Mar 19

President Obama Visits Electric Car Plant and Promotes Spending Towards Goal of 1 Million Plug-in Cars by 2015

 

President Obama has mentioned before it is his goal to see 1 million plug-in cars on US roads by 2015. On Thursday he visited Southern California Edison’s Electric Vehicle Technical Center in California. The facility is an experimentla electric car plant that maintains more than 300 electric and gas electric cars.

There he said “our greatest discoveries are born not in a flash of brilliance, but in the crucible of a deliberate effort over time” and that “often they take an investment from government. ”

He acknowledged that “Japan is producing the batteries that currently power American hybrid cars.”

He said “We can remain one of the world’s leading importers of foreign oil, or we can make the investments that will allow us to become the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy.”

Obama also reiterated his pledge stating “we will put one million plug-in hybrid vehicles on America ‘s roads by 2015. ”

He took the opportunity to announce a new $2 billion grant program under the Recovery Act “that will spark the manufacturing of the batteries and parts that run these cars, build or upgrade the factories that will produce them, and in the process, create thousands of jobs right here in America.”

As well he introduced a $400 million “down payment” on preparing electric car infrastructure, and mentioned the $7500 tax credit already earmarked for the first 500,000 buyers of a company’s electric cars.

Meanwhile, back in DC the Auto Task Force is apparently nearing a framework that could be in place as early as next week for restructuring GM and Chrysler and defining how the governemnt will help, though bondholders and the UAW are still wrangling over their mandate to reduce the automakers debt to them.

And so it seems from this economic catastrophe, government intervention, and fantastically enormous spending, shall rise something positive, the electric car.

DONT FORGET TO DIGG THIS STORY:


Source (Washington Post) and (Automotive news)

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pm and is filed under Financial, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS: 125


  1. 1
    nuclearboy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nuclearboy
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (8:50 pm)

    I hope Obama will work on ways to make electricity cheaper for our country too. I want a president to tell me that we are going to produce our own energy and have plenty of it. That will allow our country to thrive. High electrical costs will be a negative for electric cars.


  2. 2
    G-rat

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    G-rat
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (9:23 pm)

    Its great to see he is still seeing plug-in vehicles as a priority even amongst the other problems he is up against


  3. 3
    Randy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Randy
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (9:35 pm)

    Now that we no longer have a president with his boots filled with oil , perhaps we can move forward.


  4. 4
    vincent

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    vincent
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (9:56 pm)

    What a refreshing change.


  5. 5
    kent beuchert

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kent beuchert
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:04 pm)

    Maybe somebody should point out that 1 million electric cars on the road won’t do squat – that amounts to less than 1/2 of 1 percent of just the autos on the road, or about 1/4th of 1 percent of the crude we use. Nothing like spending a fortune to make the brainless public think something’s being accomplished. Clue in the clueless Pres, somebody. And you just thought ole Barrack was a moron when it came to stimulus packages and cabinet nominees…. He’s much more than that …


  6. 6
    voltair

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    voltair
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:07 pm)

    One of the things I like about the Volt is that it doesn’t require huge additional investment in infrastructure.


  7. 7
    voltair

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    voltair
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:12 pm)

    #5 Kent Beuchert
    I kindly ask if “Drill baby. Drill baby.” solves any significant percentage of the problem?


  8. 8
    Jason

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:13 pm)

    #3 & #4
    Let’s all bow down and worship before his majesty.

    Obama’s rhetoric, I mean yes we can spirit, is great. I just hope it amounts to more than that.


  9. 9
    Van

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Van
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:29 pm)

    When lithium battery production facilities, including the production of cells, come on line, then the observation that Obama seems to promise everything to everybody can be put to rest.


  10. 10
    Lurtz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Lurtz
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:42 pm)

    Great news! I like the “crucible of a deliberate effort” line. It’s like the line about how success is “10% inspiration, 90% perspiration”.

    In other news, congratulations to Buick for being #1 in JD Power’s quality rankings.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123750302634389581.html


  11. 11
    Jeffhre

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeffhre
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:44 pm)

    kent beuchert #5

    And the better alternative for the administration in your eyes would be to…


  12. 12
    Lurtz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Lurtz
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (10:52 pm)

    Also, for those who belittle the effort for the offense of not solving an entire problem in the first step: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

    Solving our problems doesn’t require a single “silver bullet”, but many “one percent solutions”.

    And if the horror of spending $2 billions makes you stumble for the fainting couch … how many billions are we giving the Masters of the Universe at AIG this week? “Thanks, guys, I know you wrecked the world economy, but here, have more billions! And some hundreds of millions on the side as your own personal bonus. It’s OK, we’ll abrogate every GM employee contract and make them work for minimum wage to make up the difference.”


  13. 13
    avatar

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    avatar
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (11:02 pm)

    #5 Kent

    Oil burning internal combustion engine vehicles have been “king of the road” for over 100 years. The seemingly cheap and unlimited supply of oil has kept this engine in business for a very long time.

    We have not had to deal with +$5.00 per gallon gasoline prices- yet!
    The “brainless” public will be lining up for electric cars as soon as gasoline prices hit the “economic ceiling”.

    We might see 2 to 3 million electric vehicles sooner than later because “producers are anticipating that oil will again be in short supply when the economy starts to recover world wide,”


  14. 14
    koz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    koz
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (11:41 pm)

    1, 2, 3…1,000,000…10,000,000…100,000,000

    Tricky thing that counting. You’ve got to start somewhere and any larger number goes through a smaller.


  15. 15
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (11:45 pm)

    #5 kent beuchert says “Maybe somebody should point out that 1 million electric cars on the road won’t do squat”

    I dunno. Maybe somebody should point out that you can’t put 2 million EVs on the road unless you first put 1 million on the road. And that you can’t put 4 million on the road before you put 2 million. Etc. Etc.

    #10 Lurtz – Yes, congrats to Buick for a good showing. Note that since they stopped counting things like worn out windshield wipers as “defects” all the brands are quite close in quality.


  16. 16
    Casey

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Casey
     Says

     

    Mar 19th, 2009 (11:47 pm)

    Obama,why not just give every family in America a Billion dollars, that will solve all the problems.

    What is wrong with some of you guys, STOP THE MADDNESS, we are going down a slippery slope we might not be able to stop. We all want a Volt or we wouldn’t be here but what are you willing to give up to get it, your way of life, your children’s way of life?

    NO PLUG NO SALE, JGTVWOTR


  17. 17
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:07 am)

    #5 kent beuchert
    Mass production isn’t instantaneous. This will help speed up the integration of these cars into the market. I’m also quite sure that gas prices will soar during the economic rebound and Obama’s estimate may even be conservative. This change has to and will happen, even if it’s not as fast as we want.


  18. 18
    David L

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    David L
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:24 am)

    I think that it is great the the US Government is investing so much in EV’s. I just wish we had the same kind of progressive, enlightened leadership in Canada!


  19. 19
    Zach

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Zach
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:47 am)

    It’s good to hear the president providing hope to our economy. We need to BUY U.S. PRODUCTS (And Canadian… because they’re cool too ;) if we want to keep our jobs.


  20. 20
    omnimoeish

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    omnimoeish
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (1:14 am)

    That Obama is a busy guy. He appeared on Jay Leno and will be airing on 60 minutes this Sunday. I like the idea of giving $2 billion back to the auto makers (I say back because they have been paying 35% corporate taxe for the last 100 years).


  21. 21
    Texas

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Texas
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (1:25 am)

    To all lawmakers, This is how our tax money should be spent. This is an excellent investment that will pay back in unimaginable ways. These are also the investments that no other country can make, thus keeping us ahead of the game. Let’s use our size and system to keep us prosperous. The rest of the world will also benifit from these technologies.

    To AIG, Don’t just give the money back. Send it directly to these guys. I know it’s your money but let’s be real, you’ll make more and the PR will tame us savages. lol


  22. 22
    sudhaman

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    sudhaman
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (1:45 am)

    we will see more electric vehicles than obama estimates if more and more invest in GM, tesla and fisker and others. we can also make our own batteries . its time for america to lead again. we will make the best batteries again


  23. 23
    andrino.aa

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    andrino.aa
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:05 am)

    Kent, you are such a negative person. As others have stated, “from little things big things grow” – Paul Kelly
    The space race was pure madness but look at all the benefits!
    One million in 7 yrs seems small in the scheme of things but how many cars were produced in the first 30yrs of ice engines? Not that many I suspect. So to me its a great START. It at least ofers hope which is more than doing nothing , doh


  24. 24
    The Grump

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    The Grump
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:37 am)

    Yes, I remember learning about Thomas Edison famous quote about inventions being “10% inspiration, 90% perspiration”, and his other famous quote “often they take an investment from government”.

    Huh? Errr…WTF ?
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Obama’s tax simplification:

    How much did you make last year? $________________

    Send it in.
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Oh, if you’re not selected for a Presidental appointment, you better get your taxes right the first time. If you don’t, we will destroy your front door, kill your dog, kick your cat, set off flash bangs to deafen you, hold loaded guns in your children’s faces, arrest you, send your children to foster care (and not tell you where), and put you on the NCIC database as a criminal. Have a nice day, Sincerely, the IRS.

    Isn’t it amazing how seemingly caring, sharing, concerned liberals instantly turn into vicious, blood-thirsty thugs when you mention not paying taxes, or paying less taxes? Hmmmmm?

    My 2 cents, since this is now a political thread.


  25. 25
    butters

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    butters
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:39 am)

    Casey #16:

    I love these comments that we shouldn’t use public investment to fund this or that because it threatens “our way of life”.

    Don’t you realize that our way of life is a dead end — a failure?

    The whole concept of the Volt is a transition away from petroleum, a non-renewable resource without which our way of life would be absolutely impossible.

    The Volt is inherently an admission that we, and especially our children, will need to give up our way of life.

    Cheney was right. Our way of life is non-negotiable. It’s over, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    President Obama’s comment about exporting renewable energy is a bit naive. We won’t ever be a net energy exporter, and the existing exporters are not long for this world. We’ll never produce nearly as much energy from renewables as we produce today by depleting prehistoric biomass deposits.


  26. 26
    Jean-Charles Jacquemin

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jean-Charles Jacquemin
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:49 am)

    Butters #24

    Do you know DESERTEC ? Perhaps President Obama would like to do like the Europeans and Africa with the Sahara desert in a win-win venture ?

    See : http://www.electron-economy.org/article-14201399.html

    regards,

    JC NPNS !! LJGTAWOTR !!


  27. 27
    StevePA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    StevePA
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (4:57 am)

    #5 Kent
    Agree it is a small beginning, but as gas prices inevitably rise again, I’m betting along with other posters here that demand for EREVs and EVs will take off.

    On Volt! Take that first million baby step…

    #23 The Grump

    Enjoyed the humor, if not quite agreeing with the premise.
    The 90% tax on the AIG bonuses won’t likely survive a court challenge on constitutional grounds – and our fine Congressional representatives know that – but it did offer House Dems and many Republicans an opportunity to posture for their constituents.
    With regard to the tax issues of some new administration nominees, the conservative side of the aisle was right in the thick of the recriminations being heaped on Obama. Limbaugh and Hannity had a field day with it.

    Overall, good to see this administration (read that as any administration) offering verbal and financial support for a vehicle program that is one aspect of reducing fossil fuel dependence.


  28. 28
    noid

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noid
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (5:12 am)

    butters #24

    Don’t you realize that our way of life is a dead end — a failure?

    Really? You mean we’ve all wasted our whole life.


  29. 29
    Inhaling in L.A.

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Inhaling in L.A.
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (5:46 am)

    Our car batteries will be coming from non-union plants in Asia for at least 15-20 more years. We know how Americans are. Why pay $9000 for a battery made in America when Battery-Mart charges just $4200 for Korean cells? Your camera, your TV, your watch. All from Asia. I just bought a Japanese 36″ LCD TV from WalMart. And a 19″ monitor online, made in Japan. I own three vehicles, all made in Japan.


  30. 30
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (6:11 am)

    #5 Kent,

    I am going to take a “middle of the road” approach to many of the comments your post has received.

    As many have said, 1 million EV’s is a step in the right direction. And many more that follow will also represent improvement over our current situation.

    However, it seems that the Administration likes to talk renewable energy, but hasn’t come face to face with the reality of the situation. The attached link is from the Energy Information Administration.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html

    The diagram on the right side of the page illustrates US energy consumption in 2007. Note here that renewables provided 6.8% of our energy. However, if you go to the renewable section, you will see that 90% of renewable energy was either hydro or biomass.

    So Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, and all the other hydro facilities provide 36% of the 6.8% of our energy consumption, or 2.45% Most biomass use, it appears, comes from the pulp and paper industry’s use of waste wood.

    So we have solar and wind producing a grand total of 6% of the renewable energy or about 0.41% of the total. So even with ambitious plans to triple our solar and wind energy production, it will only make a small dent in our overall energy consumption, just as you have stated.


  31. 31
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (6:42 am)

    #5 kent beuchert Says: Maybe somebody should point out that 1 million electric cars on the road won’t do squat – that amounts to less than 1/2 of 1 percent of just the autos on the road,…
    ————————————————————————————–
    1 million cars is significant because that’s the point at which mass production has kicked in, which drives production costs down. From there, if the technology is cost viable, sales will increase exponentially.

    As for percentages: I read somewhere that there were 40 million passenger vehicles active on U.S. roads, so 1 million would be 2.5%, but I could be off on that. Where did you get your figures?


  32. 32
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (6:50 am)

    #12 Lurtz Says: Solving our problems doesn’t require a single “silver bullet”, but many “one percent solutions”.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Yes, well said.


  33. 33
    nuclearboy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nuclearboy
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:02 am)

    Someone did tell Obama that his million car promise was not thinking big enough. This was during the campaign. I think it may have been T Boone or some other equivalent. I remember this clearly from an interview.

    That said, 1 million is a good start.

    I go back to my post #1. You don’t have to mandate any number at all. Just make electricity the cheapest form of energy around and people will use it for many things that now take gasoline. Electricity is already piped all over the country and we make it locally (in the US). If you want to get us off foreign sources of energy, develop an energy policy that makes cheap, US derived, energy available to all.

    The 2005 energy policy act was the best step forward on this front in decades.


  34. 34
    Kevin R

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kevin R
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:05 am)

    kent beuchert #5 – So a dent in our gas guzzling ways isn’t good enough? We shouldn’t bother to start? There’s no need to get off of oil in whatever small way it starts? Your ideas? Your contribution? nadda…..


  35. 35
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:11 am)

    This is one of the rare areas that I support the government intervention/assistance…so good on them.

    However…and you knew there would be one. One my biggest pet peeves from goverment is ANY PROJECT THAT HAS A DEADLINE AFTER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS TERM IS UP.

    Forget the 1 million in 2015 crap…how about 500,000 by 2013? Or even 250,000? Now that would be much more impressive. When you set the bar up nice and high, how about planning on jumping over it yourself?

    Now I know, there is a 85% chance he is re-elected, but I don’t want this to be a platform for the ‘next’ election…or something he does not actually have to be accountable for, as he will already in office for the 2nd time when the deadline passes…president’s do ‘kookie’ things when they lose accountability.
    —–
    In a related matter…impossibe to sell 1,000,000 through 2014. RIght now total planned production from everybody is about 20,000 for 2011 and maybe 100,000 in 2012….and those are pretty optimistic and in no way assured. That leaves 900,000 for 2013 and 2014. So the ramp up would look something like this (is it even possible to ramp up this much battery capacity?):

    2011 20,000
    2012 100,000
    2013 300,000
    2014 600,000

    I guess my point is…I’m not convinced even I can get my hands on any electric car until mid 2012, and I am standing here waving dollar bills in the air. It is a stretch for me to believe a million Americans more can do it in the subsequent couple years…without even talking about the pricepoint/demand/market dynamics after the first 100k or so.

    Nutshell: I like the talk, I approve the goal…but, but, but


  36. 36
    MDDave

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    MDDave
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:12 am)

    butters @ 25 Says: The Volt is inherently an admission that we, and especially our children, will need to give up our way of life.

    Cheney was right. Our way of life is non-negotiable. It’s over, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    ——————————–

    How do you figure that? If anything the Volt will allow us to perpetuate our way of life far off into the future. My way of life isn’t defined by the availability of oil; it’s defined by the cheap transportion that oil provides. And that permits food and other goods to be shipped around the world to me; that allows me to live in the suburbs and drive long distances whenever I choose to; and all that happens quickly with little expense. It may sound depressing to some of you, but that’s the American way of life and I love it.

    Now, if we can substitute electricity or some other fuel for oil, then my way of life continues unabated. In fact, my way of life improves because I don’t have to send thousands of dollars every year to oil exporting countries that hate me, and if that’s not good enough, jobs stay in the US and the environment improves. That sounds like a great step forward for our way of life, not the end of it.


  37. 37
    joe obrien

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    joe obrien
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:12 am)

    #5 I would explain the ignorance in your comments, but for the atypical neocon like you.

    Why bother, you simply gain pleasure for being incompetent and utterly ignorant.

    Drill baby, drill is the only way in your feeble mind I guess.


  38. 38
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:12 am)

    #13 avatar Says: Oil burning internal combustion engine vehicles have been “king of the road” for over 100 years. The seemingly cheap and unlimited supply of oil has kept this engine in business for a very long time.
    ————————————————————————————–
    From an engineering point of view, gasoline is great. The energy density of gasoline is higher than anything else. If there were no problems with oil, then we would keep using it forever.

    But there are problems with oil. National security problems. Economic problems. Environmental problems.

    OK, so what if we could make something like gasoline that didn’t have all those problems? Oh, replacing all of our oil with bio-fuels would require too much land.

    OK, so what if we just convert everything to electricity? Oh, batteries for long distance or heavy duty transport are too big, heavy, and costly, plus the issues surrounding fast charging are not trivial.

    OK, so what if we use bio-fuels only for long distance or heavy duty transport, and we use electricity for everything else? Hmmm…
    http://www.setamericafree.org/solution.html


  39. 39
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:14 am)

    Just a further note to my post at #30.

    One of the linked articles above states that Spain gets 30% of its power from wind. This is very misleading. See this attached link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Spain

    “On April 18, 2008 the all time peak for wind generation was seen (10,879 MW, 32% of Spain’s power requirement),[3], and on November 24, 2008 the wind energy produced the 43% of the demand[4].”

    The 43% may have been during off-peak hours.

    No doubt this is a positive result. However, if we look at the year 2007, we will note that Spain’s electrical production was 283 billion kWh (283 TWh).

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=SP

    However, in that same year, the energy generated from wind was only 27.2 TWh. So the wind power actually only generated 9.6% of the total electrical energy for Spain.

    That is far less than the 30% that was implied by the article.


  40. 40
    TED in Fort Myers

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    TED in Fort Myers
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:20 am)

    Each new electric car takes one gas car off the road. We have to start somewhere. I just need to trade in my gas guzzeling Honda Insight. (60 MPG). I just need to know which Florida Dealer will get the first Volts.
    Take Care,
    TED


  41. 41
    koz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    koz
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:26 am)

    Inhaling #29

    Congratulations! You have taken tremendous care of yourself.


  42. 42
    Dan Petit

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:33 am)

    For those (who probably own fossil fuel stocks) that think that this will not make a vast difference to carbon dioxide reduction over the next 10 years, and, that more jobs which will not be exportable by greedy CEO’s, there just is no choice but to cause these changes.
    For everyone reading these posts, ask yourselves:
    Is the person posting here locked into a sort of carbon-dioxide fatalism in their “history-channel” head-trips, for whatever dysfunctional or greedy rationale?
    This situation caused me to get out my old-fashioned thing called the unabridged dictionary out.
    Yes, I looked up the definition of thuggery, since I had heard it associated with the strong-arm tactics.
    I was astonished to learn that in ancient India, there was a god who was called Kali, who was a god of destruction, and, followers of Kali were known as “thugs”. It had sect members who would practice murdering people.
    There is a concrete reason why I compare the fatalistic attitude of “change-quitters” and those whom want an easy-money profit from fossil fuel stocks (this money has little portion of it going to jobs as compared to, say, solar energy), to ancient Kali sect members.
    I was threatened three times in front of a camera and a witness at an electronics retailer by a fossil fuel thug who said three times in a row;
    “Those that oppose the oil companies get murdered”.
    This, in addition to a litany of other contemptuous remarks.
    This compares exactly to the very practice of ancient India’s thuggery.
    Look it up for yourselves.
    History, for you whom utilize history to death, repeats itself.
    If you tell posters to “grow up”, it may help you to broaden your outlooks.
    So yes, I clearly believe that if anyone thinks they can grossly mislead the readers of this thread by claiming to know exact percentages of oil reduction to further imply a direct correlation that equates to exact percentages of carbon dioxide reduction, well that is
    ***********************
    WRONG.
    ***********************
    Getting these ICE “smokers” off of the streets sets off a compounding effect of carbon dioxide reduction.
    See my published article in the December issue of
    Recognized Emissions Repair Facilities, (Section 30)
    published by the Texas Department of Public Safety (our Texas State Troopers who administer the Emissions Inspections for the State of Texas).
    I know you just can’t “trade in” a large vehicle. Don’t feel guilty about that at all, and, the rest of us must never degrade unfortunate owners of large vehicles they are still locked-into.
    As a matter of fact, I still own an old motorhome which I re-purposed as a stationary small office with 150 watts of solar panels to run light computing jobs at lunch. So, I gave away 384 100-watt compact florescent bulbs to those who can not afford them as a total carbon offset for what slight carbon dioxide it still does produce for the 800 miles a year I do use it. (I drive my Element 18,000 miles a year going out to train auto shop techs emissions diagnostics.)
    We MUST do our relentless best to try in all ways to reduce carbon dioxide by religiously maintaining vehicles by strictly following the maintenance schedule.
    The Volt has carbon-eliminating advantages
    ********************************************************************************
    FROM AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
    *********************************************************************************
    not just from not using gasoline.
    Who can first-list on this post what they are??????
    I will confirm at 11:59 pm tonight who got it right.
    Dan Petit Austin TX.


  43. 43
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:43 am)

    #22 sudhaman Says: we will see more electric vehicles than Obama estimates if more and more invest in GM, Tesla and Fisker and others. we can also make our own batteries .
    ————————————————————————————–
    This is an excellent point, but who is going to invest? Low gas prices tend to make alternative transportation a bad investment. Would you personally make alternative transportation a large part of your portfolio?

    What’s more, OPEC has traditionally used low gas prices to kill off competing sources of fuel. Remember that oil is not really a free market. OPEC is a cartel that coordinates their production output to control prices. In the 70′s they lowered prices to kill off ethanol. In the late 90′s, OPEC used $1/gallon gas to kill off electric cars and most hybrids.

    Today, OPEC is operating near capacity, which is why gas prices are so volatile, but in 5 years, if EREVs, PHEVs, hybrids, and EVs have started to take off, you can bet that OPEC will lower prices to try and kill this off.

    So this is why I’ve been advocating a tax that sets a minimum price on gasoline, or perhaps oil in general. It appears that Rick Wagoner has come to the same conclusion:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/gm-chief-says-gas-tax-hike-worth-considering/


  44. 44
    old man

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    old man
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:02 am)

    #42 Don

    First-I am all for any form of renewable energy and believe we should spend money to try to make it cost effective. BUT, I also think we need to drill for oil and exploit our oil shale. I can see no advantage to shipping oil from one country to another regarding co2 emisions or sending money to countrys that want us dead. I know we import most of our oil from Canada. But if we used more of ours they would be selling what we buy to other countrys that DO buy from the middle east.

    second, When we buy products from countrys like China and India we are causing our carbon foot print to be large. And thinking that solar panals will make us green anyway is wrong. Point, can you fathom any U S city shutting down manufacturing so the air would be somewhat breathable during the olimpics?

    Last- Anybody that would say “those that oppose the oil companys should be murdered” is STUPID and offer nothing to help solve the problem.


  45. 45
    Eco

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Eco
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:17 am)

    If you know the difference between speed and acceleration, which most gear heads do, you understand why 1 million vehicles that emit a fraction of the pollutants of a standard ICE vehicle is more than it appears.

    Do you know how HARD it is for a metropolitan planning organization in a major US city to REDUCE emissions from the local vehicle fleet? Virtually impossible. Despite the fact that cars are over 90 percent cleaner than they were when you were young, VMT has skyrocketed, making real reductions in pollution a wish on a star. Unless gasoline is 4.25 a gallon. THEN it’s possible.

    A milion vehicles that get 100 miles to the gallon, emit a lot less NOx, VOC, and PM, AND displace most of their greenhouse gas emissions to a powerplant, is an important step for the short run.

    When you drive out of Fort Worth and you are headed to El Paso, ya gotta go through Abilene first.


  46. 46
    Dave K.

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave K.
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:18 am)

    koz #41,

    What’s your point? A minimum of 3 out of 5 American’s do what I do. I bet your plastic Christmas tree comes from China.


  47. 47
    k-dawg

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    k-dawg
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:36 am)

    @ #25 butters
    never say never

    @ #35 Statik
    there could be a possibility of a big government contract too…. say 100,000 for the USPS. just a thought


  48. 48
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:42 am)

    The oath of office of the President of the United States:
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Obama took it TWICE)

    The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the Constitution.

    10th Amendment:
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Where does the Constitution say that Congress or the President has the power to give taxpayer money to for profit corporations without buying goods or services to run gov’t operations? This power is clearly left to the States or to the People and NOT the Federal Gov’t.

    Neither Congress nor the President have the legal authority unless you use article 1, section 8 known as the “commerce clause” and you interpret EVERYTHING (including you and I) to be commerce. If we are “commerce”, then the power of the gov’t is limitless and NOBODY has unalienable (not inalienable) rights, the rest of the Constitution is toilet paper and Chairman Obama’s power through executive orders is limitless.

    If he can ignore the supreme law which is the Constitution, what can’t he do?

    What will we do with these traitors to the Constitution and We, the People who ignore their solemn oath of office in order to pursue their own political ends?

    Enjoy your Volts while you say goodbye to your rights and freedoms.

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” -Thomas Jefferson

    The USA is a Representative Republic, NOT a stinking “democracy” because each individual’s natural rights are secured by a Constitution which limits federal power!

    Ignore or be ignorant of this fact at your own personal peril!

    Allow the elite class to get by with this treason and then what will you do when they come for YOUR property, your rights, your freedom or YOU? Oh what a slippery slope to social fascism we now find ourselves on. Bush set us up for the final blow and Obama is knocking us down into the One World Gov’t.

    What a shame we would rather pay attention to trinkets and “octomom” instead of what’s really happening to the country so many died for.


  49. 49
    k-dawg

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    k-dawg
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:59 am)

    @47 Tim

    Right now isn’t it the Federal Reserve dishing the money out.. not Obama? I dont think the Federal Reserve answers to anybody.. not sure. Maybe someone more political than me can expand.


  50. 50
    nataraj

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nataraj
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:02 am)

    # 5
    Maybe somebody should point out that 1 million electric cars on the road won’t do squat

    Absolutely right. We need to aim higher.


    And you just thought ole Barrack was a moron when it came to stimulus packages and cabinet nominees….

    Again absolutely correct. Instead listening to right wingers and giving a large % as tax cuts (which have low multiplication ratio) – he should have listened to real economists who have studied depression economics like Krugman.


  51. 51
    MarkinWI

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    MarkinWI
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:23 am)

    Statik @ #35 – I agree with your general point about goals that are past a presdient’s term. However, in this case, there is no functional difference between 2013 and 2015 – both are after Obama’s first term, after his re-election in 2012 (if there is one), and before the end of his second term in 2016. Yes, 2011/2012 goals would be nice, but can or should Obama dictate that the Volt is selling 10s of thousands in 2011 or 2012? All he can do is set a goal, make investment money available to keep GM alive, and make tax incentives available. If he starts dictating production schedules to GM then he really will be doing what his critics have claimed – converting us to socialism.


  52. 52
    Redeye

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Redeye
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:27 am)

    Be really nice if the post’s could be on a little higher level.

    It only took until post # 3 to drop into the political drivel.


  53. 53
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:35 am)

    I’m gonna stick with the “Yes We Can” (formerly “Can Do”) attitude about US productivity. I prefer to encourage our citizens, universities, businesses, and, yes, our government to go after and solve major problems. We are in an era of rapid technological advances. I believe we can finally make headway on energy issues that have eluded us for a long time. Plenty of people have a “No We Can’t” attitude. Many innovators ignored people like that. Maybe we won’t have 1M plug-in cars by 2015. But, setting and pursuing goals seems more noble than naysaying. By pursuing a goal, we’ll get further down the road.

    On this site, the goal of plug-in cars has brought together a disparate bunch. We want progress on energy-efficient autos. Let’s get it done!


  54. 54
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:39 am)

    K-dawn (#49)

    You are correct. The Congress & the President have abrogated their responsible to sound Constitutional money in creating and then allowing the unFederal, noReserve to exist. If we had sound money, they could not print fiat currency, cause the hidden inflation tax and run us into debt to pay for their global empire or statist/socialist central planning. If you really want to learn more about how we got into this mess, it all began with the Fed’s cheap and easy credit from thin air running up R.E. prices and NOT Wall Street taking advantage of the Fed’s central planning! Do you blame the junkie or the dealer?

    This is an excellent (but dry) paper on sound Constitutional money vs. fiat debt-currency: (It’s kind of high brow, but you can handle it.)
    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/vieira/vieira.htm

    Here is more info on the unFederal noReserve:
    Zeitgeist – The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5)
    Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ Part

    Keep in mind that I too want EVs, but I want them because the market wants them, NOT because politicians are receiving campaign contributions and returning political favors.


  55. 55
    Jim in PA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim in PA
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:44 am)

    #5 kent beuchert

    Judging from the comments here, the jury is in: you are substantially less reasoned than those you criticize. I now return you to your regularly scheduled AM radio program…


  56. 56
    old man

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    old man
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:45 am)

    #52 Redeye

    Agreed! I am a CONSERVETIVE and right now MY president is Obama. I wish him every sucess in his effort to get us going again. I like the idea of his bringing the media along while visiting Southern California Edison’s electric vehicle technical center. At least its additional light being put on our needs for electric cars.

    #53

    AGREED!! YES WE CAN!!!


  57. 57
    Jim in PA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim in PA
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:54 am)

    Well, here’s an eye opener. To those people who criticize Detroit for continuing a focus on trucks: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

    Of the top 8 selling vehicles in the US in Feb 2009, only 3 are American. And they are the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, and Dodge Ram. The Tacoma, at #20, is the only Japanese pickup to even crack the top 20 list. In other words, Detroit continues to decimate the Japanese in the pickup truck segment, and should keep that one of the priorities of their business. Never surrender market superiority. On a related note, Chrysler/Dodge is the only minivan in the top 20. GM should take note of that if Chrysler goes belly up and has a fire sale.

    At the same time, Detroit has substantial work to do in cars. The Malibu is the only American car in the top 10, and there are only 4 American sedans in the top 20 (out of a total of 10 sedans).


  58. 58
    Adrian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Adrian
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:04 am)

    I wish he would suceed too, but his policies won’t work so I also wish he would stop this destructive path. Oh well. Yes, I am conservative.

    Bush spent tons of money on hybrid, hydrogen, and green tech. He was green before Obama was. #3 Randy, get your facts straight. Without Bush we wouldn’t be anywhere near we are with battery research. Put down the Kool Aid.

    As said many times, we will need oil for 30-50 years due all the non-car vehicles (trucks, planes, tankers, military). Get over your oil phobia. You can electric and oil too.


  59. 59
    Adrian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Adrian
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:07 am)

    #50. Tax cuts are the only thing in our history that has grown the economy. If you want socialism, move to Europe. Get out of my country.


  60. 60
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:11 am)

    #59 Adrian
    I think we have recently been through a period of tax cuts and economic contraction. That belies your assertion.

    EDIT: I’m sorry. Adrian went off-topic and I followed.


  61. 61
    ThomC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThomC
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:13 am)

    #25 butters
    >> Don’t you realize that our way of life is a dead end — a failure?

    The last time I heard something like that, Jimmy Carter was talking about “diminshing expectations”. Carter chose to use a linear projection of his times as a guide… a significant reason that he’s considered to be a failure as a president. A major technological change was on the horizon (microcomputers) and it changed everything. That change has facilitated the exponential advance in other technologies, which will help us maintain “our way of life”.

    We can do better than we’re doing now. But it’s not going to happen through government controlled committees. It’s going to happen because individual thinkers with novel ideas see new paths. Government can help, but it can’t direct creativity, it can only support it.

    The American self-image of rugged individualism is still valid… It alway will be. If anything, I hope it grows from the “American” self-image into the “human” self-image.


  62. 62
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:18 am)

    #44 old man,

    All good points.

    The only thing I would qualify is that domestic oil can actually have a larger carbon footprint than shipping oil from overseas. Since U.S. oil peaked in the early 70′s, much of what’s left is a lower grade oil mixed with a lot of water, so it takes more fossil fuels to process this lower grade oil than to ship high grade oil from overseas.

    Domestic oil will help with national security issues though.

    In any case, the bottom line is that we need to use a lot less oil.


  63. 63
    Edwin Mang

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Edwin Mang
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:27 am)

    http://nevadageothermal.com
    Check it out .

    God Bless


  64. 64
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:28 am)

    #59 Adrian Says: Tax cuts are the only thing in our history that has grown the economy.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Normally I would agree with you, but not this time. Right now, people are so scared they will just keep the tax cuts you give them, and not spend it. So right now, the best course is direct spending to create jobs, coupled with mild tax cuts that are very spread out so they encourage people not to save.

    As the saying goes, you can’t push a string. If consumers don’t have enough confidence in the economy to spend, then throwing tax cut money at them won’t help.


  65. 65
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:38 am)

    #52 Redeye said:

    Be really nice if the post’s could be on a little higher level.

    It only took until post # 3 to drop into the political drivel.
    ========================
    Threads with a picture of the president, coupled with some lofty promises are always a delight.


  66. 66
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:41 am)

    #25 butters Says: Don’t you realize that our way of life is a dead end — a failure? .
    ————————————————————————————–
    I would say that the next 20 years won’t be anything like the last 20 years. Our resources are running out, and not just oil. Copper is running out. Iron is running out. Even coal – OK so there’s a lot left, but most all the good quality coal has been used already, and what’s left is increasingly low grade coal.

    And exponential population growth can’t continue forever.

    So our way of life will change dramatically within the next 20 years, but that could be a good thing.


  67. 67
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:46 am)

    #65 statik

    Nonetheless, the thread is relevant to this blog. When the POTUS addresses our topic of interest, I can’t fault Lyle for the post, even if it brings out the ________.


  68. 68
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:47 am)

    We stayed up and watched President Obama on Jay Leno last night. He stressed these same points there. I found it very encouraging.

    I’ve said it here many times. If this country and GM can go from a green field in Willow Run Michigan, to the largest factory building in the world, to producing 2500 B-24 Liberators, and back to zero, in 4 years, building a million PHEVs by 2015 is like falling off a log. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of 6×6 trucks and Sherman tanks. Nobody can tell me it can’t be done. All it takes is political will.

    When President Roosevelt ordered this to be done, nobody called it “socialism”. It was uniting the country in the face of an existential threat, and the whole population instantly mobilized to defeat that threat.

    I would remind bloggers of all political persuasions that no less of a personage than Warren Buffet, hardly a flaming “liberal” to my knowledge, called upon the country to do the same again in the face of the present existential threats. He specifically called upon us to unite behind President Obama as the country did behind President Roosevelt. His words, not mine.

    If we do not unite, and stop the partisan bickering, name calling, and backbiting, then our “way of life” is clearly facing doom.


  69. 69
    Koz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Koz
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:50 am)

    Dave K #45

    2 wrongs don’t make a right, would you follow the sheep in front of you off a cliff, 50% of population believes professional raslin’ is real, etc, etc.

    When we have a christmas tree, it is real and my minora is not made in China. This not to say that lots of stuff I have is not Chinese made but I do try to look beyond the cheapest price. Point of original and value, particularly with large purchases mean something to me. Buying is like voting in a lot of ways. There are ramifications that go far beyond the simple idea of cost and good (material purchased). Everyone is supporting a manufacturer and some sort of sales entity with every purchase. Purchasing from Walmart, supports Walmart and enough of that support breeds more Walmart. This is fine if this is the business model you want to support, but one should understand what that business model means beyond the simple I got this widget for the cheapest price, yeah me! If you support your community business then they will be in a better position to support your business.

    This is not to say that I believe local businesses, or in country businesses, deserve a free pass but rather a home field advantage. Actually, this is not really an altruistic argument either. It is more of a long term, holistic purchasing philosophy that helps yourself by supporting those closest to you whenever practical.


  70. 70
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:06 am)

    I also hope that Obama succeeds in his STATED intentions when they fall within his Constitutional powers, but his actions are different than his rhetoric. This is also the case with many of his tax dodging appointees.

    Dennis Kuchinich, a Democrat put this interesting and provocative question to Neel Kashkari ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neel_Kashkari ) during committee hearings and I would like Chairman Obama to publicly answer this exact same question too:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evpFtFfPWP8&feature=related

    (hint: The answer is not the American taxpayer)


  71. 71
    Jim in PA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim in PA
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:14 am)

    #59: Tax cuts are the only thing in history to grow the economy? Hmmmm… that creates the following logical dilema for tax cut fanatics;

    If we were to reduce taxes to zero tomorrow, would it then be impossible to ever stimulate the economy again? I mean, tax cuts are the ONLY thing that stimulate the economy, right? Right? Bueller?….

    Actually, all tax cut silliness aside, investments in technology create HUGE stimulation for the economy. What drove economic expansion in the 90s wasn’t any kind of tech or housing bubble, it was the huge and verifiable increase in worker productivity. And much of that can be attributed to the effects of computers and automation. As an engineer I can now do the work of three people (engineer, CAD drafter, and word processor/typist). A steel mill that used to need 5,000 workers now only needs 1,000 to produce the same amount of product (at a higher quality). This is the reality that puts the nail in the coffin of so many political talking points.


  72. 72
    Dave K.

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave K.
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:21 am)

    Koz 69

    I give you credit for presenting a case to support buying high priced local goods. No one here is saying you’re right or wrong, or that I’m right or wrong. It’s just how it is. I know you agree with this statement.

    Let’s look at personal buying power as one of the few freedoms we now have. This may be why buying low cost Asian goods is popular.

    We are taxed to eat, drive, work, spend, and earn. We then pay year end tax. And don’t forget the ever popular back tax.

    The dollar we are taxed on at the fast food breakfast place is given to the next customer as change. He uses the same dollar to buy gasoline and is taxed. This dollar is then given as change and taxed again. That single dollar bill you spent at 7AM may regenerate itself back in tax revenue before 7PM the same day.

    Can you blame me for saving a few thousand dollars by buying Asian? You really think I’m following sheep off a cliff? Am I un-American by buying a Casio watch or a Nikon camera?


  73. 73
    SteveK

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    SteveK
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:23 am)

    Awful lot of whining about the ’1 million EVs by 2015′. It’s just a goal, but what a refreshing change in direction. Wish it could have happened long ago. It would be nice if he mentioned the Volt by name one of these days.

    It’s a good thing we have a skinny, young, in-shape President. The guy seems to be in 6 places at once. Any one of his hundred or so speeches since he became President has more sense in it than Bush’s entire 8 years.


  74. 74
    stas peterson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stas peterson
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:27 am)

    How many PHEVs electric cars will be sold when the price of electricity changes the equation from 75 cents for an equivalent gallon of gas, to $7,50 cents per gallon of gas.

    The Cluless One has already thrown a monkey wrench into comitted plans to build 35 new nuclear generation plants to replace innumerable old antiquated and pollution spewing coal facilities. He apparently doesn’t want the “stimulus” of $150-200 billions of job spuring investments.

    Did he do it because of a principled reason, like he opposes nuclear? Hell No. He siupports nucllear ormaybe not depending on what audience he is speaking to at the moment. He did it to secure a handful of possible NIMBY votes for Senator Harry Reid who is in political trouble in Nevada. Mr.Reid popularity has dropped a yet another scandal about real estate kickbacks and dirty deals is surfacing.

    Mr.Obama overode the advice of his Energy Secretary Mr. Chu to do so.

    Such is the The Clueless One in actual actions as opposed to these continual “campaign appearances”.

    Hey Clueless you won the election.

    You wanted to BE President. Stop campaigning and cease these useless symbolic campaign stops and do the job you were elected to do, start governing.

    Or could it be that you have no idea how to actually do the job, and your only qualification is to make symbolic and spurious campaign speeches.


  75. 75
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:33 am)

    Dr. Dennis:

    I would be remiss if I did not try to direct attention to the very imprtant and valuable final paragraph of your post above:

    “And so it seems from this economic catastrophe, government intervention, and fantastically enormous spending, shall arise something positive, the electric car.”

    I have said many times that I am not a religious person. Nevertheless many ideas originating in religion resonate with me, as with so many others. I have used the following one many times, some may say too often. Nevertheless, it has never been more true than now:

    “God send that it shall be true.”

    And also that our nation and our economy shall be saved, and that we shall somehow find our way to a fulfilling and sustainable way of life.


  76. 76
    Tom Harwick

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tom Harwick
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:46 am)

    #1 Nuclearboy

    I hope Obama will work on ways to make electricity cheaper for our country too. I want a president to tell me that we are going to produce our own energy and have plenty of it. That will allow our country to thrive. High electrical costs will be a negative for electric cars.

    Well, nuclearboy, you can keep hoping. But the reality is, he is pushing cap and trade, a $2 trillion tax on electricity. He is not supporting nuclear at all,

    I really do not understand your statement “I want a president to tell me that we are going to produce our own energy and have plenty of it” How does Obama saying this help us? Only actions count, and his actions are in opposition to proven methods of increasing the energy supply such as oil drilling and nuclear.


  77. 77
    D.

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    D.
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:58 am)

    nataraj, #50 says “Instead listening to right wingers and giving a large % as tax cuts (which have low multiplication ratio) – he(Obama) should have listened to real economists who have studied depression economics like Krugman.” Agree… And Obama will change course in the not to distant future, Business folk who caused the meltdown and are still in place will disappear. Geitner and Summers will be ousted, AIG liquidated, failing banks nationalized., within a couple of weeks.( according to economist Robert Kuttner, Amy Goodman, March 18)

    thombthebomb, #53 -”On this site, the goal of plug-in cars has brought together a disparate bunch. We want progress on energy-efficient autos. Let’s get it done!”

    Just Get’er done! ;-)


  78. 78
    Van

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Van
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:01 pm)

    Someone may have already provided the link to this, but here is another story on the same visit:
    http://www.hybridcars.com/news/realities-behind-obama-electric-car-photo-op-25662.html


  79. 79
    john1701a

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    john1701a
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:10 pm)

    Bush spent tons of money on hybrid, hydrogen, and green tech.
    ___________________________________

    Each “State of the Union” address mentioned the need, yet virtually nothing actually materialized. Undermining held back advancement to a slow crawl. So much could have been accomplished. It was sickening to witness.

    Read the blogs from that time. You’re in for a surprise.

    SMTD


  80. 80
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:41 pm)

    #79 john1701a

    From some of the comments here, undermining seems alive and well. That’s a shame. What unites us here is affected by who we want to rally around. What if, instead of Obama, it was (insert respected republican/conservative here) stating goals for the electrification of the auto? Would that make a difference? Let’s find common ground and move forward. We may have to compromise some things for the greater good. Let’s have democracy in action, not democracy inaction.


  81. 81
    Edwin Mang

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Edwin Mang
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:47 pm)

    Oil speculators bought oil at $149 its selling at $39 , How much more can you punish them ?
    Some are still holding the $149 oil in tankers off shore in hope that we will drive the price back up and paying to hold the oil .
    and Congress is holding hearings on them ?


  82. 82
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (12:58 pm)

    #80 ThombDbhomb Says: Let’s have democracy in action, not democracy inaction.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Hey that’s good. I haven’t heard it before. Did you make that up?


  83. 83
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (1:13 pm)

    #82 Dave G

    I can’t take credit. I’ve heard variations on the in action/inaction wordplay before.


  84. 84
    CDAVIS

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CDAVIS
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (1:43 pm)

    _____________________________________________________
    #76 Tom Harwich Said:
    “…But the reality is, he is pushing cap and trade, a $2 trillion tax on electricity. He is not supporting nuclear at all.”


    Tom Warwick,
    I agree with your comment post.

    Most people don’t understand that nuclear energy is a proven technology that has to date factually delivered (kw per kw) the most affordable, safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly energy. Because a reliable energy source is critical to America’s security and economic viability, America needs to think of energy as a top national security issue. America should have as a reliable source of energy as we have on our military aircraft carriers and submarines. Those carriers and submarines don’t stop operating when the sun stops shinning or the wind stops blowing.

    Fellow environmentalist (yes I consider myself a tree hugger) , think about this: If you could wave a magic wand and today make all cars EV/EREV and all electric power generated nuclear…America will have reduced its carbon emissions by 75+% and would consume 50+% less energy land use than today. The other alternative fuel sources (wind, solar, ethanol crop) would require a several hundred fold in energy land use. Chew on that for a while!
    _____________________________________________________
    Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
    ______________________________________________________


  85. 85
    KentT

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    KentT
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (1:49 pm)

    I don’t know why this thread went on so long about the number of vehicles Obama wants. What Obama wants is irrelevant. What matters is the price of gas when the Volt is launched. If it’s over $3.50/gal the Volt will be a hit. If it’s still around $2/gal nothing will save it.

    1 million plug in hybrids sounds like a good number to reach the “tipping point” It will mean market acceptance, reasonable prices for batteries due to mass production and probably gen 4 batteries. I’ll take Obama’s goal and research money over Bush’s “hydrogen initiative” red herring any day.

    My only lament is I have read where that 2 billion is going and I’m afraid it’s a waste. Like Xerox PARC in the ’60s great ideas but no translation into marketable products. Give the money to GM. They’ve done more in 18 months to bring a practical, desirable electric car people will actually buy than all the advocates, hobbists, fans, scientists, enviromentalists, politicians, or any other group you can think of put together. GM is worth saving because NO ONE is going to build an electric car unless GM builds – and succeeds – with the Volt.

    Think about it. Toyota is already on record saying “the battery is not ready.” Nissan is going to bring out it’s “cube.” Sales? 2000 units if they’re lucky. Tesla will succeed – as a niche player. They will remain a boutique car company – like BMW if they’re lucky. Their Model S (drops March 26th!) might sell 10,000. The BMW 5 series sell between 12K and 16K units a year. (Think about that, you haters!)

    So when I say GM is the only one who will build an electric car I mean in numbers that will TRULY launch the revolution! No one else is building a battery pack factory. No else will build an e-REV specific gasoline engine. No one else is willing to bet the company on the electric car v.2 There is only one Snow White. Every other player is a dwarf. (My apologies to all little people!)


  86. 86
    john1701a

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    john1701a
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (2:03 pm)

    Let’s find common ground and move forward. We may have to compromise some things for the greater good.
    __________________________

    That’s what I’ve been saying for over 2 years.

    The purists that only accept the 40-mile minimum are the ones unwilling to bend. They hold firm that the affordable price is worth waiting for, rather than converting as many as possible as soon as possible with less rigid requirements.

    Again, it’s the MILLIONS of new traditional vehicles to worry about… hence the Obama goal.


  87. 87
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (2:16 pm)

    Hey, Chairman Obama, I produce methane and I’ll be happy to collect and store it in recycled plastic bottles as a renewable fuel. I only need a $1 million for R&D.

    Common, I will feed my friends beans too and this will produce “green jobs” producing renewable fuel. We all know politicians will buy ANYTHING that the market doesn’t want especially if it’s for political pandering with “Green Jobs” in Renewable Fuels!

    Methane from beans is good for you, the economy and America’s future!

    What do you mean that I didn’t donate enough to Democrat campaign efforts last year and I can’t afford insider lobbiests?

    GREEN JOBS!!! Print me some money too!!!!!

    QUESTION: If we could just print our way out of debt, why do any of us actually work for a living?


  88. 88
    Jason M. Hendler

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason M. Hendler
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (2:57 pm)

    Yep, plug-in vehicles are a lock at this point. It will be interesting to see how quickly we converge on the ultimate configurations and see them asymtope to their inevitable performance limits.


  89. 89
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:00 pm)

    #85 KentT Says: 1 million plug in hybrids sounds like a good number to reach the “tipping point”. It will mean market acceptance, reasonable prices for batteries due to mass production and probably gen 4 batteries. I’ll take Obama’s goal and research money over Bush’s “hydrogen initiative” red herring any day.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Yes, exactly.


  90. 90
    Unni

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Unni
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:13 pm)

    Nissan going to have electric cars by 2010

    http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6472792/green/nissan-electric-car-to-arrive-in-2010/index.html

    The source says the plug-in electric vehicle will have an 80 kW electric motor powered by lithium-ion battery packs stored in the floor. It will be front-wheel drive and have a unique body style.

    Next Ford :
    http://www.fordmuscle.com/blog/electric-ford-in-2011/112339

    Electric Ford in 2011

    The game started getting tougher, may be we will be hearing from Honda and Toyota (plug-in prius with serial hybrid ) soon. Again tough game starts here.

    Looks Japanese will launch 80kw cars (5 seater ) and GM will have 150 Kw 4 seater. Japanese will price lower at 17 – 20 k and GM at 30s and subaru’s will come with symetric awd electric drives. Again GM will be forced to launch a lower version to compete ( cruze serial hybrid mostly even before they start curze production )

    Its sounds we are repeating the history ? Lets see how smart GM work this time.


  91. 91
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:26 pm)

    #87 Tim Says: QUESTION: If we could just print our way out of debt, why do any of us actually work for a living?
    ————————————————————————————–
    Actually, we’re not printing more money, we’re borrowing it from China and various other institutional investors.

    As for the broader question, sometimes going a little further into debt short-term is the fastest way to get out of debt. For example, if you’re unemployed, additional training may be the answer, but that would increase your debt in the short-term.

    Also, if a business is losing money every quarter, the best way to make the business equation positive may involve additional loans. Or perhaps the best option is bankruptcy, but that’s not a good option for the U.S. government.

    Also remember that if the economy gets worse, then the government has to pay more unemployment benefits, and the government collects less taxes. So if borrowing money to stimulate the economy actually works out, it may actually not increase the debt over what you would have with no stimulus.


  92. 92
    Edwin Mang

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Edwin Mang
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:34 pm)

    I see you all most get it , the financial crisis is basicly over , the oil crisis is fluctuating as we speak . The price of gas is up 25 cents in the last two weeks you will see it rise untill someone starts to screem about it . Then it will dip for a week . and go back up higher still . I say it is time to squack now . call the press demand answers now . their is no shortage . demand is up less than the price . squalk.


  93. 93
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (3:49 pm)

    #90 Unni

    “lithium-ion battery packs stored in the floor”

    … and two under the seat.

    /couldn’t resist.

    //is there a new post, yet?


  94. 94
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (4:20 pm)

    #84 CDAVIS Says: Fellow environmentalist (yes I consider myself a tree hugger) , think about this: If you could wave a magic wand and today make all cars EV/EREV and all electric power generated nuclear…America will have reduced its carbon emissions by 75+% and would consume 50+% less energy land use than today. The other alternative fuel sources (wind, solar, ethanol crop) would require a several hundred fold in energy land use. Chew on that for a while!
    ————————————————————————————–
    Yes, I consider myself a tree hugger as well, and it feels good to say it!

    Yes, nuclear power’s time has come. In the end, nuclear is one of the best options for the environment.

    I’ve chewed on the land use issues for a long, long while, and have come to different conclusions.

    44% of our oil consumption is for gasoline. EREVs would cover the vast majority of that. So only around 7% of our oil consumption would be changed to ethanol. Currently, much of our farmland sits idle. If we grew energy crops on that idle farmland, and combined that with food crop residue, forest/mill waste, municipal waste, etc., that would easily produce enough ethanol to replace 7% of our oil consumption, without any additional land use.

    There there’s diesel and jet fuel. Together, these account for 22% of our oil consumption, and most of this can’t be converted to run on batteries. I think algae holds the key here. 95% of the oil that we drill out of the ground came from ancient algae. Why can’t we make oil with modern algae? With the right strain, algae is over 50% vegetable oil. No wonder it’s so slimy. And algae is the fastest growing plant on the planet. Closed loop algae bio-reactors will sprout up in the desert and around power plants. I think this type of land would be well used for algae bio-diesel production. See here for details:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcLgE52rzw


  95. 95
    Mark Z

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Z
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (4:34 pm)

    #1 – nuclearboy

    Cheaper electric rates are available today, but it may require a move to a different state.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/fig7p5.html


  96. 96
    Dave K.

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave K.
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (5:11 pm)

    The $7500 “tax credit plan” on the Volt should instead be offered as an instant rebate.

    $40,000 plus 10% = $44,000 (up front) less a “tax credit” = $36,500 (your price)

    $40,000 less instant “green” rebate = $32,500 plus 10% = $35,750 (your price)

    With the government making the “green” incentive of $75,000 a “tax credit” they have taxed the tax credit by $750. And placed a bigger out-of-pocket burden on the public. Why make car buying so hard on the public and on the dealerships? Get this fixed before the Volt goes on sale.


  97. 97
    Tall Pete

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tall Pete
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (5:20 pm)

    In my place (Montréal, Québec), the lowest price for gas was 2,62$ a gallon before Christmas.

    Last sunday, it was 3,49$. Yesterday 3,13$. By the way, I should mention that a lot of taxes is included in that price.

    I’m truly sick of the oil companies way to do business – testing the price to hit the most profit. Exxon has breaking profit records every year now. All oil companies do. At least, with electricity, I’ll keep my money in my country. Or nearby.

    I’m waiting for my Volt or a BEV. This cannot last much longer, it has to stop. And it has to come from the government. Most people don’t make decisions based on long term. It’s a job for the government to do. And taxes, sadly, are the best way to convince people to act differently :-(


  98. 98
    RB

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    RB
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (5:24 pm)

    When this blog started I thought of the Volt as a car with so much merit people would be happy to buy it with their own money.


  99. 99
    nuclearboy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nuclearboy
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (6:50 pm)

    #74 says. “I really do not understand your statement “I want a president to tell me that we are going to produce our own energy and have plenty of it” How does Obama saying this help us? Only actions count, and his actions are in opposition to proven methods of increasing the energy supply such as oil drilling and nuclear.”

    I was ass-uming 2 things. 1. The president would say it, and 2. He would actually support it.

    That would mean setting up a regulatory environment and energy policy that promoted cheap reliable sources of electricity

    Obama is doing the opposite and thats why I made the statement that I want a president to …

    Obamas Cap and Trade will cost the electric user (costs at the plant are just passed on) and his stance on Yucca Mountain (the safest place for nuclear waste in our country) puts additional burdens on the nuclear sites (costs again passed on to the consumer).


  100. 100
    Jake

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jake
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:01 pm)

    At some point you have to cut the cord with primitive “dig it up and burn it” technologies like coal and oil, and waste producing weak energy sources like nuclear. I applaud the prez for what the direction he is taking. We don’t need to step back the 20th century, we need to move forward even if its not the cheapest thing to do.


  101. 101
    Paul-R

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Paul-R
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:23 pm)

    President Obama’s rhetoric sounds nice, but exactly how does one export renewable energy? What are the mechanisms to create it, package it, and ship it? I don’t think they exist. If you feel they do, please enlighten me.

    Second, President Obama is anti-oil, anti-nuclear, and anti-coal … today’s three most viable energy sources. With those sources blacklisted, where is President Obama’s energy going to magically come from? I’m skeptical that solar and wind are going to pick up all that slack.

    Oh wait, I forgot to mention that he’s also anti-carbon-dioxide. That means he’s pretty much against anything that burns. Until we see a different energy policy from our President, the USA is screwed when it comes to energy. I think McCain’s energy policy (to basically, use everything we can) made much more sense.


  102. 102
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:25 pm)

    #96 Dave K. Says: The $7500 “tax credit plan” on the Volt should instead be offered as an instant rebate.
    ————————————————————————————–
    I agree, for the reasons you give, and others as well.

    Many people won’t qualify for the tax rebate. For example, retired people may have enough savings to buy a new car, but not enough income to pay $7500 in taxes. Also, if your income is too high, I believe AMT will limit the credit.

    Why steer retirees and people with high incomes away from plug-ins?


  103. 103
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:27 pm)

    #98 RB says “When this blog started I thought of the Volt as a car with so much merit people would be happy to buy it with their own money.”

    That’s a fair point. The answer is that if gas was priced to reflect the costs it imposes on society then the subsidies would in fact not be needed. Cap and trade is designed to do this. If this were in place you probably wouldn’t need the incentives.


  104. 104
    JEC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JEC
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:37 pm)

    Dave G
    “So right now, the best course is direct spending to create jobs, coupled with mild tax cuts that are very spread out so they encourage people not to save.”
    =====================================================
    Dave, this really concerns me. Saying we do not want to encourage people to save, is exactly why we are in this mess.

    When you hear statements that the “Economy must grow…” and others, you must realize that it cannot grow forever. The economy is now contracting, and trying to force the economy to expand before its ready, can lead to even deeper problems. We need real grassroots growth, not artificial growth, spurred by making people spend what they cannot or should not.

    People should be saving their money. The idea that you want to “fool” people into believing the economy is ok, and that they should spend, will lead us further down the road of recession towards a possible depression.

    “Back on your heads, coffee breaks over…”


  105. 105
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:40 pm)

    #101 Paul-R Says: President Obama’s rhetoric sounds nice, but exactly how does one export renewable energy? What are the mechanisms to create it, package it, and ship it?
    ————————————————————————————–
    Dollar-a-gallon ethanol plant in U.S. operation next year
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
    Using their new cellulosic gasification process, up to 35% of our gasoline consumption can be replaced by using food crop residue, energy crops, forest/mill waste, and municipal waste.
    http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp

    Using closed-loop algae bio-reactors, 1/10 the state of New Mexico can supply all of America’s energy needs:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA


  106. 106
    ThombDbhomb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ThombDbhomb
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:41 pm)

    #101 Paul-R

    “…exactly how does one export renewable energy?”

    One could export renewable energy technology.


  107. 107
    carcus1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    carcus1
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:51 pm)

    #91 Dave G.

    “Actually, we’re not printing more money, we’re borrowing it from China and various other institutional investors.”
    ___________________________________________________

    No, you’re wrong. We’re just printing it — hard to believe, but it’s true.

    Fed Plans to Inject Another $1 Trillion to Aid the Economy
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19fed.html?_r=2&hp


  108. 108
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (7:54 pm)

    #104 JEC,

    Yes, encouraging people to save is generally a good thing, but not right now.

    When the economy is doing fairly well, that’s when you want people to save, and you do that by raising interest rates.

    During a recession, you want people to spend, and you encourage that by lowering interest rates and lowering taxes.

    When you have a severe recession/depression, you want people to spend, but lowering interest rates and lowering taxes aren’t as effective in this situation, so you need direct spending to create jobs.

    If we just let the market take care of itself, market volatility would cause economic chaos, especially for the lower and middle classes.


  109. 109
    JEC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JEC
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:07 pm)

    108 Dave G

    Yes. I understand the economics of wanting people to spend, but people need to spend when the system is fixed, not when we want them to.

    The current economic downturn is not caused by people not spending, it was caused by banks becoming investment firms. It was as shift of money from the regular Joe/Mary to greedy investment vehicles.

    We need to fix the real problems with our banking and investment systems, before we start telling people to spend, otherwise the cycle will repeat, and in my opinion, if it happens to quickly, we will see a worse recession than what we already are experiencing.

    BTW: I love the idea of cellulosic ethanol. I believe it is a ace in the hole, that we need to play soon.


  110. 110
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:09 pm)

    #107 carcus1 Says: Fed Plans to Inject Another $1 Trillion to Aid the Economy
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19fed.html?_r=2&hp

    ————————————————————————————–
    From your link:
    The Federal Reserve sharply stepped up its efforts to bolster the economy on Wednesday, announcing that it would pump an extra $1 trillion into the financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage securities.

    I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on this, but as I understand it, the Fed is creating new money to purchase Treasury bonds and mortgage securities, which can later be sold. So I see this as a form of additional debt, but I may be off here.


  111. 111
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:23 pm)

    #109 JEC Says: We need to fix the real problems with our banking and investment systems, before we start telling people to spend, otherwise the cycle will repeat…
    ————————————————————————————–
    I think I see what you’re saying, but I still don’t understand this: Why can’t we fix our banking and investment systems and work to stimulate the economy at the same time? Most of the approved stimulus money will be spent 6-18 months from now. Is that enough time to fix our banking and investment systems?


  112. 112
    carcus1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    carcus1
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:44 pm)

    #110 Dave G.

    When the Federal Reserve purchases U.S. Treasury bonds, that means they are just printing money. Nobody else is involved in the process. No other country, individual, bank, entity, . . . nobody else is providing a guarantee. They just crank up the printing press, sprinkle some ferry dust, and poof! . . . .. here’s a trillion dollars.

    All these moves are making our big creditors (like China) nervous, because (of course) this will devalue the loans they have in U.S. Treasury Bonds.

    Wen’s Dollar Warning
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123723634481646577.html

    “The Fed had already cut its benchmark interest-rate target to near zero. Unable to go lower, the central bank now is essentially printing money to raise the supply of credit…..”

    Fed in Bond-Buying Binge to Spur Growth
    Dramatic Plan to Purchase $300 Billion in Treasurys Causes Biggest Drop in Interest Rates Since ’87; Perils of Printing Money
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739788518173569.html


  113. 113
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:46 pm)

    #98 RB said:

    When this blog started I thought of the Volt as a car with so much merit people would be happy to buy it with their own money.
    ======================

    +1 RB


  114. 114
    unni

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    unni
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (8:47 pm)

    #93 Jackson :

    http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/inmotion/index.do?loc=en-us

    and click on the imiev :

    In know it sounds funny but true , yes Lithoum ion on floor.

    http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/special/ev/4innovations/index.html

    have a look on the above links. imiev is also expected on 2010 :-) and they are aready fleet testing on lot locations in world already.


  115. 115
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (9:42 pm)

    The iMiev’s motor is in the back?!!!

    They can’t be counting on getting much regeneration (as noted in earlier post, most braking is done by the front wheels).


  116. 116
    Peter

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Peter
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (10:17 pm)

    Mandate all light vehicles to be electric. It’ll take less than a year. It took them 3 year in early 1940th to convert auto industry in to tank industry for the war. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WAR NOW!!! With ourselves, our habits and our hypocrisy. We can do it all when we face great challenge. All we have to do is come to realization that the challenge is here, and it’s not fake terrorism or communism right now is our planet is at stake!
    WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!


  117. 117
    Paul-R

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Paul-R
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:24 pm)

    ThombDbhomb Says:
    One could export renewable energy technology.
    ————————————————————-
    Not really sure how that helps the U.S. energy problem. There are many examples where we have shared US-developed technology. The result has usually been foreign competition that crushes out our competing U.S. companies. They crush us because of their cheaper labor, weaker unions, lower taxes, and fewer regulations. With President Obama’s restrictive energy policy, I believe energy will soon become yet another U.S. disadvantage.


  118. 118
    Paul-R

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Paul-R
     Says

     

    Mar 20th, 2009 (11:30 pm)

    Dave G :
    Provided info on dollar-a-gallon ethanol plant … new cellulosic gasification process … closed-loop algae bio-reactors.
    ————————————————————-
    Thanks for those links, but I also did some googling for problems with those technologies, and there seem to be many. Either they don’t scale well, or they create shortages of needed materials, or they have bad environmental side affects, or the end product is not as robust as gasoline/oil. Plus it’s a fact that burning a gallon of alcohol/biofuel generates just as much carbon-dioxide as burning a gallon of gasoline. So if you believe in the carbon-dioxide climate-change myth, then by using these technologies you are still inviting President Obama to carbon-tax the crap out of you.

    To me there is only one logical course: First, use natural gas (as an alternative to oil/gasoline) as much as possible. Second, do everything we can to use more electricity as a transportation fuel (Chevy Volt, electric cars, etc). And generate that electricity in as many ways as we can, and for now at least, the best technologies to make huge amounts of electricity anyplace are nuclear and coal. Hydro is also great in some locations, like near Hoover Dam. And solar is pretty good in the southwest U.S.


  119. 119
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    Mar 21st, 2009 (11:12 am)

    #116 Peter:

    Amen brother. Preach on!


  120. 120
    HenryF

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    HenryF
     Says

     

    Mar 21st, 2009 (11:23 am)

    It’s about time we have leadership in the auto industry. His name is Obama and he is going to fix this auto mess that Bush and his cronies left behind. Obama will lead this country toward alternative energy adoption whether GM, Chrysler or Ford want it or not. The only real reason these incompetent auto executives are changing their ways is because they want the government handouts (aka MONEY). Hopefully with Obama in charge, he will force these clowns in the right direction.


  121. 121
    koz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    koz
     Says

     

    Mar 21st, 2009 (5:25 pm)

    Paul-R

    I believe ThombDbhomb, and Obama, had in mind actual products and services like: solar panels, wind turbines, advanced batteries, smart grid design, EREVs, etc. Obama, and others, have been talking for some time about the importance of the US taking a leadership role in developing these technologies so that we can not only implement them here but also export the related products and services.


  122. 122
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    Mar 21st, 2009 (9:26 pm)

    “And so it seems from this economic catastrophe, government intervention, and fantastically enormous spending, shall rise something positive, the electric car.”
    ———————————————

    That may very well be true, but at what cost? Will we ever see the “bill” repaid in our life time, our children’s life time or our grandchildren’s life time? That is the 64 trillion dollar question. (Inflated in today’s dollars.)


  123. 123
    Will-Edward

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Will-Edward
     Says

     

    Mar 22nd, 2009 (8:51 pm)

    It is ashamed that an american scientist developed a great sustainable battery a decade ago for GM’s EV1. The Ev1′s were produced and leased to consumers in California and driven on American roads up until the last one was taken back from consumers in 2005 and shreaded like paper. The consumers did not have the option to buy. These customers loved their EV1′s dearly. Customers fought tooth and nails to keep their beloved EV-1′s!! The oil companies wasn’t standing for pure electric vehicles and Gm caved. Gm then sold the rights to the American made battery to Texaco! Now Gm is again launching an EV. But This time, They will be importing the batteries for our american cars from Japan. Go figure!!


  124. 124
    Hoang

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Hoang
     Says

     

    Mar 23rd, 2009 (12:43 pm)

    To #25: “We’ll never produce nearly as much energy from renewables as we produce today by depleting prehistoric biomass deposits”

    This sounds like “64KB of RAM is enough for everyone” when Bill Gates said it not too long ago.

    If we survive the Worlf War III, at some point, I am very sure that you can only find gasoline produced from the prehistoric biomass deposits in the museums.

    Remember ultimate truth never exsits. Today’s truth will not be tomorrow’s truth. So use your “never” word carefully next time.


  125. 125
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    Mar 27th, 2009 (4:38 pm)

    With the chances for a Saturn Vue PHEV looking dimmer and dimmer, I suspect I’ll replace my Saturn SW2 with an Escape PHEV in 3 years.