-
The One Good Thing About Tesla
June 7, 2013 | 19 comments
-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
Car Guy
Leaf Blowers
Get ready for another clunker bill to subsidize buyers of the shockingly pricey and suspect electric Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf.
Here’s the thing: No one except maybe a few blockbuster-fattened Hollywood celebs is going to buy a new Chevy Volt — GM’s $40,000 electric “economy” car. Or the almost-as-pricey Nissan Leaf, which will carry an MSRP sticker price of $32,780 — which is about what you’d pay for a new BMW 3-series.
It doesn’t matter that they don’t burn any gas at all. Filling up a normal $15k car with $3 unleaded is still a whole lot cheaper. And isn’t the whole point of the exercise to save money? A person who hates paying $30 to fill-up is surely going to chafe at making car payments of $400 per month for the next 5-6 years, right?
You’d have to drive a new Volt or Leaf for six or seven years, at least, before you approached “break even.” And who besides Leo DiCaprio is going to do that?
But that won’t save much gas, let alone the planet.
So, in steps Sugar Daddy — that would be the gray-bearded pimp in the red, white and blue-striped suit — to juice the deal by paying people to buy the Volt and Leaf. To the tune of $7,500 per comer.
Every penny of it financed by the rest of us, via the IRS.
Bush the Unfortunate launched the subsidy idea but Obama the Mack Daddy ran it into the end zone — as part of his “plan” to see that 1 million of these electric lemons are on the streets by 2015.
In other words, Obama is itching to pitchfork out 1 million times $7,500 of your tax dollars to git ‘er done. How much does that add up to? It hurts my head to try to add it all up but I know it’s a really big number.
And all this boodle won’t merely “help” some Americans get a new car for 30-plus percent off sticker (an even better deal than last summer’s “cash for clunkers” giveaway) at the expense of other Americans. It will also help GM and Nissan and whoever else builds one of these things pad their bottom line.
That’s how business gets done in latter-day America. Instead of building cars that people might actually want to buy on their own (and which they could buy on their own if they so desired) the automakers now cater to government, building the cars government wants — and expecting us to cover the tab.
Benito Mussolini, phone home!
Absent the subsidy — absent government pressure — the Volt and Leaf would never be more than one-off show cars or engineering demonstrators. The execs know they’re otherwise unsalable and, not being complete idiots, probably would never authorize their mass production.
The same is true of the much-loved Toyota Prius, by the way.
Toyota sold each one at a net loss. The difference was made up by marking up the price of other models — and via the payola ladled out by the Japanese government, which is very much in bed with Japanese big business.
Just like here.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (105) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/29/leaf-blowers
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tom| 4.29.10 @ 6:53AM
"So, we may get the last laugh after all. You'll be able to smile to yourself when you pass a conked out Volt or Leaf by the side of the road come this January. "
While the Volt is a horror of a car that would never get made in a real free market it has a gasoline engine; you are as likely to see a Camry or Malibu on the side of the road because as a Volt.
Christopher Holland| 4.29.10 @ 9:58PM
Sorry to ruin a good story by exposing inconvenient truths, but the world is not running out of petroleum. Natural gas supplies are going up all the time, and prices are bargain basement because of that. New drilling methods have had a big impact on accessing gas resources that previously were too difficult and costly to extract.
The big problem with the oil industry is arbitary decisions that exclude exploration and production from highly prospective areas. There are also huge oil sources available in tar and oil sand deposits, but these are excluded from production as well. Instead of producing electric funnymobiles that nobody wants and cannot afford, it would be far better to take the shackles of the oil industry and develop the resources that you claim are running out. You can also allow more nuclear power stations to be built and the reprocessing of spent fuels - there is no reason at all why that can not be economically and safely done on a large scale.
Electric cars, like windmills, solar panels and biofuels are a gigantic waste of effort, resources and time and they address a problem that can be much better and more effectively fixed through other means.
John| 4.29.10 @ 10:59PM
Regardless Of whether I would buy one of these cars, or even afford it, Our oil and natural gas resources are finite, meaning that in some time in the future they will run out. Even though everyone drove an electric car oil and gas would still run out, it's just stretching the invetible outcome down the road a bit. It will probably be way after I am dust, but I garantee it will happen! LW
FTM| 4.30.10 @ 4:18AM
John,
I don't know about this question of oil running out. According to the guy that first proposed the "Peak Oil" theory in 1947, we should have been out of oil in 1980. here and now, today, we have more oil deposits known than we knew about in 1947. What you say is true, eventually we may run out of oil, thing is that at the current rate of consumption it apparently won't be any time before our great grandchildren's time.
There is an oil deposit in Utah that was accidently located in the process of prospecting for coal. The depth of the lens is equal to what is in Saudi Arabia, that's what I read anyway, so as far as validity, take it or leave it. Thing is that as soon as it was announced that there was oil in Utah the Department of the Interior yanked the prospecting permits.
Now, speculation on my part and speculation only, I'd say that back in the Eisenhower administration, Truman and those guys, we'd just finished fighting World War II and Korea was cranking up and the big question was, "What are we going to do with all these Chinese and Russian guys?" My idea is that the government produced as a part of the answer to consume foreign oil in order to keep the communists from getting the stuff. Deplete the Middle Eastern oil fields while we here in America were sitting on a bunch of undeveloped oil resources. The problem with the scenario is oil resources that have been discovered in the Arctic and in South America and Africa. Places like that. I don't think that anybody saw that coming.
Anyway, speculation aside, we've got just bunches and bunches of oil.
Tom| 4.30.10 @ 7:29AM
John,
We will never truly run out of either oil or natural gas. The reason is simple: When those items become that scarce prices will shoot through the roof and alternatives will become increasingly economically feasible. What most peak oil theorist talk about is easily recoverable oil. Which in itself is a moving target. There are fields that are viable, economic, and fairly easy to exploit that we would have had no way of exploiting 40 years ago. Technology is a moving target.
FTM| 4.30.10 @ 3:15AM
Marshall,
Bud, the second law of thermodynamics comes into play here. Wether you burn a fuel in the car or at a power plant, facts are facts, you're still burning a fuel. Now, the typical internal combustion engine is perhaps 30% to 33% efficient. That means that only thirty some percent of the fuel converted into heat energy in an engine is actually converted into motive force. The rest is lost as vibration or friction or leaked off heat and so on.
Now, same case with electricity at a power plant. Burn a unit measure of fuel at the power plant and you actually get to use about thirty or so percent of the electricity at your house, on average. A lot of power is lost on the grid due to the internal restistance of the conductors used and in transformers and the like. So, how is it that you save on fuel use by running an electric car? I've been building cars since 1986, trust me on this one.
Toyota produces the Prius, I know, I've heard. GM was confronted with the same question and declined to produce a hybrid car. Basically the hybrid idea won't work, you have a battery that has to be replaced at about sixty thousand miles and is very expensive as well as hazardous to dispose of. On top of that you have two under-powered propulsion systems to haul around. However you are propelling the car the other unused propulsion system is dead weight. F is always and forever in this physical universe equal to M multiplied by A. Increase M (mass) and you have to increase F (force) in order to achieve some value of A (acceleration).
Toyota's design engineers are well aware of this aspect of automotive propulsion in regards to hybrid cars as are GM's designers. The difference is that Toyota can see that soft-in-the-head tree-huggers have money and they want it. This as an aspect of the car business that GM needs to capitalize on.
For real man, if you want to build a more efficient car then use a small sized gas turbine engine that turns a generator and drive the wheels electically, DC motors. Same way that we run locomotives. The engine runs at a constant velocity regardless of the status of the vehicle. Consider how much fuel is wasted accelerating a vehicle not to mention decelerating a vehicle. Use eddy current braking and capacitors to brake the vehicle and just let the turbine run. I betcha you can get a Humvee up and down the road at fifty or so miles per gallon.
Tom| 4.30.10 @ 6:09AM
Ok, Marshall, exactly WHAT nasty name calling did I do?
As far as the economy that masters the production of alternative cars inheriting massive benefits for its businesses and workers, hogwash. You seem to think that the business world is static; company A finds a way to make electric cars so it will rule forever. When the market is ready for electric cars, and it is not, they will be produced. And the market is not ready. All government subsidy does is distort the market by declaring a winner. That winner, the technology in the Volt and Leaf, most likely will bare no resemblence to the eventual electric car that wins the market.
The total cost of ownership for current electic cars is projecte to be much higher for comparable gas powered ones. There is very little debate on that. If there were compelling economic reasons for people to buy electric cars then there would be no reason for the government to offer these subsidies. There is none which is why the feds are handing out checks.
The world is in no danger of running out of petroleum. And when it does scarcity will send prices up, which will make the economic argument for electric cars more viable. Which will spur people to buy them. Which will create profits and innovation. Nothing being done now is going to matter a bit when that happens.
Publius| 4.30.10 @ 2:46PM
It's not a real market if it can only exist through a government scheme of subsidies. It's not practical, it's not cost efficient and the country's power grid can't take the hit. Like every liberal idea, the unintended consequences are never considered because liberals never consider consequences. Consequences are what the rest of us have to contend with when we are called in (as in this case to subsidize losers) to clean up your mess.
There's enough oil in America alone to sustain consumption for 50 years and then some. You should try your "sky is falling" bit over at Huffpo. Here the reality of the factual world has the painful habit of intruding.
John Navratil| 4.29.10 @ 7:24AM
Mr. Peters,
While I have no complaint with your market/subsidy analysis I'd like to add a point or two to your analysis.
Plug-in power to the wheels costs about 1/2 that generated from a gasoline engine, today. At $2.50 per gallon you are saving about 5 cents per mile (in rough numbers) for each mile driven electrically. Assuming you can plug-in at work and live 40 miles from the office, about the maximum you can save is about $4/day or $1000/year. Not much! Perhaps peak-load pricing and charging overnight can improve this picture modestly.
On the other hand, infrastructures being what they are, having a bunch of batteries plugged in at the office building can serves as a giant UPS providing instant peak load power exactly where needed and improve the efficiency of the grid. There is some value in that. I can't say how much.
Finally, every vehicle has a different mission. You don't haul concrete in a Ferrari or take a dump truck to the race track. The mission here is the daily commute in a vehicle which CAN go longer distances. If long distance driving is the primary mission, this is not the car for it. The question is if this mission will ever make this particular gasoline/plug-in solution economically viable.
Captain Steve| 4.29.10 @ 5:51PM
Good points.
In almost every instance, an electric is wholly unsuitable as an "only" car.
An important but overlooked cost of owning an electric is the added cost of owning a second car, making electrics particularly UN-green.
Houston Rao| 4.29.10 @ 11:57AM
Take your own argument, that every vehicle has a different mission. A typical family, like mine, would be doing the following: commuting to work, long distance trips for camping, visiting places, etc., local travel such as carting 6 kids to a soccer game, going to bike paths, household chores such as getting mulch, etc.
By your reckoning, I should get a Volt to commute to work, a truck for household chores, a SUV for camping trips and a mini-van for HOV missions. Further, I would need a standby compact gas-burning car for days when the Volt is not recharged or a freeze has killed the battery.
Regular consumers have multiple missions and it is up to them to individually make a choice that balances their priorities with vehicle capabilities.
One last point. Given the paucity in supply (no coal or oil burning, no nuclear energy) and the massive demand for power for these volts, what do you think will happen to the price of power? Or will there be another subsidy for those then unable to afford the new power prices?
DatsunMark| 4.29.10 @ 3:41PM
Hey John,
Did you hear that Ford is coming out with a 300Hp 30mpg Mustang! Muscle cars are back!
John Navratil| 4.29.10 @ 5:43PM
Guys -
It seems you assume I'm a Volt supporter. Not necessarily so, just adding a couple of things that I thought Peters missed.
Choose the vehicle for the mission is right. Mine is a Cessna 210 which hauls 1/2 ton, 170 MPH at 10,000 feet and at about 14MPG to boot. It's a bit tough to park at the office garage though. It also means that I can't afford the Mustang :(
Christopher Holland| 4.29.10 @ 10:02PM
Says all you ever need to know about government and the taxes they spend. Consumers want to buy a muscle car, but Washington spends your taxes on making a mobile sparkplug that nobody wants.
George S| 4.29.10 @ 8:15AM
If electric cars were economically feasible, we would all be driving them by now. But we are not. Therefore gasoline is the most efficient mover -- the (still) free market has spoken very clearly on this.
The reason the Volt is subsidized is simple... electric cars mean less mobility. Getting everyone into an electric car gives the government more control over our freedom to travel. The only source of fuel is the utility company -- regulated right down to the mops in the janitor closets -- instead of the hundreds of gasoline producers, suppliers and retailers. It won't be long before the price of energy catches up to your electric bill and the demand for overhead (new generators) will skyrocket. From whence the money to do this (ever been to a public utility rate hike hearing?) And I'm sure those environmental groups will be clamoring for more coal and nuclear power stations and file lawsuits forcing the construction of generating stations. And those batteries...? Let's just say that their replacement cost takes away any fuel savings (in today's numbers) advantage.
With government in control and the major supplier of fuel, expect continuous, uninterrupted worry-free, hassle-free, and very competitively priced energy. Uh huh.
Louis Jenkins| 4.29.10 @ 9:06AM
Just a side note:
http://www.latimes.com/feature.....3538.story
Gore continues on in the good ole' fashioned way. No worry about the ocean level rising.
Houston Rao| 4.29.10 @ 11:58AM
Do as I say, not as I do.
Pecos Pete| 4.29.10 @ 9:30AM
Who pays the bill when you plug in at work?
Sounds like a good benefit to add to the employment package. Consumers/taxpayers get to pay again.
John Navratil| 4.29.10 @ 9:42AM
Add $1/charge and the benefit of having a battery on the grid, this might well become that cost trade-off I spoke of earlier.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 10:14AM
Electric Cars Will Cost U.S. Tax Payers $7.5 Trillion | Land of Liberty links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
daddio| 4.29.10 @ 10:55AM
$400/month car payment versus $50 month for gas at $3/gallon. I'm no math wiz but even I can tell which is the better deal. When you add in the expense of repairs, the lack of range, the increased insurance costs (they never go down do they?), the deal gets even worse. And a lousy $7500 for a $40,000 car? What idiot would think that was a good deal?
Christopher Holland| 4.29.10 @ 10:09PM
Why spend 40k on a car you can't pick up chicks in? This is no way to appeal to the youth vote. Did any of these geniuses try to have sex with their girlfriends in the backseat of one of these things! For that, you pay 40 grand! Jeez, where do they find these dumbass liberal losers!
JimP| 4.29.10 @ 11:47AM
Plug-ins, plug-ins everywhere. Do proponents ever calculate the costs to retro-fit houses, parking garages, parking meters etc, etc with outlets to recharge these status symbols for the elites? Yes, create MORE infrastructure to build and maintain. That's a good idea. How 21st century. These cars are impractical. Period. The busy-bodies never object to disrupting the entire system to put their pet projects in place and that is all these cars amount to. I met a public employee once who proudly announced ( and recommended to everyone present) that he rides a bicycle to work daily. The impracticality of people riding bicycles as much as 50 miles to work (one way) never entered his butterfly filled head. Bicycles are clean, require no infrastructure upgrades (other than a stationary locking stand), the re-fueling apparati already exist (restaurants and grocery stores), they are more affordable, require no taxpayer subsidy and they will definitely reduce obesity.
Ray| 4.29.10 @ 12:27PM
"The impracticality of people riding bicycles as much as 50 miles to work (one way) never entered his butterfly filled head."
Althoug I agree with most of your comment, I do have to warn you that you should be careful when applying the "bonehead" label. Just how "practical" is it to live 50 miles away from your place of daily labor?
Most "practical" people would live closer to the area when they spend the majority of their labor time, just as they do for their leisure time. You don't place your 'back yard" 50 miles away from your house, do you? You don't travel to another city to watch TV, do you? No, as that wouldn't be practical, would it?
Ray| 4.29.10 @ 12:28PM
Sorry, that should read "butterfly filled head" and not "bonehead."
JimP| 4.29.10 @ 1:06PM
Ray,
Yes, I agree it's not "practical" to live 50 miles from work. However, for many many millions of Americans, this is a reality and has been for decades. It is also a reality forced upon them by economics in most cases. This is true in the metro area where this incident occurred. In an ideal world we'd all live very close to work, just like in an ideal world we could all ride our bikes to and from and could afford to live close in to our places of business. One of the points of posting this true life tale was that that these conditions exist right in this guys 'own back yard', so to speak, and are widely known and understood. Yet, he was clueless about the impracticality of his suggestion. Do gooder busy-bodies typically are blind to the impracticalities of their pet projects.
Why are you so touchy about this anyway?
JP| 4.29.10 @ 1:50PM
I am one of those people who drive 50 miles one way to work. There is a recession going on, BTW.
JimP| 4.29.10 @ 2:16PM
Good point JP. Although I suppose some would 'warn' against you getting caught up in a recession because that is "impractical". I wonder where Ray lives that he is unaware of the vast multitude of suburban "bedroom communities" that have sprung up since the end of WW II around every metropolitan city in the U.S. The sprawl is so bad in the area of my anecdote that people live two states away and commute. That's right, tens of thousands commute over 100 miles one way to get the jobs in the city. Lots of affluent people have chosen to live far out "in the country" and commute daily. They sell their close in houses, that they bought years ago, at huge profits and build their retirement 'estates' on the fringe of the sprawl at low, low prices and enjoy huge income multiples their last few working years. Well they were doing this before the housing bubble shafted all of us.
L. Ross| 4.29.10 @ 1:49PM
Some jokes just don't translate well into English. This is one of them.
John| 4.29.10 @ 11:09PM
ROFLOL,, Your comment was way better than the joke!!!
Troy | 4.30.10 @ 10:27AM
The joke's fine, the translation program is lousy:
Doctors test three mental patients. They ask the first one, "What does 3 x 3 equal?" The patient answered "274."
The doctors asked the second one, "What does 3 x 3 equal?" The patient answered, "Tuesday."
A doctor then asked the third patient , "What does 3 x 3 equal?" The patient answered, "9."
The doctor said: "Very good. How did you get the answer?" The patient replied, "It isn't easy, but find the common factors of 274 and Tuesday."
L. Ross| 4.29.10 @ 1:47PM
I know this won't be very popular here, but we need to compare apples to apples, not apples to lemons. Lumping the Leaf and the Volt together is not a fair comparison for either car.
The Leaf is a dedicated electric only vehicle which requires a dedicated 220v charging station in order to get the batteries up overnight. Otherwise, it can take days to charge the batteries via the 110v charger. There is no backup when the batteries are dead, and it goes (hopefully) 80 miles on a charge.
The Volt is an all electric car in that only electric motors drive the wheels. It can go 40 miles on a charge, and can be charged overnight from any 110v outlet. However, when the batteries run low, the on-board gas powered electrical generator kicks in, giving you unlimited range via conventional gas stations. I happen to think the Volt is a darn good idea, if an expensive one.
JimP| 4.29.10 @ 2:52PM
I doubt anyone here objects to anything you've said. I thought the point of Eric's column was that these cars are subsidized by taxpayers and they shouldn't be. I don't object to electric cars per se. I do object to subsidies and needless developement of infrastructure to support pet projects of the elites. If the technology ever developes to the point that these cars are as cheap and practical as gasoline cars without government intervention, I have no problem with them. Heck, I'd ride a bike to and from work, if it were practical to do so given my circumstances. I don't think taxpayers should have to build bikepaths so that I could avoid the pedestrians on side walks, car doors opening in front of me while I squeez down the 'lane' between moving traffic and parked cars or dangerous drivers while I ride my bike to work though.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 3:30PM
The American Spectator : Leaf Blowers capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.29.10 @ 5:05PM
I enjoy driving my big V-8 every day. As I pass people by I think to myself, "You should have had a V-8!"
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 4.29.10 @ 5:55PM
Ba-Dum-Chhh!! Good one Bill!! I think the same way, while driving my old 95 Town Car, with its "slight" valve problem. So when I see one of these "Green" cars on the road, I get ahead of them, and pull my foot off the gas, and spew out a little CO2 for them, just for a laugh. Hey, I'm all for this Global Warming that I'm hearing about, and I'm just trying to do my small part to promote it.
Christopher Holland| 4.29.10 @ 10:13PM
I was in favour of global warming before it was cool. My carbon footprint can beat anybodys.
John| 4.29.10 @ 11:17PM
I got you all beat,, I used to drive an 86 chevy sprint, epa rated at 58 mpg, I couldn't get better than 56, but I usually drove it on the freeways at 80mph, then I upgraded to a 92 geo metro, and close to the same characteristics. Now I drive a turbodiesel pu, 25mpg and I love it when I stomp the throttle with one of those hybreds behind me,, can't even see it for a block,,,but I still have the small cars too, and my big pickups too if I want a guzzler,, also my electric car,, my golfcart. :D
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 5:46PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Leaf Blowers [spectator.org] on Tops links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 5:46PM
The American Spectator : Leaf Blowers American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Captain Steve| 4.29.10 @ 5:47PM
An important but overlooked cost of owning an electric is the added cost of owning a second car. In almost every instance, an electric is wholly unsuitable as an only car.
Curtis| 4.29.10 @ 8:17PM
Hybrid technology is okay, even acceptable. But we have to get off the "Teeny tiny eco friendly looking vehicles."
The scale is all wrong. Hybrid tech needs to be applied to LARGER vehicles. There's a reason the technology started with buses and trains. There's a reason large excavators and heavy construction equipment already use electric motors coupled to diesel generators.
Take a humble semi-tractor. Stack the battery bank behind the sleeper cab, put electric motor/regenerative braking units on the axles. Thats alot of batteries, and a lot of juice to recharge them when you hit the brakes on 60 tons of steel. The electric motors alone can creep the truck around when its slow rolling around the yard, or backing into a dock.
Combine the batteries with selective cylinder technology, and you can have a semi idling down the interstate on stored battery power and a single engine cylinder. Its' going to take quite a while to slow down when you've got 60 tons of momentum pushing you along.
Finally, you must think of the overall scale math. Getting a car to go from 40 to 50 miles per gallon sounds impressive, but you're only getting a 25 percent fuel saving, and you're only saving about saving about .3 gallons per hour at 60MPH. Getting a semi to go from 8 to 12 miles per gallon will get you a fuel saving of 50 percent, and save you five gallons per hour at 60 MPH!
Apply hybrid techology to larger vehicles FIRST! Make hybrid semis, then make hybrid panel trucks, then hybrid pickup trucks and hybrid vans and minivans.
The Teeny tiny Eco cars' are window dressing. They're not very economical and you're not getting much fuel savings.
Increasing MPG is a game of diminishing returns. A 40 MPG car is not that much more economical then a 30 MPG car, though a 30MPG car is a heck of alot more economical then a 20MPG car.
Roman Melnyk| 4.29.10 @ 8:26PM
Just like the wind machines-no wind no power-
too cold no power
car-too hot-too cold-no power.
Power too the people through subsidies
Marc Jeric| 4.29.10 @ 9:36PM
Buy an electric car and just plug it in. Like electricity is there for the asking; it has to be produced by burning coal, oil, gas (forget green energy - it is a mirage). The total energy equation of an electric car is negative - you have to burn more oil, gas, coal then it costs in oil-produced gasoline.
ZZMike | 4.29.10 @ 11:54PM
Even at $32,500 (for the Volt, after the subsidy) - how many people are going to spring for one of these white elephants?
And how many people are going to be able to charge it overnight in their garage? And those that do, what are they going to say when they see their electricity bill?
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 1:20AM
Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim O'Brien| 4.30.10 @ 2:44AM
Guvment Motors has another new model called the "Flake" named after The Idiot Obama.
Richard Baker| 4.30.10 @ 7:46AM
JimP:
That's precisely the point. Without you and I paying for it, no one in their right mind would buy one of these monstrosities. Hybrids and electrics are absolute money-losers because they have either no range, cargo capability, or financial justification (pick the answer of your choice). The premium for hybrids versus gasoline powered vehicles alone makes the additional few miles per gallon an amortization nightmare.
Jim in NJ| 4.30.10 @ 9:31AM
Although I am just an average working class man, I AM planning on buying a Chevy Volt. Eric Peter's op-ed REALLY misses a huge point - energy independence. After September 11th I vowed to do whatever I could to reduce my personal use of oil. To that end, I got rid of my 10 year old SUV, and have bought an American made car (Pontiac Vibe) that gets over 30 miles per gallon.
Even though the Bin Laden family money didn't come directly from oil, the Bin Laden construction business was only made possible by the west pumping billions of dollars into the Saudi economy. Oil money is also the lubricant that spreads the hatred of Wahabi Islam around the world. We as Americans need to stop propping up the price of oil by our huge demand.
I totally agree that the $7500 tax credit (based only on battery size! not efficiency!) is a bureaucratic mess. As a country we should really do a "Net-Zero Gas Tax" proposed by Charles Krauthammer, and then let the market truly work and let people buy what they want. ( www.weeklystandard.com/Content.....9rsrgi.asp )
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 3:36PM
The American Spectator : Leaf Blowers < Read what Young Americans Read links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 4:08PM
The American Spectator : Leaf Blowers | Butterfly Doors Coachwork Design links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
SteveF| 4.30.10 @ 9:17PM
Sorry boys....in all of this harrumphing about the free market you fail to include the costs of securing the Middle East in one form or another. Or perhaps you have some secret cache of oil to smooth out the market when the Straits of Hormuz go all wobbly.
Pingback| 5.1.10 @ 1:19PM
How long does loose leaf tea stay fresh? | About Chinese links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
koczani| 5.2.10 @ 12:10AM
Hey, I heard that they were putting gas powered generators in the trunk in case of emergency if they ran out of electricity on the road. The owner could simply start up the generator, plug the hybrid into it, and charge it up on the shoulder of the road.
Marshall Phillips| 5.2.10 @ 3:01PM
You stand by your yes men who deny that addiction to oil is a fatal problem and I go with the vast majority of scientists and engineers that see otherwise. Oil is a mess - In the air, the water, on land, in affairs of State, you name it. And the costs are unbearable and passed on others to pay. There is a "cost" to alternative energy. the Kennedys can't say around the Bay without being offended by windmills, the wildlife enthusiasts are concerned that the desert lizards won't like all the shade from solar farms. However, these energy sources are ours and we won't have to empty our treasury to fight for access to and pay for them.
Oh yeah, can you fight climate change with guns?
Marshall Phillips| 5.2.10 @ 3:09PM
Too bad you can't get American Military commanders to go along with your nonsense... They are busy trying to figure out to make base operations greatly reliant on solar and wind site-generated electricity to augment hybrid-electric weapons and base ops. They know as the good guys do that oil is inneficient, difficult to supply, finite and an ugly mess. Our military is preparing for the reality of the future. Why don't you? Oh, I guess the military are just Gubment bureaucrats. They would do that, right?
Frank Monroe| 5.2.10 @ 6:59PM
Right on, Marshall! That really put me right. I can't believe the distorted propaganda that tried to get me to deny the truth that was right in front of me. I can see why no one wants to take you on. Thanks. Bless you.
fjsdk| 7.1.10 @ 2:12AM
beijing massage
shanghai girl