealers and unions. Make the big 3 competetive with the rest of the auto industry by offering universal healthcare like rest of the industrialized world does.

(Quote)
wow Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Before proposing this you need to analyze it. What is the premium cost at what production numbers? Does the government demand for this type of vehicle impact production numbers greatly enough? If they are warranty free on the batteries, why should the government accept that much risk? And obviously the gov’t would have to test these vehicles to see just how good they are.

I’m not shooting the idea down, but I am saying it’s allot more complicated than was put forward here.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Lets not forget City, State and Municipal fleets. New York City has purchased hundreds of Toyota Prius’s. Let the Fed offer a subsidy of $$ per car purchased by other levels of government…

Fleet vehicles are not retained for their useful lifetime. They are sold when reaching a certain number of years or miles (usually before the warranty expires). At that point, who would be buying these?

(Quote)
Should the feds buy flocks of Volts for their fleet? | Only Hybrids Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Should the feds buy flocks of Volts for their fleet? » Hybrid News Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Jim Mach Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

please pass this it will work.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=19758
SYNOPSIS: The Army plans to order the street-legal NEVs from E-Z-Go, Native American Biofuels International and other electric-car makers.

(Quote)
Dane Hammond Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Sounds like a good idea…but how about a fleet of EV-1’s instead! No? Why not? Oh…I forgot…you guys crushed them all. Nice play Shakespeare.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Carcus #148

thanks, JC

(Quote)
Should the feds buy flocks of Volts for their fleet? | Gfeen.com Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
john1701a Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

86.
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
________________________________

No response to #143 at all will imply that you got caught spreading FUD or misleading or misrepresenting… Please clarify. Misunderstandings happen. It’s time to prevent that same question repeatedly asked since the summer of 2007 from being asked anymore.

With the 2-year anniversary quickly approaching, there’s really no excuse for educational materials still not being available… so action is about to be taken.

(Quote)
LeoK Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

This is a sound proposal – the government gets new technology first, becomes a global leader, reduces petroleum dependence, ensures a revenue stream to GM that covers a significant portion of development costs, etc.

One more addition: (and this could relate to any new technology developed to become energy independent) – I suggest the government take a portion of the proposed Billions being pumped into the economy and set-up a NATIONAL BACKSTOP for warranties on any new battery or alternative energy technology.

The idea is simple: encourage smart development of US proprietary technology and ensure production and manufacturing stays here in the US. If GM installs US made batteries in the VOLT, the batteries are covered by the government funded backstop fund. GM can now sell the VOLT at a lower cost without the risk associated with warranties. The government risk is spread out over time and may never be needed as the batteries may in fact last longer than expected. Details of warranty length, etc, would have to be worked out – but the concept is to instill consumer confidence in new US made technology and reduce the risk to US business willing to make the commitment to design and production here in the US.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

#145 KHL:

Well I guess I’m a “greenie in CA”, and I have said here about 100 times that I would purchase one. And yeah, I guess it is largely out of civic duty.

I have offered over and over to put down a substantial deposit, as have many others here. I haven’t seen any response from GM.

I have no doubt in my mind that the “greenies in CA” are ready. Bring it on.

(Quote)
Should the feds buy flocks of Volts for their fleet? | Hybrid Car Blog Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
john1701a Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it….

…It won’t work.
________________________________

That has already been proven false, a few years ago. Everyone should already know that. We desperately need a FAQ for this type of info!

A prototype SERIES hybrid used a smaller battery for a larger vehicle. It was just a NiMH pack which delivered 21 kW of power. There was no plug. Power was supplied exclusively from a fuel-cell stack. In other words, it had a steady-state generator working much like the engine will in Volt. The battery provides the extra power needed during times of heavy demand, like acceleration. It worked just fine.

Want to know more? Do a search for Toyota FCHV.

(Quote)
Rick Says:
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 am

great post, thanks for providing so much. Keep up the good posts.! http://www.hoover-f5914900.com

(Quote)
Heberlein Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am

Future City Plus is the leader In designer eye wear and brand name Beauty products. All the products we sell are 100% authentic ! Check us out at http://futurecityplus.com/ our prices are at wholesale prices! So shop now. Future City Plus

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55
Do home chargers include meters? November 6, 2009
I conduct a real-world fuel economy survey (http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php), and will want to adapt it for electric and range-extended... […]
mkaresh
HHSE (Hybrid-Hybrid-Serial-Electric) vehicle invented November 5, 2009
A HHSE is a cross between using a lower efficiency but more functional serial hybrid drivetrain for city driving and using a mechanical drivetrain to... […]
Texas
Renault, Nissan to build $892 million battery factory outside Paris November 5, 2009
“This will be the center of our lithium battery production for all of our assembly plants and for other carmakers,” Ghosn said. “It’s a major... […]
Texas
GM to cut 10,000 Jobs Across Europe After Sudden U-Turn on Opel Deal November 5, 2009
Max Keiser on Russia Today. " ... General Motors cut ten thousand jobs across Europe at its Opel unit in favor of Christmas bonuses." -Max... […]
Guy Incognito
Nissan Releases Concept Sketch Of Light Commercial Electric Vehicle November 5, 2009
NISSAN RELEASES CONCEPT SKETCH OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler

GM-Volt.com Viability Plan Suggestion: Massive Government Fleet Sales of Battery Warranty-Free Chevy Volts

169 Responses to “GM-Volt.com Viability Plan Suggestion: Massive Government Fleet Sales of Battery Warranty-Free Chevy Volts”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts