backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by cruisin3style.. on Feb 8 at 5:18 PM


Fisker Karma  (Source: jalopnik.com)
A total of 26 employees were laid off

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) pulled the plug on a federal loan it provided to Fisker Automotive, forcing the automaker to stop work on a Delaware factory.

California-based Fisker Automotive, known for the $102,000 Karma plug-in and the Nina midsize sedan, received a total of $529 million in loans from DOE in April 2010. The loans were part of a program to progress development of high-tech vehicles, where Fisker received $169 million for Karma engineering and $359 million for Nina production. The loans were also meant to revamp a closed General Motors plant in Wilmington, Delaware for Fisker auto production. So far, Fisker has drawn down $193 million from its loans.

Fisker has been behind schedule on selling its first auto here in the U.S., and in May 2011, DOE blocked the loans previously provided to the automaker due to "unmet milestones." According to Damien LaVera, DOE only allows Fisker to use the loan if the auto company upholds its end of the deal and shows results. However, Fisker has been a little behind.

The lack of access to loans has affected work on the Delaware factory. In fact, work on the auto factory has now been halted, and 26 people were laid off.

"It's been frustrating that Fisker and the Department of Energy weren't able to come to terms on the revisions to the loan in time to avoid this," said Brian Selander, a spokesman for Delaware Governor Jack Markell. "I'd say the project is on hold while the two sides try to get things sorted out."

DOE seems to be a bit more cautious of who it provides its financial offerings to after the series of alternative energy failures through 2011 and 2012. In September 2011, Silicon Valley-based solar panel company Solyndra filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million loan from DOE in 2009. Government officials reportedly warned the administration about Solyndra's viability back at that time, but these warnings were set aside to meet political deadlines.

In November 2011, Beacon Power, a company that creates flywheels to store power and increase grid efficiency by preventing blackouts, filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $43 million loan guarantee from DOE in August 2010.

Just last month, auto electric battery maker Ener1, whose EnerDel subsidiary received a $118.5 million DOE grant in August 2009, filed for bankruptcy.

Electric vehicles haven't had a great year, either. Last year, General Motors' Chevrolet Volt was heavily criticized after three Volts sparked or caught fire in a series of side-impact crash tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Fisker had some battery issues of its own as well back in December 2011, where over 200 Karma's were recalled.

Also, somewhat similar to Fisker's factory situation, an Indiana Think City EV plant has been sitting stagnant after failing to produce the Think City EVs, which are tiny two-seater EVs manufactured by Think Global.

Fisker CEO Henrik Fisker said the company sent 225 Karmas to dealers in December, with another 1,200 on the way.

Sources: The Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Shig on 2/7/2012 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
But there were sales and GM is profitable, next rhetoric argument please.


RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Shig on 2/7/2012 1:26:15 PM , Rating: 1
The Volt had it's best sales month in December, then the media ran the story about them that was mostly false and taken out of context for 5 straight weeks, then sales became the worst the following month.

And you're trying to claim the media didn't hurt them?

@Fleet buys - So you're against our own government fleet becoming less dependant on oil? A volt in our fleet replaces an old giant gas guzzler. But I guess that's bad too.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 1:37:25 PM , Rating: 3
Shig do you understand what a "conflict of interest" is? Do you even have a concept on the idea?

Your statements lead me to believe you don't see the whole picture. In fact, I know you don't.


RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 2:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
@Fleet buys - So you're against our own government fleet becoming less dependant on oil? A volt in our fleet replaces an old giant gas guzzler. But I guess that's bad too.


Is math a foreign concept to you, or perhaps efficiency? I want government to be as cost-effective as possible in the course of doing what it is we tell it to do. The Volt is over-priced for what it does. Not economically efficient. Fleet buys are just a form of subsidy, which we must pay in higher taxes. So yes, fleet purchases of a Volt by the government is bad, because its replacing an increasingly small dependence on foreign oil with a rapidly increasing dependence on foreign funding of our massive federal debt. That was obvious to me, but I guess not to the left.


RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Keeir on 2/7/2012 6:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is math a foreign concept to you, or perhaps efficiency?


Errr... actually Ringold, unless you have a great deal of non-public information, I doubt you've even done the math youself.

Information that needs to be supplied: (Guess)
Price per Volt Fleet: (40,000)
Overhead per Buy versus typical Fleet: (0)
Price per Gallon (US Gov): (3.00)
Price per kWh (US Gov): (0.05)
Daily Electrical Utilization Percentage: (75%)
Length of Usage: (150,000 miles)
Salvage Value: (10,000)
MPG of equivalent buy: (27 MPG EPA Fusion)
Fleet cost of equivalent buy: (20,000)
Salve Value: (5,000)
Do Fleet Sales count against Enacted Limits on EV Tax Credits? (No)

In the above situation, is the Volt a bad bargin? Yes. But then I am assuming the government is swapping the Volt in for a bargin basement Fusion (A very popular government fleet car) and I am getting a negative balance of only ~3,500. This would be easily overturned if the Government was paying itself the 7,500 credit, or if GM sold a special fleet package to US gov or the Volt is being used only when GPS is a requirement. In truth the Federal Government buys a wide assortment of fleet cars, and recent Fusion/Focus buys are some of the best in terms of MPG and overall TCO.

In conclusion, the Volt is likely a poor investment for the Federal Government, especially considering that the initial purchase difference will incur interest. But there are fleet cars that the government currently owns and uses that it would make sense to replace with a Volt (or other expensive hybrid). Do I trust the government to do so... probably not. But thats a very different set of assumptions than what you're using, which appear to me to be influenced more by right-wing rhetoric than by an actual mathematical analysis.


RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 9:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the above situation, is the Volt a bad bargin? Yes.


And then

quote:
But thats a very different set of assumptions than what you're using, which appear to me to be influenced more by right-wing rhetoric than by an actual mathematical analysis.


So I'm right when you engage the brain and look at some numbers, which consumers have done as well and why they realize the Volt is a poor choice. But, I'm wrong, because you get the sense I have conservative views. Troll. I wasn't aware desiring economic efficiency from government was necessarily conservative, either, but I guess these days it is.

Obviously there's an exception to everything and likely a few specific cases where a small number of Volts are more effective. But is that the general case? Doubtful. Seems to me like a bargain on a Ford Fiesta or some similar A-to-B people mover would be the best bet. Thanks though for agreeing with what the free market has already told us (that the Volt doesn't make economic sense), even if it pained you.


By Keeir on 2/7/2012 9:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seems to me like a bargain on a Ford Fiesta or some similar A-to-B people mover would be the best bet.


Too bad the government doesn't really buy A/B market cars.

To asses whether the Volt was a good purchase or not for the Government, we need to consider the economic cost to the Government versus it's next most likely action, not your perceived best value to the Government.

I don't know where the Volt's have been deployed. But its well within the realm of possibility the Volt's are correctly deployed and the overall exercise was positive for the Government compared to the choices it would have made sans Volt. Or perhaps we should also express the same rage at Ford? The Government after all buys Fusion Hybrids and Escape Hybrids that make less economic sense than the Volt.


RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 9:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I'm right when you engage the brain and look at some numbers, which consumers have done as well and why they realize the Volt is a poor choice. But, I'm wrong, because you get the sense I have conservative views. Troll.


Pretty much. He's very eloquent, but he seems to be arguing against the Conservatives here, even when he's agreeing with the message. By definition, that's trollish behavior.


By Spuke on 2/8/2012 10:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By definition, that's trollish behavior.
Possibly, but Keeir strikes me as someone that isn't a conservative nor liberal OR maybe a bit of both. That would be a good description of me. I am a registered independent that votes republican mostly BUT there are issues that I'm liberal on. I like to be open to other ideas and ways to do things. I will say that I don't support anything that removes freedoms and rights even if that means we all "burn in hell" so to speak.


By Keeir on 2/7/2012 6:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
@Fleet buys - So you're against our own government fleet becoming less dependant on oil? A volt in our fleet replaces an old giant gas guzzler. But I guess that's bad too.


This is far from certain. While 1990s and early 2000 Government fleet purchases were dominated by American Made Vs and V8s, recent years have seen the Government fleet purchases focus in on I4s for some taskes. The question is where and how the Volt (or other expensive Hybrids) would be used. There are situations where the Volt makes sense versus the existing replacement car... and others where it does not... I doubt the US government is smart enough to use the Volt appropriately.


RE: The media hurt the Volt not the crashes
By hartleyb on 2/7/2012 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
This is an outright lie!!! The volt was not profitable for GM prior to the fires and recall. The actual numbers havn't been published, but GM hadn't even started to pay for the production cost before the volt tanked. For an automobile to be profitable it needs to sell in the range of 100000 to 200000 units to pay for the production line. The huge variation is due to type of Vehicle i.e. luxury vs. standard and the difficulty of the production i.e. trucks are actually easier to make then cars.


By Keeir on 2/7/2012 6:55:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For an automobile to be profitable it needs to sell in the range of 100000 to 200000 units to pay for the production line.


Gosh! You're pretty good at telling the future. You already know that the GM won't sell 100,000 units on the tooling it invested to create the Volt line?!?

Did it occur to you that almost all of the "Volt" investments are dual use? The battery pack facility produced hybrid batteries as well. The production line could be converted to produce Cruzes, Sonics, or Malibus with relatively minor chances (in comparison to setting up a completely new line anwyway)

People who like to gloat about the Volt "failure" often use the above faulty logic to puff up the numbers. The Volt is a unique piece of Automotive hardware the required GM to invest in unique and cutting edge IP in car design, car toolings, etc, etc. Back in the 1990s, Toyota developed the Prius. It took 5+ years to sell 100,000 cars (Worldwide sales). At which point Toyota had invested in 2 revision of the original hardware! Although I don't like the Prius, there is no question that the Prius has been an effective Halo car for Toyota and is now transiting into a mass market status (more than 10 years after the original introduction)

Yet people expect:
Volt must be profitable in year 1 (took 7 years for the Prius to accomplish this)!
Volt must sell 60,000 units a year immediately (took 7 years for the Prius to accomplish this)!
Volt must never have any issues ever (Original Prius was not even released in the US... due in part to problems)!

This is stupid. Like it or hate it, the Volt is exactly the type of RD research you want a company to be investigating in the face of steadily rising fuel costs and the political climate both in the US and the World. I hope GM continues the effort. In hindsight, GM's handling of the EV-1 situation was the correct business case move at the time, but lacked the vision that successful companies rely on... Imagine a world where GM could release a 150 miles Corvette instead of Tesla producing the Roadster. Imagine a world where GM sells high tech automotive batteries to the world. Maybe in that world, GM doesn't require an Automotive Bail-out because it actually has the Engineering base to produce the products that keep it competitive in PR and sales floor.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki