backtop

Print 95 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Mar 31 at 8:15 PM

  (Source: Associated Press)
Rick Wagoner to leave his post after eight years as CEO and over 30 years with GM

Yesterday, DailyTech reported on the Obama administration's mandate to raise fuel economy averages for passenger cars to 30.2 mpg by 2011 -- this represents a 2 mpg increase from the current average for passenger vehicles. However, it appears that President Obama's hopes to raise the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States wasn't the only thing on his mind; he is also looking to shake up the management ranks in at least one of America's failing auto giants.

According to a report from the New York Times, Rick Wagoner will step down as CEO of General Motors in order to comply with the Obama administration's terms for a successful restructure of the company. Rick Wagoner has held his post at GM for the past eight years.

General Motors has not yet released a statement regarding Wagoner's departure, but we expect the official word to come down later tonight or tomorrow morning as well as the announcement of a successor. For now, GM has provided the following two-sentence statement:  "We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry. We continue to work closely with members of the Task Force and it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement."

For his part in the matter, President Obama spoke in broad terms about Detroit’s restructuring on CBS' "Face the Nation" program this morning. "[To] emerge at the other end much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is,” said President Obama. “And that’s going to mean a set of sacrifices from all parties involved -- management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers. Everybody is going to have to come to the table and say it’s important for us to take serious restructuring steps now, in order to preserve a brighter future down the road."

President Obama is expected to announce tomorrow the government's plan to help or abandon GM and Chrysler.

GM and Chrysler are currently surviving on $17.4 billion in loans that the federal government provided at the close of 2008. Ford declined to take funds from the government and is currently "going it alone" with its efforts to restructure and cut costs.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Chemical Chris on 3/29/2009 6:58:52 PM , Rating: 5
While I do agree that the Fed has to play hardball in order to restructure/save these companies, they are doing it in all the wrong places.
For the automakers, the cash invested is relatively small (vs banking bailout), and most of the people (laborers) did nothing to create the crisis: management and the unions did. So, they should be targeted, not taking away a pension someone worked their whole life for, and had a lifetime contract for.
Where they should play hardball is the banking sector: Giving hundreds of billions with no strings attached, to the people who caused the problem. Those people should be FIRED, not rewarded, and the whole system needs to be changed to give the shareholders control of the company, not hte current CEO-picks-board, board-picks-CEO arrangement currently in place. They own 80% of AIG now, shouldnt they get to decide how its run, and not the people who caused the problem? Yet, they will not fire them, and will honor their contracts, but will crack down on Joe Blow, tearing up his lifetime contract with nary an abandon.
So, yes, play hardball, but do it where appropriate, and where it does the most good.

Back on topic, Wagooner should have been fired, he was incompetent. But the problem isnt just the captain of the ship, the fact that the ship is an aging POS with more holes than a colander also plays a part in the Epic Fail that is the modern US Auto industry.

ChemC




RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Ratwar on 3/29/2009 7:54:52 PM , Rating: 5
You do understand that the Unions are a way of organizing the everyday laborers of the Auto-Companies, right? So it is kinda their fault too ;).

The reason NOBODY can feel sorry for GM is that they've really killed themselves. The Unions have been too greedy for too long getting an average wage of $20 an hour or $32 with benefits (http://www.uaw.org/resrch/rbart.cfm?rbid=11 ), higher than the average for a Civil Engineer (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Civil_Engi... ). Of course, management is no better, betting the farm on the big gas guzzling SUVs that nobody wants now after the gas prices last Summer.

On the other hand, the Banks have a bit of an excuse (though not much of one). Their crisis stems from the Sub-Prime Mortgage Bust in 2007, which is linked to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, our own Government sponsored companies. Plus they haven't been sowing the seeds of their on destruction since the mid-90s.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By rudolphna on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Chemical Chris on 3/29/2009 8:17:35 PM , Rating: 5
Not all companies lost money on small cars. A few that spring to mind would be Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai (I believe), Tata, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagon, etc etc.
GM often loses money on small cars because they suck, and they build too many and then have to sell them at massive rebates in order to move them off the lot, so they take a hit. Thats bad business.
Yes, selling SUV's for high profit margins is all well and good, but they kinda put most of their eggs in the SUV basket, and once they got geared up for it, the party ended. Putting all of your eggs in one basket is generally bad business.
And besides, if Honda can do it, why the hell cant GM/Chrysler/Ford do it?


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By erikejw on 3/30/2009 5:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
He was probably not interested anyway since his free private plane, free miles was revoked.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Guyver on 3/30/2009 10:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
A couple oversights on your part:

1. Most of the companies you are mentioning don't have trucks and SUVs on par with their American counterparts nor do they sell in the same volumes of SUVs and trucks like their American counterparts for those that do. Toyota, Nissan, and Honda did not have something worthy of comparison of a truck until this decade. Of the companies you mentioned, if they turned a profit in these economic times then it's a combination of people preferring vehicles that sipped gas and the fact that these automakers' fleet of automobiles are predominantly cars and not trucks / SUVs.

2. Part of the reason why the American cars were crappier to their foreign counter-parts is partially the automakers' fault because they allowed for this to happen. The other party responsible is the U.S. government which enacted CAFE standards which effectively targeted U.S. automakers. U.S. automakers were forced to comply with CAFE standards. The net effect was U.S. automakers making crappy cheap compact cars in order to get their avg fuel efficiency better across their entire fleet while maintaining their highly demanded fleet of SUVs and trucks at the time.

Policies like CAFE standards distorts reasons for why GM sold crappy cheaply made compact cars. Unfortunately for them it was at the expense of their image. Throw in that most sheeple come to hasty universal conclusions and you get people saying GM's entire fleet sucks. When's the last time you've heard of a crappy American truck, SUV, or luxury vehicle? You don't. The Japanese do not own a patent on quality. Quality comes down to a business decision.

In these economic times, companies like GM will need to shift gears, be less top heavy in trucks and SUVs, and create more highly sought after cars. They're doing that now. Is it too late? Time will tell.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Chemical Chris on 3/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By 4runnerxp on 3/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Chemical Chris on 3/30/2009 4:22:31 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree with not having some sort of legislation to ensure a certain level of fuel efficiency. I am open to how this is best accomplished. I think that putting a tax on gas, the revenue from which could go to something like alternative energy or infrastructure improvements. This would be in addition to the tax already levied for highway building and maintenance. That would encourage people to drive less/get more fuel efficient cars.
However, then you have problems with increased costs for transportation, agriculture, underprivileged, etc. And no guarantee of higher mileage vehicles.
And which would you rather have; the government mandating mileage requirements, or; the government taxing *you* a lot more, in the hopes that you might drive less/buy a more fuel efficient car, or that a company will might make more fuel efficient cars.
The first way cost you a lot of money and might not guarantee the desired result. The second way doesnt cost you a thing and ensures the desired result.
Yes, you can say that cars are more expensive due to increased engineering costs accrued as a result of having to meet CAFE standards, but then, if the goal is to have high mileage vehicles, the vehicle would be more expensive anyway if it were high mileage. And you'd still be paying outrageous gas prices.
Oh, and that Lincoln MKZ gets a combined mileage of 19 (1) and would therefore have a gas guzzler tax of $2100 (2). And the maximum is $7700. So I dont know where you're getting that 10k figure from. Perhaps the vehicle really is overpriced by 8k, and maybe thats part of the reason the domestic automakers are in such a pickle?

ChemC

1) http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/23589.shtm...
2) http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/info.shtml


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Sunbird on 3/30/2009 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 3
Toyota has made the Landcruiser and Hilux double cabs for ages (in the rest of the world)...


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Ratwar on 3/29/2009 8:32:59 PM , Rating: 3
They were stupid to expect the market to remain the same. They should have tried an innovation besides 'make it bigger', or tried diversifying their model line up. EVERYONE should have realized that the price of gas was increase, look at a chart: http://zfacts.com/p/35.html Now, if you can't look at that and see that from 2003 until 2008 the general trend is upward, you're probably blind.

Sure, they were taking a loss on small cars. Perhaps they should have put some money into revitalizing those lines instead of putting it all into SUVs. It isn't impossible to do so, look at Honda.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By bhieb on 3/30/2009 10:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They should have tried an innovation besides 'make it bigger', or tried diversifying their model line up.


Diversify really? Do you have any idea how many models of cars GM has? If anything they are over diversified across way too many brands.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By clovell on 3/30/2009 12:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
Diversification requires differentiation.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/30/2009 9:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody expected gas prices to go up.

Speak for yourself. As Ratwar pointed out, gas prices had been following an upward trend for some time, so it was pretty obvious where things were headed.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Dribble on 3/30/2009 10:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are some interesting graphs showing the amount of easily extractable oil going down - i.e. the really cheap stuff.

VS

demand for oil rising - driven by emerging economies such as China, India, etc.

It has been clear for a number of years there was only one direction gas prices were going to head. It is also clear that the high prices aren't a blip - they are here to stay.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By teldar on 3/29/2009 10:53:52 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, the banks decided to buy mortgages which were already out there that were sub-prime or decided to go ahead and loan money in the way of sub-prime mortgages themselves.
NONE of the financial institutions are free of guilt for the issues.

Just because the government said they had to loan more people money doesn't mean they had to loan money to anyone who walked in off the street.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By jlips6 on 3/30/2009 5:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to point out something.

The US auto industry was stupid. They couldn't tell the difference between an arsehole or breakfast time. They followed the market trend without looking out for the horizon, and were practically in a state of denial. But, they never broke the law.

The finance industry on the other hand, was criminal. They broke lending guidelines regarding credit worthiness, and they accepted inflated appraisals of property value.

They also allowed and encouraged falsifying records, loaned mortgages that no one in their right minds would take (ARM's), and manipulated the system of appreciation.

Taking this all in to account, who does it seem more reasonable to loan money to?


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Totally on 3/29/2009 7:55:57 PM , Rating: 3
"most of the people (laborers) did nothing to create the crisis: management and the unions"

union = laborers. I don't think you meant to say what you did. non-union laborers working for nissan and toyota and they're doing just fine.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Chemical Chris on 3/29/2009 8:13:08 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with unions is that they were formed by the workers, to look out for the workers. Which was awesome back in the 20's and 30's. But now there are laws in place designed to prevent the unjust work conditions of the previous century. So a lot of the reason for unions is no longer valid.
And the unions shouldnt dictate the wages paid, the market should do that. If you are underpaid, get a better job, or get an education so you can get a better job. But an unskilled laborer should not be better compensated than a professional engineer, its just madness.
To try and keep this short, most unions have outlived their usefullness, and have become much too powerful and now they no longer have the workers best interests in mind.
Most unions today should be scaled down dramatically, to the point where they only protect against such things as a worker being layed off and rehired once every 6 months to prevent a pay raise. Or management being unwilling to resolve a case of sexual/any harrassment, stuff like that. They should not be these massive entities that choke the life out of our home industries. Why should they pay $30-50/hr (including benefits, pension, etc, and i feel im being conservative) to a laborer in Canada/US, when they can get the same thing done for, say, $20/hr in Korea. The unions extorting huge salaries and benefits results in many of those jobs being lost.
I know people who have lost their jobs in the auto industry, and the general consensus is that they would rather take a pay cut from 35 to 25 bucks an hour, and reduced benefits, than to lose their job all together. This is unsurprising, becasue their skills only really qualify them for a $15-20/hr unskilled labor job.

ChemC


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Chemical Chris on 3/29/2009 8:20:23 PM , Rating: 5
Also, while I do feel they needed to play hardball with the automakers, I feel it is much more important to play hard ball with the bankers, and they're not.
So what Im pissed about is that instead of punishing those who started the financial crisis, they go after the average Joe Blow, who lives from paycheck to paycheck and is generally 'not wealthy'. But those in the financial sector who F***ed everyone over, and already have umpteen millions, are being let off without so much as a slap on the wrist.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Doormat on 3/29/2009 10:30:34 PM , Rating: 5
I said this on a different site and it got modded up pretty high so I'll say it again here.

Remember kids, its OK to force union workers to renegotiate the contracts, but thats not OK for white collar employees.

Either its OK for everyone, or no one. Treating unions and bankers differently is only going to fuel the angry populism more.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By just4U on 3/30/2009 3:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was just thinking of that. If by chance these unions collapsed or a good portion of their membership went unemployed you can bet their going to be irate over more then just losing their jobs. They will see that the rich got a very big helping hand in the banking sector while they were left to crumple.

While that might not be the case that's the way alot of those workers would feel and I can imagine that they would be quite bitter over it.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By spagnitz on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By SunLord on 3/29/2009 8:29:39 PM , Rating: 4
The AIG CEO that was dragged infront of congress and smeared and belittled was the one appointed by the government to run it when it was seized in October. Makes me wonder what good CEO will be stupid enough to offer to help run GM knowing he'll be dragged through the mud by the media and congress and generally treated like shit cause congress likes pandering to the media and any other populist BS that comes along.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By GodisanAtheist on 3/29/2009 11:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually this could be rather platonic:

Who would take the job of CEO in a tanking, government held corporation that is pretty universally cited as the standard of bad business?

Someone who is actually dedicated to the task, has confidence and a plan to get things in order and not someone looking for a laid-back job with a massive paycheck regardless the quality of his (or her) work.

In other words, the only person that should.


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By SunLord on 3/30/2009 2:42:21 AM , Rating: 3
No matter how good the CEO will be it's unlikely he'll get stuff done fast enough for his name to not be dragged through the mud by congress and the media it's just how the world works these days with everyone expecting instant turn around and success


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By spagnitz on 3/29/2009 8:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
Management agreed to ridiculous wages for the unions, I don't see how you can possibly blame the unions for asking for as much money as possible, after all upper management routinely makes very large salaries.

And unions didn't design cars that people don't want to drive, nor did they fail to anticipate the rising cost of oil


RE: Wrong Arena For Hardball
By Oregonian2 on 3/30/2009 3:22:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think "asking" might not be the right term other than in the sense that Chicago mobsters had "asked" companies for protection fees.


Good.
By quiksilvr on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Clauzii on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By quiksilvr on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By inighthawki on 3/29/2009 6:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly there are a lot of things everyone should have, it just so happens there are always reasons why they never seem to make it to market...


RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 8:00:19 AM , Rating: 4
So what happens when I want to drive home to Florida for the weekend from Charleston in my new electric car? I'd get to just outside Daytona and have to wait 4 hours for the thing to recharge before I can finish the trip. Or when I was a kid and we drove up to Philadelphia. Instead of a 1 day drive it would have been a 2-3 day drive.

Electric cars are feasible as a commuter car. Not as a family car for people wanting to travel.


RE: Good.
By Finnkc on 3/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 12:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
What spend 12-18 hours on a bus? Spend 24 hours on a train(that's how long it takes to go from Orlando to Charleston via train)? Spend several hundred dollars on a plane ticket? Please inform me if I'm missing any options.

And I don't give a sh*t what you do in Europe. The US is a hell of a lot bigger. We can't take a train from one city to the next in under an hour in most places here.

I'd love to meet an American with half a brain who thinks the ability to drive a car from one state to the next should be looked at as a privilege. We're talking less than 400 miles here. Should I also view my ability to turn on a light switch and expect it to turn on as a privilege?

Christ you idiots scare me.


RE: Good.
By royalcrown on 3/30/2009 2:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, 400 whole miles on a bus...Been on a bus for 22 hours and 29 hours and 1300 miles, last spring. Don't be such a damn baby.

Btw, I like how the USA is so much bigger than europe, Im pretty sure 300-400 miles over there = 300-400 miles over here...duh.


RE: Good.
By rdeegvainl on 3/30/2009 6:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wow, 400 whole miles on a bus...Been on a bus for 22 hours and 29 hours and 1300 miles, last spring. Don't be such a damn baby.

I too have done thousands of miles on a bus, but there is no way in hell I would say to my family to tough it up, it's only 2 thousand miles on a cramped bus.


RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 12:49:08 PM , Rating: 1
What spend 12-18 hours on a bus? Spend 24 hours on a train(that's how long it takes to go from Orlando to Charleston via train)? Spend several hundred dollars on a plane ticket? Please inform me if I'm missing any options.

And I don't give a sh*t what you do in Europe. The US is a hell of a lot bigger. We can't take a train from one city to the next in under an hour in most places here.

I'd love to meet an American with half a brain who thinks the ability to drive a car from one state to the next should be looked at as a privilege. We're talking less than 400 miles here. Should I also view my ability to turn on a light switch and expect it to turn on as a privilege?

Christ you idiots scare me.


RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 12:49:29 PM , Rating: 1
whoops. double post.


RE: Good.
By Fenixgoon on 3/29/2009 6:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
50k is an affordable EV?


RE: Good.
By phez on 3/29/2009 7:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the poster means that car in particular :p Just to get something rolling for an affordable car.


RE: Good.
By Clauzii on 3/31/2009 7:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Finally a sensible thought ;)


RE: Good.
By SunLord on 3/29/2009 8:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people think a massive push to EV is remotely possible right now? Our electrical grid is an out dated shit pile. I mean didn't California have rolling brown outs not just a few years ago? So now we want to put even more strain on a limited supply? At the same time they want to stop the construction of Coal plants the only quick and simple power plant we can build that we have a load of fuel of our own to burn.

Solar is a pointless option as the time cars would mostly be charge would at night so don't bother with that idea unless you can invent some magical super battery to keep it all in. Wind is to random and the areas they can be built with good steady wind are to far off for the electrical grid to make use of as it is now. Nuclear is a great option but takes 5-10years just to get permits and approval let alone to build it.

So until we update the electrical grid and deploy charge station around the nation massive numbers of EVs are a pipe dream just like Hydrogen power cars.


RE: Good.
By goku on 3/29/2009 8:52:03 PM , Rating: 4
California had rolling blackouts because of the enron scandal, not because of any real "demand". Enron made up a crisis out of nothing and because they fabricated the lie that was the power crisis, they were able to jack up rates on future fixed contracts, which while a REALLY BAD contract for california when they were formed, turned out to be a good thing for California due to the rising in energy prices as the 2000s moved along, something that was merely a coincidence.


RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 8:02:33 AM , Rating: 1
Last I heard, California STILL has rolling blackouts.


RE: Good.
By Doormat on 3/29/2009 10:40:27 PM , Rating: 3
Completely incorrect.

A 2006 Pacific Northwest National Labs (PNNL) study found that, with the generation, transmission and distribution systems in place, we can convert 73% of light duty vehicles (passenger cars) to PHEVs (like the Chevy Volt) without building anything new.

http://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/wellinghoff/5-24...

quote:
For the United States as a whole, 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure, although the local percentages vary by region. Using the light duty vehicle fleet (LDV) classification, that includes cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans, the technical potential is 73%. This has a gasoline displacement potential of 6.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or 52% of the nation’s oil imports.


Its an excellent read and you'll find that there are a large number of interesting facts in the report (like how energy prices would actually go down, not up, because of this extra demand).

The only issue is scheduling the vehicle charging times. So you can either implement a smart grid, where the cars can talk to the grid operators and find out when to charge. Or, if you reduce the window from 24/7 to 6p-6a it goes down to 43%. While that number may seems small, Google's own Energy Roadmap figures we wouldn't get to that 43% penetration rate until 2030, and by then who knows what energy generation will look like.


RE: Good.
By Alexvrb on 3/29/2009 11:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
He said EV, and so did the poster he was replying to. Tesla. EV. Not the same as a PHEV that can use gasoline to directly propel the vehicle, or in the case of the Volt (perhaps better known as an E-REV) use gasoline to generate eletricity on demand. No additional hardware in this case is needed.

Pure EVs (the likes of which he was discussing), would quite possibly warrant the use of fast charge stations, to make them useful for long trips. Otherwise they too could be charged overnight, at least at 240V. If they are mostly charged at night, the grid will be fine.

On the other hand, if things like super capacitors mature enough, and sufficiently powerful charging stations are built, that could place a bit of a burden on the grid. Hopefully by that point it won't be a concern. Personally I'd much rather get a PHEV/E-REV.


RE: Good.
By Doormat on 3/30/2009 1:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
The post I replied to said that the grid couldn't handle recharging electric vehicles. If you look at it from a daily driver standpoint, the difference between EVs and PHEVs are irrelevant (you're recharging every night or every few nights). You could own either car, and if you drive the average US commute (33 miles), you're going to be on battery power all the way, so when you get home you still need the same 8kWh or so of energy to recharge.

You cant look at it from a long trip standpoint because no pure EVs on the market right now is suitable for long trips. Even the model S, which supposedly can recharge in 45 minutes (still a long time to go 160 miles), requires a 480V/125A power supply to recharge in that time. I don't know of any 480V recharging stations anywhere out in the middle of the desert to recharge, and I definitely dont want to sit out there for 45 minutes. To refuel an EV like you would a car, it would take a 480V source providing 1,125A for five a minute recharge (ignoring whether the batteries and other associated parts could handle it). There are a host of issues, conductor size and safety are the biggest two, that go along with that much electrical current.

I generally agree with your points though.

I dont know if we'll have the ability to fully recharge from electric refueling stations anytime in the next few years. Tesla was pushing recharging in places where you're going to spend a lot of time (eating a meal at a sit-down restaurant, shopping at the grocery store, etc). Its feasible from that standpoint - you could recharge at 125A at 480V while you have lunch at Applebee's or something. But it doesn't seem too likely that the necessary infrastructure will be built out anytime soon.


RE: Good.
By SunLord on 3/30/2009 3:21:23 AM , Rating: 1
The main problem with EV not PHEV is they have no back up and It's unlikely you'll be able to find a 480v power source to recharge your car remotely fast. On top of all that I doubt normal people really give two shits about a $50k EV let me know when I can pick one up for $20k with no tax credits at that point EVs will be viable.

People will also be put off about having to have someone come and rewire there house so they can run a 480V 125A line which is insane for a normal house.

Most houses only have one line providing 240V service from the pole via a three wire line with two hot 120volt wires and 1 ground so they would would require an second line to double up to 480V or two more line to provide a separate 480V service just for the charger which is most likely what will have to be done given the amps required


RE: Good.
By Doormat on 3/30/2009 3:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if power companies would provide 480V at all to a residence - I don't know if the gear in the neighborhoods could provide that without substantial infrastructure upgrades (neighborhood transformers, etc).

I think home recharging is limited to 240V/70A for the foreseeable future (with the 30A for everything else in your house). This can recharge at about 17kW, so to fill a ~45kWh Model S 160mi pack it would take a little under 3 hours. 17kW is about 70 miles of driving per hour of charge.


RE: Good.
By Clauzii on 3/31/2009 8:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
And that is why I think some kind of interchangeable battery-packs would be a good idea. But if the later to come model TESLA S, with 300 miles range being true, I think it would take like ~3-5 years to ready the design for a TESLA E lectric F amily V ehicle, and in the same time batteries that go between 500-700 miles on a charge are probably ready.

I can see the point with gas+electric, but I just see an opportunity to get even with smoke-pollution from cars and such for all and for once.

And since the electric engines are much less complex and has much much less parts, it's final manufacturing/usage pollution is also far less than with gas engines. And of course, therein lies a BIG problem. The whole current gas driven car industry..would..crumble..at the flick of a switch. Well, probably more like fade out since forbidding all gas driven vehicles from day to day isn't practical of course.

But I really like the change sooner than later. With the technologies at hand, and the possibility of an almost pollution free energy-chain if nuclear power could be used. I know, nuclear is not pollution-free, but I think it can be handled pretty well already and basically releases water vapor as daily 'pollutant'.

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"


RE: Good.
By bkslopper on 3/30/2009 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
33 miles average commute? I couldn't do it. That'd be an hour each way in moderate traffic. Priorities I guess.


RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 9:31:19 AM , Rating: 1
My first job out of college was a 150 mile round trip each day. Luckily there wasn't really any traffic. But since part of that commute was on I95 between Melbourne and Cocoa, there was usually an accident once a week. It was just a matter of whether or not I got to the 528 before it happened.


RE: Good.
By Alexvrb on 3/30/2009 11:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The post I replied to said that the grid couldn't handle recharging electric vehicles.
You're right, PHEVs and EVs alike will not bring the grid to its knees. I understand that. I discussed this, and I disagree with his assessment of grid impact, and I mostly agreed with you. But he was talking about PHEVs, and you pulled EVs into it, and there's an important distinction to be made here. PHEVs require no changes at all to achieve the benefits of both worlds. Pure EVs would require fast charge stations to be really viable replacements for anything that can burn gasoline. If I can't recharge it within minutes (as opposed to hours), its inferior in terms of versatility and overall usefulness to a PHEV/E-REV.
quote:
If you look at it from a daily driver standpoint, the difference between EVs and PHEVs are irrelevant (you're recharging every night or every few nights). You could own either car, and if you drive the average US commute (33 miles), you're going to be on battery power all the way, so when you get home you still need the same 8kWh or so of energy to recharge.
I'm not going to buy an EV just for commuting to work. Instead I could get a PHEV, which like you said does the same thing with regards to the commute (plug it in overnight). Only with the PHEV I can just fill the gas tank and go for a trip, rather than parking it and taking my gasoline-capable vehicle.
quote:
You cant look at it from a long trip standpoint because no pure EVs on the market right now is suitable for long trips.
Ah, but that is precisely why I can look at it from a long trip standpoint. The EVs need to improve, true. But what else would make pure EVs more suitable for any away-from-home voyage? Fast charge stations. 5 minutes, even 10 minutes. Anything is better than a hour or longer "kinda fast" charge, especially in the middle of a trip. 5-10 minutes is a stop at a rest area, I'm OK with that.

At this point, pure EVs are a novelty. If you already own 4 cars, sure add one to your collection of toy-- err, vehicles. It'll be almost as practical as that Elise (with Sport package, no less) you bought for "grocery shopping". :P


RE: Good.
By knutjb on 3/30/2009 6:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting read however that study appears to have generalized the overall capacity of each regional grid. I know South Dakota has an insufficient grid to handle expansion outside a couple of major cities which are tiny to begin with. You cannot sell your self generated power to the power company they'll take it but you won't get paid. They have wonderful winds blowing all the time but few wind turbines, mostly NE part of the state, because the physical infrastructure is either insufficient or doesn't exist and no one will put up a tower with out a way to get it to market. Well, except in the Tehachapi range in California where environmentalist are blocking the transmission lines. There are some markets where the grid is over taxed due to population expansion.

Maybe some innovative electrical suppliers will implement what the Brits do. Between 11 pm and 6 am the electrical rates are cut in half, at least mine were. It motivated people to run their heavy consumption appliances at night when the demand is low.

As for energy prices declining, if cap and trade is implemented electrical prices will skyrocket since most is fossil fuel generated.

I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said there are lies, damned lies and statistics.


RE: Good.
By rudolphna on 3/29/2009 7:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
you going to supply the $100 Billion they will need to survive through CH11?


RE: Good.
By myocardia on 3/29/2009 9:20:39 PM , Rating: 3
He wasn't talking about Ch. 11. He was talking about REAL bankruptcy, Ch. 7.


RE: Good.
By SublimeSimplicity on 3/30/2009 12:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
no no no... now it's time to put someone in charge that will build the people's car... wait I didn't put that the right way.


Comrades
By NeoConned08 on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Comrades
By Bonrock on 3/29/2009 9:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
While the United States is still nowhere near becoming communist, just remember that America's recent moves towards socialism were necessitated by an economic crisis that resulted from capitalism run amok during the past two decades.


RE: Comrades
By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 10:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, it has been capitalism being forced to do such stupid things as take sub-prime mortgages. And from here I quote FITCamaro,
quote:
It is the government that is the one forcing banks to give out loans to people who can't afford them. The sub-prime market did not exist before the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks do not willingly give out loans to people who cannot pay them back. They are a business. To do so would be bad business.


:D


RE: Comrades
By Doormat on 3/29/2009 11:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
And FIT is wrong...

http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hin...

http://traigerlaw.com/publications/The_community_r...

From the last link,

quote:
This study, Traiger & Hinckley LLP’s fourth annual analysis of home mortgage lending data, builds on our 2008 report which found that banks subject to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) were substantially less likely than other mortgage lenders to engage in the types of risky lending practices that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.


Most, if not all the sub-prime loans originated from those fly-by-night mortgage brokers, institutions that were not subject to the CRA.

The whole "blame the CRA" is one of those right wing memes that just wont die, no matter how much proof you show people. Earlier today I got a bunch of right wing nuts angry by showing them these reports. It was in such stark contrast to their small freeper worldview, they couldn't take it. You think I would have told them that they are fools to believe in their God or something.

You can try and argue the pros and cons of the CRA, but thats not what you're interested in. You're interested in assigning blame for the current mess with the left, when the real issue is those who abdicated their duties, from people who knew they would be able to afford adjusted payments, the people writing the loans, bond rating agencies who mislabeled CDOs, etc.


RE: Comrades
By Doormat on 3/29/2009 11:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Change would > wouldn't in the last paragraph.


RE: Comrades
By msomeoneelsez on 3/30/2009 1:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but thats not what you're interested in. You're interested in assigning blame for the current mess with the left


Do not attempt to assume what I am or am not interested in. You don't know me, and I doubt you ever truly will.

I took a quick look at the links and realized I don't have enough time to go through them now, but I will when I get the chance.

As for my above comment, forget it for now until I can reaffirm or deny my previous statement.


RE: Comrades
By Doormat on 3/30/2009 1:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for keeping an open mind and being willing to learn.


RE: Comrades
By msomeoneelsez on 3/30/2009 2:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
Always my pleasure :D


RE: Comrades
By MadMan007 on 3/30/2009 9:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you! Finally someone who is able to find information and think for themselves instead of what some talking head idealogue tells them to think.


RE: Comrades
By Griswold on 3/30/2009 4:02:55 AM , Rating: 1
Well, fitcamaro is the dumbest motherfucker in town anyway, why do you give a rats ass for his confused theories? There are still some small and mid sized banks out there who refused to get into the sub-prime business and guess what, they have been thriving then and they are prosperous now. Nobody was forced by anyone but greed and criminal energy.


RE: Comrades
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 9:39:26 AM , Rating: 1
You mean including consumers? But gee we're supposed to help them right because people shouldn't have to learn their lesson and lose their homes.

When it comes down to it, governmental policies created this mess. Had the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie not existed, this problem wouldn't exist. Some banks wouldn't have forced to give out loans. Ones you might not think were forced to but still gave out the loans and then sold them to Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have because they wouldn't have been there to buy them.

If I "encouraged" you to loan an unemployed person $1000 at 10% interest a week and at the same time you knew that in a few months my "cousin" would buy that loan from you and you didn't have to worry about the risk anymore, you'd probably give that loan too.


RE: Comrades
By 4runnerxp on 3/30/2009 1:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
How do you as a competitive business not give the loan or buy the MBS and make huge returns, when you see how much your competitors are making from doing so. Also when everything you give is guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie why not. The system was messed up and there was call for Freddie and Fannie regulation in 2003 but it was shut down by several liberals saying things looked great people were buying homes and spending why regulate this.


RE: Comrades
By MadMan007 on 3/30/2009 9:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hey FIT how come you continuously refuse to reply to posts that refute the negative impact of the CRA which you keep claiming? You seem smart enough to think for yourself and just be a parrot for some talking head, is it lack of humility to say that you've merely been misinformed?


RE: Comrades
By MadMan007 on 3/30/2009 9:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
*NOT just be a parrot...


RE: Comrades
By rdeegvainl on 3/30/2009 6:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
the way i remember capitalism working was, when the company fails, they are allowed to go the way of the dodo, and not artificially propped up by government(read taxpayer) funds. So until that happens, there isn't much that capitalism is being allowed to do to fix the situation.


And he isn't a socialist?
By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 7:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
Now, I do not presume to know anything about Rick Wagoner, but I do think that anyone that is singled out by the government to resign from their position in a private industry is a victim of the government taking over the markets... which is socialist.

I am just commenting on how people still believe that Obama is not a socialist, and how ignorant they really are... I just can't wait for him to announce the new new new deal...

Well, I guess this is what you get for having government dominated by a single party.




RE: And he isn't a socialist?
By LibertyFace on 3/29/2009 8:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Both democrats and republicans are part of the same single-party system. Two management teams vying for the CEO position. And now we have a system to where a company will be offered financial incentives by the executive branch for the board of directors to relinquish control over this decision making process.


RE: And he isn't a socialist?
By msomeoneelsez on 3/30/2009 3:03:22 AM , Rating: 3
So that is why we have filibusters...

No, the left and the right are opposites, that is why they describe those parties as such. The US is a dual party government (with many minor, near insignificant other parties [woot, Ron Paul, haha]) system that has become mostly ruled by the Democrats in recent years thanks to the mass unpopularity of Bush.

Although quite ironically, the 110th congress (I believe... the one while Bush was in office) had Democrat control, and an even lower approval rating than Bush...

I believe that if Obama is reelected he will most likely have the power to appoint judges that are Democrat as well. If that happens, say goodbye to checks and balances.

As for the reorganization of GM in order to obtain the government funds, yes, that is still a form of government taking over private business.


RE: And he isn't a socialist?
By Darkefire on 3/29/2009 9:16:17 PM , Rating: 3
The government is currently keeping GM afloat, which effectively makes it no longer a private industry. Their money, they call the shots; it's no different than stockholders forcing the CEO out. Private industry is perfectly within its rights to refuse these loans and fail in the free market the old-fashioned way, but instead they've chosen to limp along in a half-life while the federal government restructures them.


RE: And he isn't a socialist?
By phitzl on 3/30/2009 9:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Private industry is perfectly within its rights to refuse these loans and fail in the free market the old-fashioned way


If you don't want the government calling any shots with your cooperation, go home and solve your problems yourself.

They asked for help and I think outing Wagoneer is a good move.


Change
By hiscross on 3/29/2009 9:51:52 PM , Rating: 3
Well you voted for this mess. Enjoy your new king. Oh wait, American founding fathers didn't want a king, did they. Oh well, just a slight oversight by those liberal rascals. Maybe they can put together a anti-war rally against their new king. Of wait, they did that too. I hope you can enjoy the change of freedom to slavery because you voted for it.




RE: Change
By Bonrock on 3/29/2009 9:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you're right. If anyone is to blame for the current economic crisis and the quagmire in the Middle East, it's those damn liberals who have been running our government for the past eight years.

Oh, wait...


RE: Change
By hiscross on 3/30/2009 1:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Lib's are always bringing up the past. I guess forward thinking, open minded means looking at the past and staying there. It's Barry's world now. I hope the libs enjoy past failures, because that is what we are getting now.


RE: Change
By hiscross on 3/30/2009 2:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
Just to add a little history: http://reason.com/news/show/131977.html


how does this help
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/30/2009 6:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone looked into whether GM and Chrystler even do more of their production in the US than these "foreign" automakers? Toyota makes a lot of their product stateside. And a lot of American automakers make a lot of their product IN MEXICO!!!

