Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Will Green Cars Be Exciting To Drive And Enjoyable To Own?

1363739414251

Comments

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    I am more concerned about the Cap n Trade scam that is making my electric bill the highest in the nation. The very same that has made Tesla LOOK like a viable business model. I guess Finland did not think Fisker was worth the waste like we have. EVs as the article says are DECADES from being a reasonable form of transportation. Borrowing money from China to keep these fatcats afloat makes little sense.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,076
    > the government becomes the venture capitalist on behalf of the nation because private capital (especially now) is very risk averse. Every major industrialized government puts money into winners and sometimes into sink holes.

    That's what we would like to think, but data mining shows otherwise:

    ...them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

    Evergreen Solar
    SpectraWatt
    Solyndra (received $535 million)
    Beacon Power (received $43 million)
    AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
    Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
    SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
    First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
    Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
    Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
    Amonix (received 5.9 million)
    The National Renewable Energy Lab
    Fisker Automotive
    Abound Solar (received $400 million)
    Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
    Solar Trust of America
    A123 Systems (received $279 million)
    Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
    Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
    Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

    That’s 19 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.

    GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors – 19 Companies Went Bust (Video)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    edited May 2013
    That report is such nonsense, I won't waste my time responding to it.

    If you come across any credible critical data, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I don't care for skewed politicized rants posing as "news".

    First, it's important to note that subsidies for clean energy still lag far behind the public money that goes toward oil, coal and natural gas projects.

    Secondly, the failure rate for VCs in the private sector, say Silicon Valley, is probably no better.

    Third, some of the investments on your list are loans, not grants. They get paid back.

    Last of all, we can no more achieve energy independence and combat global warming using only "private investment" than we could have won World War II using private capital.

    LONGTERM---you gotta thing LONGTERM....don't think 2013, think 2050! :)

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,568
    edited May 2013
    Political connections gain money? This is news?!? ;)

    No different from the energy and military-industrial supplier crooks who encouraged a lie-based war for profit during the previous regime. Looks like all that stuff adds up to about what is spent on Israel alone. In one year. Year in year out for almost twice as long as I've been alive. We know who profits from that. And aid to similarly petulant and ungrateful places (Pakistan et al) is the same, along with the policeman ideal. It's not just ego, it's profit for some.

    IMO, the breaks and subsidies for these vehicles need to be cut off at a certain price point, say 50-70K. Trickle down doesn't really work. It just becomes public subsidization of private gain.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,076
    edited May 2013
    >That report is such nonsense,
    You mean those companies didn't get that money? ;)

    >skewed politicized rants posing as "news".

    Those "loans" won't be repaid for most of the 19: those are the ones that went "bust." I find it's odd that the Volt is on there. GM did go bust, sort of, but the loan for it likely will be repaid, eventually, long long eventually. Well, maybe never.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    It's not "news"--it's a politically charged propaganda piece that has a conclusion in hand and goes around looking for any fact to tape to it, even backwards. YAWN.

    There are so many errors in the article that it becomes a waste of time--it's like correcting somebody's homework.

    There are plenty of politically-neutral "actual" news articles on this subject that we could explore together.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    There are plenty of politically-neutral "actual" news articles on this subject that we could explore together.

    That would be nice to see. I don't know of a single politically neutral news source in this country. At least no major news source.

    This seems to show little bias.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/08/new-report-lists-more-stimulus-waste-0- /
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,153
    Saw these getting rolled out today. People are wondering if it's going to work or if they're all going to disappear or get trashed in a month.

    image

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    Citi Bike has been quite successful in other places. New York is not very bike friendly however. You really need to be on your toes to ride there.

    MODERATOR

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    edited May 2013
    that "little bias" comment was a joke, right? ....right?

    Pretty funny...

    reminds me of the "When did you stop beating your children?" headline......

    I think there must be some dignified economic journals where we could get solid, sane information, with all the various nuances needed to help us fully understand a complex issue. The "government is evil" routine is tiresome to me.

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,568
    edited May 2013
    The Economist, having gone a little mainstream over the past decade, is a fairly credible source IMO. I don't read it diligently, but I haven't noticed any analysis of green cars published there yet.

    For bias in news coverage, you'll probably find less via Al Jazeera than through ANY domestic news source. American news channels, major and minor, are just corporate and/or political mouthpieces. Many sources out of Germany, France, and Sweden are similar.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    that "little bias" comment was a joke, right? ....right?

    Taken in the light that you have not brought forth any source that addresses where our tax dollars are going.

    I think there must be some dignified economic journals where we could get solid, sane information

    They may steer clear of any kind of controversial subject matter. A person would have to have their head in the sand to not believe the waste on the green agenda is not controversial.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    that's not the point. The point is that any article that starts out as a partisan witch-hunt immediately loses all credibility, regardless of which party is witch hunting which other party. The very headline demotes the article to trash level journalism.

    Words can have emotional sway.

    Consider the difference between:

    "government waste"

    "government spending"

    OR

    "billions lost" vs. "billions spent on"

    OR -- the classic "begging the question" E. G.

    "Why is the (fill in your president here) administration such a lousy venture capitalist?"

    Calling 2013 the "information age" is an insult to information IMO.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    You have given a lot of reasons not to accept partisan sources. Just none to use those sources along with sources from the other points of view. Refusing to accept anything that seems to be partisan IMO is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

    So far you have failed to offer a source on the money spent on the green agenda that is impartial. Even your own opinions were very partisan IMO.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    edited May 2013
    I still think you are still missing the point. A head-hunting article has an agenda and is immediately suspect. Once I spotted 3 or 4 obvious bonehead mistakes in the article I decided it was a waste of time. It's not the "partisan" nature of it, it's just how bad it is and how emotionally wrought. It is not intelligently presented. Basically, it stinks. :P

    I suppose one *could* argue that somewhere in that article is a sustainable fact, but really, why does a reader have to pick through the oceans of debris to find a morsel?

    Why would a person go to say a website called "10 Hateful Things About American Cars", and expect to find anything about how good American cars are?

    But to be honest, I never read anything from known propaganda outlets. These aren't news sources. it's just biased "churn". Same old crap. I don't regard them as serious sources of information. (see fictitious example above)

    Here's an article from FORBES, which generally does not have an agenda dictated to it by its owners, that it pretty interesting, on green energy:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2012/03/20/investors-are-making-money-on- - - - - -renewable-energy/

    What the article suggests is that the government spending in this area was, in fact, a very good kickstart, even with its hits and misses.

    I also read THE WEEK quite a bit, as it presents a news article and then lists commentary excerpts from various counter-balancing sources, pro and con.

    Great mag that I think you would really like!

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    Here's an article from FORBES, which generally does not have an agenda dictated to it by its owners, that it pretty interesting, on green energy:

    I also consider Forbes a reasonable source of information. Difference is you read something entirely different between the lines than I did. I see how GE made bundles on solar energy after getting gigantic gifts from US the tax payers. I also remember right after they got the cash they closed their solar factory in Colorado. So much for green energy creating jobs. Just cash for the fatcats.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2012/07/03/breaking-ge-solar-laying-off-em- ployees-in-colorado/

    Then I read this little tidbit in your article:

    Across the spectrum of clean energy opportunities, investment reached a record $260 billion worldwide in 2011 and for the first time since 2008, the U.S. surpassed China in clean energy investment.

    Hmm, so we passed up China spending on Green energy. Of course they did not point out we had to borrow the money from China to beat them.

    What I see as wasted tax dollars you see as a good way to spend OPM. It pinpoints our differences, and the polarization of our nation.

    I have never said investors were not getting rich off of the Green Agenda. The Stock market is at an all time high. So is our lack of decent jobs in this country. The Green Agenda was and is a LIE. Most of the jobs created are already history.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    Actually we don't borrow that much from China. China owns less than 10% of our debt and Japan owns almost as much.

    Again, you aren't thinking longterm here. The very idea of government investment in green energy is to kickstart it into commercialization.

    Which is what is happening. Government VC is like private VC..it's a wave, an idea, and it goes rolling on and on.

    For an aticle to pick out one or two rotten apples and condemning the tree is, again, just witch-hunting. It's like saying "The DotCom Bust!".

    Well in fact, dot.com is very much with us.

    Definition of "Witch Hunt" --"a conclusion in search of only those facts which support the conclusion previously arrived at. "

    Some new car companies failed (Fisker); some succeeded (Tesla); others are yet to be born.

    What's REALLY interesting is that the new breed of hybrid/hybrid electric/electric cars are getting so competent. They are, for the first time, "real cars". :)

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    Which is what is happening. Government VC is like private VC..it's a wave, an idea, and it goes rolling on and on.

    That is where you are totally in the dark. Private VC is put up by someone willing to lose their own money if the idea is a failure. Government VC is putting up money that those handing it out have NO vested interest. It is Other People's Money they are spending.

    some succeeded (Tesla); others are yet to be born.

    Well we have come full circle. You say Tesla has succeeded I say they are a failure without my tax dollars. That is not success. Any business can continue with unlimited funds. How long do we continue to subsidize Tesla so a few fatcats can drive around looking GREEN?

    What's REALLY interesting is that the new breed of hybrid/hybrid electric/electric cars are getting so competent.

    Are they truly GREEN?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    edited May 2013
    We may be sharing the "darkness" :P ---many of the firms listed as getting government "grants" (some were in fact loans, not grants) ALSO RAISED PRIVATE CAPITAL along with the other assistance.

    So, in fact, many ventures on that list risked private as well as gov'mint monies.

    Like I said, junk articles leave out all the really interesting details.

    RE: "GREEN" -- that's a good question---the term "green" has been rendered somewhat flippant by the media, because it is, once again, a term with lots of nuance and complexity.

    I think the most accurate answer is that unless the primary energy source were renewable, then it really shouldn't be termed "greener"----maybe "green-ER" would be better.

    EVs are not 'green' because...what generates the electricity? If that electricity were solar, or wind power, then yeah, that's pretty green. If it were coal, not so green but greener than shoveling coal into the trunk of your car and burning it, yeah.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    EVs are not 'green' because...what generates the electricity? If that electricity were solar, or wind power, then yeah, that's pretty green.

    I think we are pretty close on this subject. What I don't like about solar or wind is the devastation in China to produce the REE required to build all these so called green sources of renewable energy. How long will they last? Maybe 25 years until we need to make more. The media and proponents try to push them as truly renewable when the upfront expense to the environment may or may not be mitigated by the energy they produce. There is NO perpetual motion, and NO free lunch. Ethanol from Corn may be the best example of green agenda gone astray.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    Yes ethanol was a boondoggle from the get-go, but we could all see that coming as soon as Big Ag put their toe in the water. That was not only OLD tech, it was BAD OLD tech.

    At least the solar, wind and electric tech is very interesting. One has the sense that it has a viable future.

    That's why TESLA is a watershed, regardless if it succeeds or not. I mean, the Wright Brothers didn't dominate the aviation industry--they pretty much made some money and bailed out early.

    The TESLA proved that EVs needn't be homely, incompetent, short-range backyard inventions. The Tesla was/is as good as a "real car".

    It's the old saying---the pioneers get arrows in their backs and the settlers farm the land afterwards.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    edited May 2013
    The TESLA proved that EVs needn't be homely, incompetent, short-range backyard inventions. The Tesla was/is as good as a "real car".

    I agree on those points. I just see it as corporate welfare. I can get behind R&D through Universities and even a few major corps with a proven track record. Just like ethanol and big Ag, I see these money handouts more as pork and paybacks than viable R&D capital. I watched so much waste in Alaska via the Pork brought home by our Senator and Representative that it made me sick. The Green agenda is nothing more than pork IMO. IF we were flush with cash it may not bother me so much. We are floating in debt that will soon bite US in the behind.

    Sure Wind and Solar have some merit. If it was a viable energy source it would not need all the subsidies. We went through this in the late 1970s with $billions wasted on Wind farms that are now defunct. Take the money put up the windmill and when it quits file for bankruptcy.

    If you happen to get near a Wind Farm walk under neath and smell the dead birds and bats. No small problem.

    http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/

    More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

    Each death is federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind energy company has been prosecuted, even those that repeatedly flout the law.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/obama-administration-gives-wind-farms- - -pass-on-eagle-deaths-prosecutes-oil/

    Not just from Fox.

    http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/opinion/wind-farms-are-killing-our-eagl- es/article_f32dd6b3-324d-5f9a-8748-f34b722cc272.html
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    Nope, they are both Fox News hatchet-journalism. The second article obviously copied the first, which rather illustrates my complaint against the dismal state of US media---not only is agendized misinformation (or badly researched information) disguised as "news", but then it is copied and disseminated adding to further confusion.

    In the old days, in the golden age of journalism, it might take a reporter working on this story perhaps 3 months and 5-6 follow ups to find out exactly what is going on with wind farms, eagles, the government and all the rest of it.

    when we have to start politicizing wildlife, we are starting to get ridiculous IMO.

    It's like when UAW workers started attacking japanese cars with hammers--remember that?

    what the UAW needed to be doing at that time was convincing American automakers to build better cars.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    I guess that would include NPR as well. I first read about wind farms killing raptors in my Audubon magazine. Here is NPR saying the same as Fox etc.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=183826798

    It's like when UAW workers started attacking japanese cars with hammers--remember that?

    Now it is the Korean companies they would like to bring down, with complaints about subsidies. Now does that sound like the pot calling the kettle black?

    http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/15046/how_mississippi_lavished_subsidies_o- n_nissan_as_workers_got_the_shaft/#.UaKvJiEj_i8.facebook
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    edited May 2013
    It's not the same story exactly. Well it is just a copy of a copy of a copy, but notice the headline difference:

    NPR Headline: "Wind Farms Get Pass On Eagle Deaths"

    Fox Headline: "Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies"

    Also the Fox story is truncated, leaving out much of the complexity and duality of points of view on the subject that NPR included.

    The IN THESE TIMES article is produced by a socialist website, (shame on you, do your friends know you're reading this? ;) ) and here again we have an interesting bias on what's happening in the auto industry:

    In These Times Headline reads: " Mississippi Lavishes $1.3 Billion in Subsidies on Nissan as Workers Get the Shaft"

    However, the Clarion Ledger (one of the original sources) used THIS headline:

    "Report: Nissan job creation lags"


    Like I said, unless you go back to original sources, all you're getting is very biased propaganda.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    Like I said, unless you go back to original sources, all you're getting is very biased propaganda.

    Unless of course the original source was written with an agenda. I try reading all I can find on any given subject and then I am not always sure I have found the truth. The more information we have access to the more spin is involved. So on the subject of, what will power these millions of Tesla sports EVs? I went to your local rag. I have read interesting pieces in there from time to time. Here it is clear they would like to white wash the facts on wind power to further the agenda. Notice in reporting the decline in bird kills they don't theorize that it could be the wind farm has forced the birds from their native hunting grounds.

    For decades, wind turbines straddling the Altamont Pass have generated clean electricity for California - at the cost of killing thousands of birds.

    The tall, grassy hills, raked by stiff winds in spring and summer, offer prime hunting territory for owls, hawks and eagles. Focused on spotting prey, many birds soar straight into the spinning blades of turbines.

    But efforts to curb the bloodshed may be starting to work.

    A new study suggests that the number of eagles, kestrels, burrowing owls and red-tailed hawks killed at Altamont each year has fallen roughly 50 percent since 2005. Reaching that level has been a long-term goal of local environmentalists and government officials, as well as the energy companies running turbines in the pass.


    http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Altamont-Pass-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-4- 230640.php

    Or this long dissertation claims the new generation wind generators are safer for birds more deadly for bats.

    The bottom line is we have Corporations all in cahoots with the Federal government that are killing US and the planet. Be it Monsanto, GE, Syngenta or the Eco Nuts pushing for EVs with no thought of the ramifications.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,153
    edited May 2013
    I remember getting a call when I was in my mid-20s and living in Memphis and a friend got in a four car wreck and her car was getting towed. She needed a ride and had a bunch of junk in the car. So I drove over and the cars were blocking most of the intersection and people were sitting dazed on the curb. I pulled up to her car in my Jeep and unloaded her gear into the CJ-5.

    The next day the paper ran a pic with the note in the story "A fifth car was involved in the accident". Well, I guess parking close to the wreck to transfer junk was being "involved".

    And if the paper interviewed the drivers, they likely got four widely differing versions of the wreck.

    That was the first time I ever got a call from a "car phone". Ham guy with a repeater site, circa 1977 or so.

    Up in Ontario today north of Toronto - seen a few dozen windmills and lots of solar panels. Also the usual complement of Prii and 450h's.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    those are just fringe people--serious ecology people favor a balanced approach to energy resources, with solid science behind it. The wacky gearheads might get the press, but there's a lot of quiet and sane talent working on the problem.

    and really, the American people have hardly rushed to buy EVs---they've fallen rather flat if you ask me. People are smart enough to figure out that EVs aren't everything they were pumped up to be.

    Most interesting is that lots of young people living in big cities (and cities are growing rapidly in population) don't even WANT cars.

    So I see the EV market as a short term rental/car share sort of thing, for the urban environment.

    The business model for EVs might not even be outright ownership.

    MODERATOR

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,896
    edited May 2013
    those are just fringe people--serious ecology people favor a balanced approach to energy resources, with solid science behind it. The wacky gearheads might get the press, but there's a lot of quiet and sane talent working on the problem.

    They have a lot more stroke in CA than common sense ecologist.

    I do agree that the rush to buy Tesla and high priced EVs, will be very short lived. Only so many people that have the money and garage space for a future museum piece. Did Leno buy one?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,543
    Well northern CAL is the hotbed of environmentalism and you just don't see many EVs here. Hybrids are the big ticket item in Marin, parts of East Bay and Silicon Valley. Central Valley could care less. Different culture.

    As for San Francisco, owning a car is brutal. SF makes it as painful and as difficult as possible to use a car. And this is a city where the public transportation pretty much sucks. Worst of both worlds.

    I think enterprises like Zipcar are quite popular though.

    MODERATOR

Sign In or Register to comment.