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?

1555658606177

Comments

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,681
    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: 17,701
    > 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)

    This message has been approved.

  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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! :)
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,907
    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: 17,701
    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.

    This message has been approved.

  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,681
    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- /
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,938
    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
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,907
    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: 28,681
    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.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,681
    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.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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!
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,681
    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.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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". :)
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,681
    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?
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,640
    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.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,681
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.