Are we bailing out names here? I am not certain on the percentages. Maybe someone knows the full info.




RE: how does this help
By rdeegvainl on 3/30/2009 6:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
you mean that same mexico that is in america?


RE: how does this help
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/31/2009 4:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
I used "US" instead of "America" as needed. GM and Ford are commonly called "American automakers". The point of the post was using US tax dollars outside the US. Really read something before you attempt to be a smartass.


Irony
By MonkeyPaw on 3/29/2009 7:06:21 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I just don't see how a wasteful government is going to instill financial responsibility into an auto company.




Failure
By SavagePotato on 3/29/2009 6:39:23 PM , Rating: 4
The guy is an epic fail as a CEO and his company should be tits up.

It sounds like he should have been living in a tent city by now anyway so I wouldn't think I would consider him as being forced out.




Thank God
By djkrypplephite on 3/30/2009 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, thank God the government is taking over private industry. Every time I think of something that a government has taken over, I see things running so smoothly. (See Hawaii's 7-month socialized health care).

I'm so glad the second coming is setting private industry right. The community organizer obviously knows more about running anything than any executive does.




centralized planning
By LibertyFace on 3/29/2009 7:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rick Wagoner will step down as CEO of General Motors in order to comply with the Obama administration's terms

Talk about elements of centralized planning.

The government is nationalizing banks, the obama administration is expanding the war on terror and keeping troops longer in iraq than 16 months, and Larry Silverstein, the guy who made billions off of the world trade center attacks, is now asking for a bailout. Son of a B****

www.infowars.com




By spagnitz on 3/29/2009 8:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
holders long ago??




Banks are different
By TA152H on 3/29/2009 11:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
For all the people that keep saying they should punish banks the same way they have automakers, I don't think you're thinking it through.

The point isn't to punish people, it's to get the money back that's been put out.

Citibank is ALREADY profitable again, at least for the last few months. The banks had a really rough time, but turning them around to make them profitable again is entirely different from getting the big car companies to be profitable again. Have any of the automakers turned it around as quickly as Citibank? The bank problems are pretty much over, you might see little stuff here and there, but the bottom line is, once they stop making risky loans and taking risky behavior, they're going to be OK. What about the car companies? It's not so simple as simply stopping some controllable behavior to turn things around.

GM was shackled with very high labor costs, as were all American companies, and that's why they couldn't be as competitive with other companies. Small/low-end cars are very cost competitive, moreso than the bigger luxury cars that generally sell to more wealthy buyers. GM naturally preferred to focus on that market, because they could compete better there, since their cost disadvantage wasn't as important. The UAW may turn out to be like a terminal cancer; it kills itself by killing its host. You really have to question the wisdom of their leadership, when they thought so little about the health of the company they were being paid from. Even parasites in the animal world don't generally kill their hosts, it's bad for them. Even with all the problems GM has, the new deal with the UAW still makes their labor costs more expensive than it is for Toyota, et al. I really question the wisdom in this, since it's ultimately unsustainable.




By Beenthere on 3/30/2009 12:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Feds mandated restructuring beyond the many concessions by the auto companies, labor, suppliers, etc. is likely to be the demise of the U.S. auto industry.

Unlike the fools on Capitol Hill who couldn't run a lemonade stand, the auto industry has done a lot of restructuring to deal with the aftermath of OPEC and oil company financial greed that has destroyed economies worldwide.

The car companies did not create the economic meltdown, the housing industry collapse, the criminal activity on Wall Street nor in the banking industry, but they will suffer as a result. You have no idea how much the demise of the U.S. auto industry will negatively impact everyone in America. By this time next year the gravity of the situation will just be starting to appear and it's not going to be pretty at all.




impact on american healthcare
By tpurves on 3/30/2009 9:37:27 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting that GM also owes 20B in healthcare coverage for retired workers it can't pay. A sign that america is on the way to nationalized healthcare one way or another? Either the government will have to step in provide care or insurance for millions who's former employers renege on benefits over the years, or they'll end up owning those employers or owning the bankrupt insurance companies anyway...




ZR-1, CTS-V, Volt...
By NYHoustonman on 3/30/2009 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know jack about the economic side of things outside of two undergraduate courses, but it seems like GM has been on somewhat of an upswing lately as far as innovation and vehicle quality. People who make blanket comments about the supposedly poor quality of GM vehicles really haven't been paying attention lately. From an enthusiast's standpoint, the Corvette ZR-1 is a supercar for a third the price, the CTS-V is a BMW M killer, and the Cobalt SS is a tremendous performance value at its price point... AND they have the Volt on the way! It would, IMO, be a shame to see the company go under now.




"FORCED"
By dever on 3/30/2009 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Brandon!

Thank you for using the word forced. All I've heard is supposed journalists using words like "suggested" or "requested."

Government is not capable of "suggestion" or "request" by definition. You cannot apply voluntary sector language to the coercive sector (government).

Thanks Brandon for using the most honest term I've heard yet to describe this.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki