Print 106 comment(s) - last by kyleb2112.. on Nov 8 at 7:11 AM

Obama called on Republicans to back EV efforts at a post-election press conference.  (Source: YouTube/The White House)

In his speech Obama essentially agreed to drop plans to legislate cap and trade, an "anti-global warming" scheme that would have cost over $1T USD and cut American farmers profits by as much as 57 percent by 2035.  (Source: FreePeople Blog)

He hopes that in exchange for cooperation on warming, Republicans will contribute financial support to EV makers like GM, who launches the Chevy Volt EV this year.  (Source: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
President essentially agrees to drop warming cap and trade carbon legislation in exchange

Speaking at a post-election press conference at the White House on Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama called on his political rivals the Republican Party (also know as the GOP, short for Grand Old Party) to join him in supporting electric vehicles.  He said that while the pair sparred on many issues, that he hoped electric vehicles would be something that the two parties would see eye to eye on.

The President will need GOP cooperation if he hopes to push further grants for the EV industry.  While the Democratic Party hung on to control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans seized a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama is trying to sell Republicans on his plan to push one million electric vehicles onto U.S. streets by 2015.

Automakers have been partially supportive of Obama's plan.  They've lauded the $5B USD in special battery and EV technology loans and grants that he's lavished them with.  The legislation to fund these grants did enjoy a degree of bipartisan support, with some Republicans jumping on board.

However, $10B USD more in proposed EV loans and grants for the EV industry was torpedoed during President Obama's first two years in office.  Opposition came primarily from the Republican party, but also from some fiscally conservative Democrats.

Obama tried to drum up support for more EV grants among both parties at the conference, stating, "There's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don't fall behind other countries.  That gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together."

Many of the big Japanese and U.S. automakers are preparing to release electric vehicles this year or next.  Nissan will release its LEAF EV and General Motors Company will release the Chevy Volt.  Next year the Ford Focus Electric and the Toyota Prius Plug-in will launch.

Automakers have asserted that grants will be greatly helpful in ensuring that the expensive research needed to develop electric vehicles -- a radically different internal architecture -- moves head at a sufficient pace.  

But while they have praised the "carrot" side of Obama's EV approach, they have noisily criticized the "stick" side of his plans -- a proposal to mandate a 62 mpg average light vehicle efficiency by 2025.  Automakers were forced to begrudgingly accept a 34.1 mpg mandatory fuel efficiency increase that must be reached by 2016.

Perhaps acknowledging that he faces an uphill battle to pass more electric vehicle legislation, Obama took an apologetic tone about the broader bailout, stating, "[Some voters] started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed. We thought it was necessary, but I'm sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach."

Very significantly, the President also essentially agreed to drop plans to pass "cap and trade" legislation which would spend billions (if not trillions) in taxpayer money to set a hard limit on the amount of greenhouse gases companies can emit, in a bid to fight the supposed "global warming" crisis, which some researchers claim mankind is causing.

The President acknowledged that the bill wouldn't pass the House due to Republican opposition and argued that he only tried to push it because of the Supreme Court decision that found greenhouse gases a danger to public health.  That decision mandates the EPA to adopt some sort of action to fight GHG emissions in the U.S.

Obama said that there's plenty of alternatives to cap and trade, though -- including promoting lower-emission EVs (centrally produced power, even with transmission losses is typically lower emissions than small internal combustion engines).  He states, "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problems."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Slight adjustment
By davepermen on 11/4/2010 11:38:20 AM , Rating: 0
while there is a price hike, there is a long term price reduction thanks to nearly no fuel-cost.

RE: Slight adjustment
By kattanna on 11/4/2010 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 5
while there is a price hike, there is a long term price reduction thanks to nearly no fuel-cost.

you will still have to pay for the electricity to recharge your new EV, while cheaper will still be a cost.

the thing is that someone who will be buying an EV already doesnt have much of a commute anyways so doesnt burn a lot of gas to begin with, else an EV wouldnt be a viable thing, unless its pure ECO-BLING for them.

will the cost savings eventually pay off with the price premium of the new EV? im doubting initially they will. when they start to be made in mass and prices fall, then most assuredly.

also most pure EV's "should" have a lot less maintenance needed, but battery replacement could be a real killer ECO and $$$ wise. we will see

RE: Slight adjustment
By Fanon on 11/4/2010 1:59:31 PM , Rating: 1
My electricity rate is $0.13 per kWh. Assuming a 1kWh power draw and a 10 hour charge time, that's $1.30 a day or $39/month. That doesn't take into account the price of gasoline needed for the onboard engine.

I can fill up my 2001 Toyota Camry for $40ish/month. There's not a "long term" long enough to be considered a "long term price reduction" or cost savings--especially if you take battery replacement into account.

So no, it doesn't save you any money... at all.

RE: Slight adjustment
By MrTeal on 11/4/2010 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
Well of course it doesn't, when you just make up numbers. The Volt will use up to 10kWh of its charge, which should give you around 40 miles. Your numbers for cost would be valid if you drive that 40 miles a day, every day.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably aren't driving 40 miles a day every day (1200 miles) in your 2001 Camry for $40 a month. Not unless you buy $1/gallon gas or your car gets 90 MPG.

RE: Slight adjustment
By Bruneauinfo on 11/4/2010 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 3
just a note: would you tap your battery out every day and need a full recharge?

RE: Slight adjustment
By SactoEngr on 11/5/2010 12:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
But how many total miles could you get on that $40/month with each technology? Perhaps for folks who hardly use the car ($40 a month suggests miniscule usage), perhaps a gas vehicle is more economical.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki