backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Aug 8 at 10:49 PM

The Volt's new MSRP is $34,995

Earlier this year, Nissan slashed the price of its all-electric Leaf hatchback by $6,000 to spur sales. Last month, Ford countered with a $4,000 price reduction on its Focus Electric hatchback, bringing it down to $35,200.
 
Now, it's General Motors' turn as it lops $5,000 from the base MSRP of the Chevrolet Volt. As a result, the new price of entry for the plug-in is $34,995. That price still makes the Volt more expensive than the Leaf ($28,800), but the Volt has the advantage of an onboard 1.4-liter gasoline engine/generator that allows the vehicle to keep on truckin' once its 38-mile all-electric range is exhausted (total driving range is 380 miles).
 
The Volt still qualifies for a $7,500 federal tax credit (and some states like California pile on even more incentives), so the price of entry could fall to $27,495 or even lower depending on the state you live in and your current tax situation.

 
The Volt has long been the whipping boy of critics due to its high price tag and GM's past bankruptcy proceedings, but that still hasn't stopped the vehicle from posting modest sales gains year-over-year (11,643 Volts have been sold for the first seven months of 2013, up 9.2 percent from the same period last year).
 
“We have made great strides in reducing costs as we gain experience with electric vehicles and their components,” said Don Johnson, VP of Chevrolet sales and service. “In fact, the Volt has seen an increase in battery range and the addition of creature comforts, such as a leather-wrapped steering wheel and MyLink, since its launch in 2010.”
 
Back in April, GM reported that Volt drivers are averaging roughly 900 miles between trips to the gas station. Brent Waldrep, a Volt owner from Michigan, amazingly managed to drive 23,000 miles with only two stops to a gas station.
 
Today, GM is reporting that Volt owners have a logged a total of 364 million miles, 225 million of which were on battery power alone.
 
GM was also quick to point out that it was able to cut the price of the Volt without removing any standard features from the vehicle. And it should also be noted that GM has already stated that it will be able to reduce the cost of building the next generation Volt by $7,000 to $10,000. Perhaps by that time, we could see a base price of $29,995.

Source: General Motors



Comments     Threshold


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

Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By somecanuck on 8/6/2013 8:36:03 AM , Rating: 5
I discounted electric vehicles for quite some time until I talked to a fellow co-worker who owned one. He broke down the actual costs to me and I did a 180 very fast.

What changed my mind? He told me that out of pocket for his 11,000km he had paid a grand total of $250 (cdn, btw). That's $0.023c/KM ($0.036c/mile)! For my car, I get about 10x that ($0.22c/km, $0.32c/mile)!!

I wish people writing articles about electric cars would talk about how much money per KM/mile people get, instead of just the gas side of things.

Yes, it fluctuates per person. Yes, it's harder to compare to MPG. But most people know how many miles per tank they get for their car, and then how much they spend at the pumps.

If you list the average $ per 100 miles that Volt (for example) owners get, you would see why the car companies are headed this way. Plus it helps make it an easier transition to Fuel Cell/Hydrogen.




RE: Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By Mint on 8/6/2013 11:42:57 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, the media has been pretty incompetent. EVs still have the image of being pricey, despite the $199/mo models (Leaf, Spark, 500e) having the lowest monthly cost (lease+fuel) of pretty much ANY car.

The gov't is trying to educate with online cost calculators. The EPA sticker also has a figure to show what they'll save in 5 years vs an average car, but maybe they don't believe it. I bet the majority of people won't understand how good $0.022/km is either.


RE: Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By Spuke on 8/6/2013 12:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem with cost per mile/km is everyone has different ideas of what that is. Some people include maintenance, or maint/insurance/car payment or just fuel costs. When I see cost per mile/km. I have no idea what that person included in that calculation. I include car payment, maintenance, cost of fuel, and miles driven. My present car is .17 per mile.


RE: Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By Keeir on 8/6/2013 6:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My present car is .17 per mile


Unless your using historic values?, I have difficulty seeing this.

If I get a 2013 Civic and use it for 5 years/75,000 miles - Cost per Mile .45 (Payment, Fuel, Insurance, Maintainces, etc, $4 dollar a gallon gas)

If I get a 2013 Civic and use it for 10 years/150,000 miles - Cost per Mile around .35, provided no major overhauls are required.

Heck, at today's fuel prices, a car that gets 24 MPG requires more than .17 per mile in Fuel + Oil Changes.

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2013/04/cost-of-owning-and...

Now, I find the figure that AAA comes up with of ~.60 per mile to be widely high for someone who takes car of thier car, does good preventive work, and does the standard maintainence themself....


By Samus on 8/6/2013 11:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
Chicago a kilowatt is <8 cents and is 73% nuclear. Zero emissions (unless hydrogen byproduct of nuclear power is considered an emission.) The remaining 17% natural gas, 7% wind, and 3% hydro, biomass and solar have negligible emissions. Notice that beginning in 2013, the city of Chicago is 0% coal fire powered, an amazing feat since 36% of its electricity was coal in 2009. Certain counties and most of central and parts of southern Illinois still use coal power.

Ohio is phasing out coal power and wants to be coal-free by 2025 as reported on NPR. The entire state. I know the coal industry is bitching, but honestly those are terrible, high risk jobs, and a lot of the mining is done by machine now anyway so employment is a fraction of what it was 50 years ago. Most of the skills workers can be retrained to new projects such as nuclear plant construction (temporary work) or rare earth mining.

Of course the problem with an EV in Chicago is the cold winter will reduce performance, and hot weather will require a lot of AC action. But most commutes are short (long travels times in traffic, but short distances)

Additionally, a lot of power in the midwest is being wind generated now. We have a lot of wind. I don't really understand the solar panels I randomly see, but wind makes sense.

There are no coal burning or oil burning plants in the city of Chicago.


RE: Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By EricMartello on 8/7/2013 12:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I discounted electric vehicles for quite some time until I talked to a fellow co-worker who owned one. He broke down the actual costs to me and I did a 180 very fast.

What changed my mind? He told me that out of pocket for his 11,000km he had paid a grand total of $250 (cdn, btw). That's $0.023c/KM ($0.036c/mile)! For my car, I get about 10x that ($0.22c/km, $0.32c/mile)!!


No sir, you and your buddy are both dead wrong, because you are ignoring the fact that the electric variant is typically 2x more expensive than a gas-only version of the vehicle of the same class.

Chevy Volt - $34K MSRP ($5K discount)
Chevy Cruze Eco - $17K MSRP

The two cars above are IN THE SAME CLASS of vehicle. Similar trim levels and appointments, size, cargo capacity, etc. Notice how the Volt costs double that of the Cruze.

If you choose the Volt over the Cruze you need to factor in the $17K premium that you paid for the Volt before you talk about "fuel savings".

The Cruze Eco is rated for 42 MPG, but let's just say it averages 40 MPG and let's pretend gas is $4/gallon.

$17,000 / $4 = 4,250 gallons of gas

4,250 gals * 40 MPG = 170,000 miles

170,000 miles / 15,000 avg miles per year = 11.3 years

You would need to drive 170K miles, which would typically take over 11 years, before you'd even come close to breaking even by choosing the Volt over the Cruze.

All the while, you'd be stuck with an impractical, range and capability limited EV that looks dumb and makes you look dumb for owning.


RE: Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By Keeir on 8/7/2013 12:54:42 AM , Rating: 1
Sigh.

#1. A 2014 Cruze Eco Manual starts at 20,500.
#2. When options to a Volt base level is more like 23,000 MSRP. Tough to do since they don't ever truly line up.

You obviously have no idea what your talking about... but if your going to rant, you could at least compare apples to apples. For most buys the Volt will be a 5,000-10,000 premium over the same car. It allows then to go where-ever they want since it has gasoline. It will take between 5-10 years to make sense financially for most people. And for some people never would.


By lelias2k on 8/7/2013 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention federal and state rebates, which in CA add up to $10k and bring the Volt price down to $24.5k.

Also, try to lease the Cruze Eco for the same monthly payment as the Volt. It won't be easy.


RE: Post the total cost of 'Fuel'!!!
By flatrock on 8/7/2013 3:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
I guess there may be some places where the government is spreading the cost over the tax base to bring the price down that low, but at that point you are getting tax subsidies to cover 1/3 of the price of the vehicle. Believe it or not tax dollars are a limited resource, as some states are finally figuring out. Don't you think there are better things to be using our tax dollars on than on subsidizing vehicles for the middle class that only produce much benefit if the driver only rarely drives more than short distances, which means they aren't a significant contributor to the CO2 emissions that the tax dollars are supposed to be used to address?

Some people who have short commutes ad low low to moderate speeds would be able to break even in 5-10 years, but that's a pretty small slice of drivers. There has been a huge investment in electric vehicles going back quite a few years, and this is what we have gotten from it so far? If the government pays for 1/3 of the car it can be considered cost effective for a tiny percentage of urban drivers after close to a decade of use?

Prime example of government waste to address political goals regardless of if the approach is a remotely effective use of tax dollars.


By lelias2k on 8/7/2013 4:36:40 PM , Rating: 3
What do you mean a pretty small slice of drivers?

Seventy seven percent (77%) of Americans commute less than 40 miles a DAY. Yes, that's round trip.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/

Care to review your argument?


By EricMartello on 8/8/2013 10:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
#1. A 2014 Cruze Eco Manual starts at 20,500.
#2. When options to a Volt base level is more like 23,000 MSRP. Tough to do since they don't ever truly line up.


They don't have to "line up" exactly. Even if you ignore the fact that nobody is paying MSRP on a car like the Cruze (although we did factor in the $5K discount on the Volt just to give it an advantage in this comparison) and are more likely than not getting it for $2-$3K under MSRP, the Volt is still nearly double its price.

The bottom line is that YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE HUGE PRICE GAP BETWEEN AN EV AND A GASOLINE-ONLY CAR IN THE SAME CLASS AS THE EV.

quote:
You obviously have no idea what your talking about... but if your going to rant, you could at least compare apples to apples. For most buys the Volt will be a 5,000-10,000 premium over the same car. It allows then to go where-ever they want since it has gasoline. It will take between 5-10 years to make sense financially for most people. And for some people never would.


Sorry but no. The Volt's premium over the Cruze is a 5-figure number minimum, and that's with a $5K discount on the Volt's MSRP and a bullsh1t $7,500 tax credit.

It will realistically take AT LEAST 10 years for the Volt to represent a cost savings over a car like the Cruze, because its savings assume most of your driving is done electric-only, which means 35 miles at a time (assuming ideal conditions; electric range can drop substantially in very hot or cold weather, and also if you live in an area with frequent changes in elevation). If you continually exceed the electric-only range on the Volt, you will burn gas, and your cost to drive the car will rise accordingly.

Like I said, for a person interested in an efficient mode of transportation that does not put them on a 35 mile leash, an EV is a terrible choice. A hybrid is rather pointless when the Cruze Diesel gets nearly 50 MPG and doesn't need to lug around 30% of its weight in batteries.


I want an electric car that's half the weight
By jensend on 8/6/2013 11:41:59 AM , Rating: 4
The curb weight arms race is responsible for a lot of the inefficiency of today's cars. Our old Chevy Sprint- a 5 passenger hatchback- weighed < 1500lb and got 44mpg city / 53 hwy. For the sake of "safety" the most recent Smart Fortwo- a dinky two-passenger car with little cargo room- weighs 2250 lb and gets 34 city/ 38 hwy.

The Volt weighs almost 3800lb. The only thing stopping people from making an 1800lb electric car is the curb weight arms race. It's carried out in the name of safety but ultimately makes everyone *much less* safe.




RE: I want an electric car that's half the weight
By Mint on 8/6/2013 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 1
Your Chevy Sprint got that rating under the old EPA test, not the current one. It's more challenging and realistic now, which is why the same car in the US gets far lower mileage than in Europe, even when you consider the different gallon.

I don't know why you're putting safety in quotes. Cars with poor safety ratings get poor sales. The Sprint's awful acceleration and interior would kill sales even more.


RE: I want an electric car that's half the weight
By jensend on 8/6/2013 11:15:35 PM , Rating: 4
I'm quite aware of the difference in EPA tests. I quoted you the new EPA test number, not the old one, which was 55 city / 60 hwy.

"Safety" is in quotes because having all vehicles heavier doesn't make you more safe. As I said, it's an arms race. If your car weighs 3000lb and everyone else's weighs 1500lb, you are going to be safer in a collision than if yours was also 1500lb, while others are now less safe. If everyone has a car that weighs 3000 lb, everyone is less safe than if everyone had a 1500lb car. The unhealthy obsession with individual cars' front-end collision test results has killed fuel economy while not making people safer. (In addition, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists get the shaft even more than everybody else when car curb weights go up.)

To remedy this arms race, safety regulations should only regulate the damage your vehicle is likely to do to others in a crash, not the damage your car is likely to sustain. (People in a reasonably free market can decide freely how much risk they're willing to take, but not how much risk they'll inflict on others.) By that standard, a 3800lb sedan would fail safety tests.


By Mint on 8/7/2013 4:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not talking about safety from weight. I agree with everything you said on that matter, and have made the same points before.

I'm talking about crash test ratings, air bags, etc. Ratings do matter in the real world:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20453764
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21972861
quote:
Based on the driver-only rating, drivers of vehicles rated good were 70 percent less likely to die when involved in left-side crashes than drivers of vehicles rated poor, after controlling for driver and vehicle factors. Compared with vehicles rated poor, driver death risk was 64 percent lower for vehicles rated acceptable and 49 percent lower for vehicles rated marginal. All 3 results were statistically significant.


By lelias2k on 8/7/2013 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that weight IS a problem, a couple of points:

- All the weight cars have put in is not only from safety measurements. Sure, they are the bulk of it, but cars have much more accessories today, as well as sound deadening material, which is not that light.

- It is irrelevant to have all cars weighting 1500 lbs, when you live in a country where people go nuts after 4000-6000lbs SUVs. I have them, but the US is in love with them, so what's the solution? Buckle up and strengthen those little boogers! :)


RE: I want an electric car that's half the weight
By Keeir on 8/7/2013 12:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
Common, be serious.

The 1986 Chevy Sprint ER (the version you are referring to) was a special go for broke type approach. It used a very low final drive ratio. Custom Cam Shaft (HMMMM wonder why the normal sprint didn't use the same one?) Among many other special enhancements... like a lack of airbags! Or even a cassette player.

Calling it "5 passenger" is silly. It was a crappy car that used friggin leaf springs, and a 44 hp 3 cylinder motor that essentially was always at the cusp of pollution controls. (The Geo/Chevy Metro was phased out in 2001 precisely because once the right emission equipment was added, there was a significantly less jump in MPG rating).

While safety is important source of lower MPG. Emissions controls are a second large source. Today's most polluting car pollutes less than 1/100 of that Chevy Sprint ER per mile. I would say people's desire to have a reasonable passenger volume for 4 people. People's desire to have a "quiet" car. People's desire to get to highway speeds in less than 15 seconds. People's desire to have speakers, CD players, power winders, power seat, etc, etc. All of these play a large role.

I think you also ought to consider that in 1986, the heyday of this type of car, there were 2.4 deaths per million miles. Today there is 1.1 deaths per million miles. That's cutting the risk of death in -half-. A driver of a Smart ForTwo probably has 50%-75% of serious maiming or death in the same accident as the driver of a Chevy Sprint ER.


By lelias2k on 8/7/2013 4:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the extremely well written answer!


Chevy Volt fails the common sense test!
By kdlhouston on 8/6/2013 10:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a marketing guy. I work for a large, corporate marketing department. I like the looks and concept of the Volt but the problem with the Volt is that it's potential target market (in my opinion), young, professional, inner city dwellers traditionally live in tight spaces like high-rise condos or lofts. They traditionally have to park their cars in parking garages or on public streets where there traditionally aren't electrical connections. Electric cars are more logistically practical for suburbanites but aren't a good fit due to the fact that the vehicles are too small for those with larger families and sports equipment...etc. Also,the nature of suburbanites is that they travel allot more miles per day. In summary, until urban environments are wired the with appropriate electric billing for electric cars or the battery limitations increase electric cars are NOT feasible or practical.




By hpglow on 8/6/2013 11:01:05 AM , Rating: 3
My wife's commute to work is just long enough that a Volt would never need fuel until she turned the heat on in the winter. The convienance of never visiting a pump would be nice. If we could afford one it would it would be at the top of our list of vehicles.


RE: Chevy Volt fails the common sense test!
By jimbojimbo on 8/6/2013 12:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
I lived in the city and parked in a parking garage that had 6 charging stations. They even let you charge up for free but the fact was that they had six spots that were open and you could not reserve them. That meant one day you could take your car out and come back to find them all occupied so you won't be able to charge your car that night. Because of that even with the infrastructure partly in place I decided not to get an electric car since there was always the chance you won't be able to charge it.


By kmmatney on 8/6/2013 2:37:52 PM , Rating: 3
That's why the Volt is nice - you can still drive it if you are not able to charge it. I don't know why anyone would go all-electric yet, unless you get something with tremendous range, like the Tesla.


Eco Nazis?? hmmm
By marketsvcs on 8/6/2013 10:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
interesting comments as the US is currently forced to close embassy's across the mid-east, fighting a foe financed by oil profits

Why should we continue to buy oil from a people who are continuing take our oil money to buy bullets to kill us??

I know you want to kill me, so, here take my hundred bucks to buy a gun??

Think people!




RE: Eco Nazis?? hmmm
By hpglow on 8/6/13, Rating: 0
By flyingpants1 on 8/6/2013 9:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is the cheapest EV that can also go a long range with the gas extender, at $27.5k.

The Prius starts at $25k and uses a ton of gas. Color me impressed.

You have 14,600 pure electric miles/year with this car. More with charging. Looking at gas cost, (35 miles per $4.50), that's potentially a $9385 savings in gas over 5 years (not accounting for electricity costs).

It's not even a question anymore. EVs have succeeded, it's just taking a while to sink in. Once the next-gen Volt and PHEVs come out at an even lower price, the naysayers will quickly fade forever just like they did with Tesla.




LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 6:20:27 AM , Rating: 3
So you see the point in switching to CNG for trucks and trains for lower energy cost (which I agree with), but not gasoline to electric with even lower cost per mile for the nearly 3 trillion vehicle miles traveled in light duty vehicles? You don't see the point in eliminating a huge chunk of maintenance costs?

Even when natural gas is used to create the electricity going into an EV, you can get 60% efficiency at a CCGT plant but only 30% from a bifuel vehicle. Night charging lets us use idle capital at plants and smooth the demand curve, reducing net cost per kWh. There's no infrastructure problem for cars like the Volt (charging at home alone gets you 9k+ electric miles a year), but there is for CNG refueling of long haul trucks.

Oil imports are over half of the trade deficit and we're in a demand limited economy, so of course it's good to get off foreign oil.

Virtually everything is produced in a global market, so what point are you trying to make? Gas exports aren't going away if we lower domestic oil consumption. By your logic we should let other countries make all our goods and not care because hey, it's a global market.

EVs make sense for so many reasons, half of which I haven't even mentioned.


RE: LOLectric
By flatrock on 8/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: LOLectric
By BRB29 on 8/6/2013 7:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the rant. We all know the subsidies are not sustainable and was never meant to be. Why can't people just understand subsidies, grants and low interest loans are a government's way to encouraging the private industry to head towards a direction. These subsidies will disappear just like the hybrid subsidies. People cried about those things back then too.

These subsidies will be a drop in the bucket compared to the impact EVs will have on the Trade Balance. Not only will we use less fuel, we will increase our exports. Less import, more export. Something we needed for a long time.


RE: LOLectric
By flatrock on 8/6/2013 9:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
EVs may very well have a significant impact in the future, but a 20% subsidy plus all the government grants for research and all the low interest loans to companies doing EV research have been an absolutely horrible investment because they threw way too much money at it way too soon. I'm an engineer. I worked in the defense industry for many years. I believe that there are definitely benefits to the government investing in new technologies, but there has to be some rational concept of return on investment rather than doing what is politically expedient and giving the appearance of doing something on hot issues.

Companies like Tesla and a few others doing electric conversion of existing vehicles along with government subsidized research were already moving the technology along. Has the tech been developed faster thanks to the subsidies? Some, but at a cost of billions, and even the government's own studies show it has been a poor use of tax dollars. What it has mostly done is give thousands of upper middle class people a car with a gimmick that they are still paying a premium for even after the subsidies.

Then there are things like the Solyndra fiasco where the public sees how much these subsidies are tied to politics and how little they are tied to practical benefits and the government goes into damage control mode and cuts off the funding to all kinds of programs, once again completely regardless of merit and drives a large number of EV tech companies into bankruptcy, many of which won't recover so all the tax dollars invested in them were a complete waste not because they didn't have merit, but because those in charge of the programs are far more worried about the politics than actually promoting viable technologies.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 11:11:20 AM , Rating: 4
Tesla lost $1B before making any profit, and Elon put almost all his own money into the company. They absolutely needed the DOE loan to get where they are, and only after the Model S was built and well reviewed did the private market value the company so much more, allowing Tesla to issue shares and pay the loan off early with interest.

The critical assistance in the creation of a $15B world EV tech leader on US soil is more than worth the Solyndra goofup. The loan to Nissan will be paid back as well (they're not going bankrupt), and without it the Smyrna facility probably wouldn't be built here.

Again, stop being so myopic. EVs - even those sold to the upper class - should be on the road for 20+ years. I bought a 6 year old BMW for 1/5th the MSRP when I was a poor grad student, despite it being an "expensive toy" for a few years to the original owner. EVs aren't a gimmick. They save real dollars over a vehicle's lifetime. Consumers see savings from day one if they lease.

The gov't cutting off funding to programs has nothing to do with EV subsidies. It's 100% the fault of deficit fear mongering by the GOP, which would exist with or without the EV scapegoat.


RE: LOLectric
By Chaser on 8/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: LOLectric
By Chaser on 8/6/2013 1:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
I might add this Democratic notion that the federal debt situation is inconsequential? Allow me to remind the world that for the first time in U.S. history our sitting president has presided over our country's first federal government credit rating downgrade by Standard and Poor's. A credit rating company that unlike many other entities- has to set aside politics to maintain their credibility.

So those that dismiss the implications of reckless government spending and debt like the taxpayer funded economic experts on NPR (for instance) can take their arguments up with S&P.

Want an EV? Buy Ford or an import. My tax dollars paying for lavish GM union pensions and "Cadillac" benefits is another crony sham that government should STAY OUT OF.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 1:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are you that clueless? The downgrade was entirely due to the GOP threatening to bankrupt the gov't by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

Rather ironic that you're telling others to talk to the S&P when you don't bother listening to them yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal...


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/13, Rating: 0
RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 3:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Really? You think the US government debt is akin to me paying my credit card? Are you seriously that delusional?

If the US debt got so risky under Obama, then why didn't the free market demand a risk premium for it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/20...
quote:
As the chart shows, rates have risen and fallen in concert over the past two years. But if any definable pattern is evident, it is that the AAA nations of Canada and Australia have had to pay a premium to borrow money compared with the AA+ rated United States. It is a sign that markets have never come around to the S&P view that the United states is in fact less creditworthy than Canada and Australia.


The almighty free market had ZERO fear of America's ability to pay back its debt, or even hyperinflation. The only risk anyone sees is default through the debt-ceiling.

Don't talk about stuff you don't understand.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 4:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Straw men and hindsight-based articles from two years later non withstanding, you still haven't addressed the points I've busted you on. You directly blamed the GOP and GOP alone for our credit reduction. That's a lie, admit it.

To be clear, we were headed in the wrong direction before Obama took office. But it's obvious he had no intention of spending less or reducing debt. The S&P wanted to see our lawmakers make a serious effort to cut trillion of dollars from out debt over 10 years. Obama and the Democrats were vocally and adamantly against such cuts and fought them to the very end. So how was this the GOP's fault again?

I'm not interested in what the free market thought or it's fears. I'm not interested in risk premiums or what some Liberal author (Washington Post lawl) spin was. We're not discussing that.

You lied when you blamed the GOP for our credit rating reduction. Nothing you've said or posted has changed that. I know you, like all Liberals, want to pretend we live in a world where we can borrow, print and spend without limits (only on the things you care about, of course), but just grow some balls and stop using the "GOP" as a scapegoat for it all. That's just unacceptable.

quote:
Really? You think the US government debt is akin to me paying my credit card? Are you seriously that delusional?


Actually I was using a very simple analogy that I had hoped a child could understand. Which is what you present yourself to be with every post.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 9:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You directly blamed the GOP and GOP alone for our credit reduction. That's a lie, admit it.

No, it's not a lie. Want further proof? Look at gov't credit default swaps:
http://www.surlytrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011...
Did investors start betting on default as spending went up?Nope. The spread sharply rose precisely when the GOP really started playing hardball with the debt ceiling.

The S&P merely echoed this market sentiment a week later.

This data completely and utterly refutes your contention that spending caused the concern for default as opposed to the debt ceiling.

Today, the spread is much lower:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38451750
The US spread is lower than that of all but a few small nations. Nobody is seriously worried about the US defaulting on debt.

We have a fiat currency and low core inflation. The Federal Reserve always has the threat of purchasing bonds (i.e. printing money) to handle any revenue shortfall IF there is no debt ceiling preventing the gov't from issuing them. The US isn't Greece, i.e. without control over its own currency.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 9:47:37 PM , Rating: 1
It's official: You're insane.

Honestly you've created a virtual reality where your batshit crazy Liberal ideology makes sense.

I linked the entire S&P report. I even highlighted their statement, directly, where they expressly stated they wanted to see an agreement on the reduction of TRILLIONS in our debt (ie spend less) or they would reduce our rating. How much more plainly can one get!?

Of course the GOP didn't agree that allowing us to go further into debt, would somehow REDUCE our debt. Only a crazy moron would!!!

I guess when all the revenue of the Federal Government isn't even enough to pay the interest on our debt, your stupid ass will still be claiming that everything is fine, debt doesn't matter, we have fiat currency guys!


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 10:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, I should have known that you'd dodge all the factual data I presented.

There's nothing liberal about credit default swaps. If you can't understand them, then admit it. The S&P's sees the controlling party in congress threatening to default the US gov't if spending isn't cut by trillions. So what else would it recommend? Overthrow Congress?

Their job is to assess the risk of default. It doesn't matter if that risk comes from an inability to pay or a forced default from the debt ceiling. The only way the latter can be mitigated with the GOP in Congress is with spending cuts. The S&P wouldn't even mention the debt ceiling if that wasn't a problem.
quote:
I guess when all the revenue of the Federal Government isn't even enough to pay the interest on our debt
LOL only brainwashed tools like you believe that this has any chance of happening.

Banks won't pay non-gimmick rates higher than 0.25% until they empty out their excess reserves (because they have no use for your money). Excess reserves won't go away unless the economy vastly improves for a long time. And without demand for money from banks, short term US treasuries will be bought with very low rates because there's nowhere else for it to go.

Interest rates aren't going anywhere. Unless some whack supply sider takes control and cuts gov't revenue by 3/4, there's no chance of your fear playing out.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 4:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you that clueless? The downgrade was entirely due to the GOP threatening to bankrupt the gov't by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.


The debt ceiling does not need to be raised. The rampant spending needs to be reduced. When 40% of tax dollars are going toward social programs and entitlements, yes, it's time to dial back.

Republicans did not put the government in a situation to become "bankrupt" in the first place. Your link to wikipedia only highlights your ignorance, and the fact that just because you have a right to speak doesn't mean you should.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 4:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
The pure illogical fiscal viewpoints liberals like Mint operate in are unknown to me.

An entity's credit rating - whether we're talking about an individual, a household, or a business - is measured by amongst other things the total amount of debt outstanding, the value of the assets owned, and the cash flow generated each year.

If debt outstanding rises without a commensurate increase in assets or cash flow, the creditworthiness drops.

Yet some idiots like Mint and his Liberal sources are actually saying that in the United States's case, if it were to remove a curb on debt growth, in their view this would increase creditworthiness!!!!

And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?


RE: LOLectric
By Spuke on 8/6/2013 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?
I had a friend that retired a year ago, is liberal, and would not agree at all with Mint. I think liberals like Mint are some new kind of nutjob liberal that, like other nutjobs, seems to come out of the woodwork whenever the economy goes to crap. What you say Mint makes not a lick of sense and this is coming from a born and raised liberal (who no longer belongs to any group BTW).


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 5:48:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I had a friend that retired a year ago, is liberal, and would not agree at all with Mint. I think liberals like Mint are some new kind of nutjob liberal that, like other nutjobs, seems to come out of the woodwork whenever the economy goes to crap. What you say Mint makes not a lick of sense and this is coming from a born and raised liberal (who no longer belongs to any group BTW).


If someone asks me my political party, well, it's Republican, but that doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything that the elected republican officials do or say.

My personal views typically fall between the center or right side of the political spectrum, mainly because I KNOW (know, not believe) that people enjoy their lives to the fullest when social policies promote individual liberty rather than dependence and despair.

Many of the feel-good policies from the left would make more sense on a family level rather than a matter of law or policy. A parent should be willing to support their children; but it is unreasonable and wrong to say that taxpayers should support the children of people who were unwilling or unable to pull their own weight.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/7/2013 12:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone wants the free market to create jobs and make people self sufficient. The reality, however, is that it will only do so with more consumption.

That's indisputable. You cannot get more hiring unless there is demand for more goods/services to be produced.

So let's take your suggestion of cutting entitlements to balance the budget. Since you don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all, we can't cut gov't revenue. Now all those people receiving entitlements stop buying stuff with them. For service cuts, they pay for it themselves now by buying less stuff.

That's LESS consumption. We balanced the budget, but the economy shrinks, and thus we get layoffs. So what's your next suggestion? Cut more spending and reduce taxes as well? So we cut $100B in gov't funded consumption, and give $100B in tax cuts. Some of those tax cuts are used for consumption, the rest for savings (adding to banks' idle excess reserves), so on the whole, we get even less consumption. More layoffs.

So tell me, how does this strategy lead to people living their lives to the fullest?

There was a time that I'd agree with you. From WW2 onwards, there would always be enough consumption to employ everyone that wanted to work, so minimal entitlements worked. When that waned in the early 80's, we started using private debt as a crutch to boost consumption. No excess reserves, so $100 saved is $90 lent (and more after the money multiplier). Private debt kept rising to $40T, fueling housing construction, car purchases, etc.

Unfortunately, that well is dry now. It's a demand limited economy.

There's nowhere to safely lend, so we have $2T excess reserves that keep growing. Further saving does nothing. That's why relying on liberty to employ everyone is a dead end in today's world. The masses aren't earning enough to buy more stuff, the banks can't rely on them to pay back a loan which helps them buy stuff, the rich have no need to buy more stuff so they just save, and we're too productive to need full employment to produce this stuff. Democratically voted spending/redistribution is the last avenue of new consumption left.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/8/2013 10:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone wants the free market to create jobs and make people self sufficient. The reality, however, is that it will only do so with more consumption.


No, I don't want the market to create jobs. Job positions open up when the climate for starting and operating small businesses are favorable. Businesses do not exist for the purpose of providing jobs; they exist to earn a PROFIT.

Consumption will increase when more people have disposable income, which happens when they have good jobs, which happens when businesses are not impeded by regulatory burdens and mandates like obamacare.

quote:
That's indisputable. You cannot get more hiring unless there is demand for more goods/services to be produced./quote>

See above.

quote:
So let's take your suggestion of cutting entitlements to balance the budget. Since you don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all, we can't cut gov't revenue. Now all those people receiving entitlements stop buying stuff with them. For service cuts, they pay for it themselves now by buying less stuff.


Any entitlement dollar spent on a good requires at least $3 of economic activity. Follow the math:

Taxes are about 30% of peoples' income when you combine income tax with sales tax.

$3 * 30% = $0.90

Someone had to earn $3, either a business or working person, so that a lazy sack of sh1t on welfare could spend 90 cents of someone's money.

If instead of giving money to people, the money was given to businesses in the form of loans or tax deductions, businesses would be able to form and expand, offering better paying jobs to a wider range of people.

Removing laws like obamacare would further improve this process.

Your way has been in practice since the 60s and it doesn't work. The people collect these entitlements and start depending on them. They do not move up in society; they stay at or near where they started, often falling down further.

quote:
So tell me, how does this strategy lead to people living their lives to the fullest?


No, you tell me how people on the welfare treadmill are living at all. They're merely alive.

Increased consumer spending is the sign of a healthy economy; it's not a pillar of the economy. You don't seem to get it because you're just not that smart, which is why you and others like you are swayed by emotional pleas rather than logical strategies.

quote:
There was a time that I'd agree with you. From WW2 onwards, there would always be enough consumption to employ everyone that wanted to work, so minimal entitlements worked. When that waned in the early 80's, we started using private debt as a crutch to boost consumption. No excess reserves, so $100 saved is $90 lent (and more after the money multiplier). Private debt kept rising to $40T, fueling housing construction, car purchases, etc.


The problems started happening in the 60s, with the "sexual revolution" that earmarked the demise of the nuclear family. This played out well into the 70s and didn't stop until Reagan was elected and managed to fix some of it.

You don't seem to understand that it was our educational system, primarily dominated by liberals or other left-wing nutsacks, who started indoctrinating people with the notion that "blue collar" = failure and "white collar" = success. More people started attending college hoping to land a white collar job, just for prestige and not necessarily because it paid a lot more.

Fast forward to today and you have a lot of young people who feel that most jobs typically taken by teens and young adults aren't worth their time. They want to start out as corporate executives with six-figure incomes. Won't happen.

Meanwhile, the maligned blue collar workers still earn healthy $80-$120K per year incomes doing work that so many other Americans have decided they are too elite for.

So your commentary about America being a lot different now than it was immediately following WW2 is not so accurate; the demand for skilled labor is VERY high right now...but your degree in liberal arts and communications isn't going to help you. Hell, it doesn't even help you make compelling arguments on the internet...and you have $80K in debt to pay back. Math fail, as usual.

quote:
Democratically voted spending/redistribution is the last avenue of new consumption left.


Far from it. People got rich by their own merits and America is still full of opportunities for people that are willing to do the work it takes. Following the tired old blueprint of spending another 4 years of your life and $50-$100K in college when you have no real-world experience in anything is just being stupid.


RE: LOLectric
By Spuke on 8/6/2013 5:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?
I had a friend that retired a year ago, is liberal, and would not agree at all with Mint. I think liberals like Mint are some new kind of nutjob liberal that, like other nutjobs, seems to come out of the woodwork whenever the economy goes to crap. What you say Mint makes not a lick of sense and this is coming from a born and raised liberal (who no longer belongs to any group BTW).


RE: LOLectric
By Spuke on 8/6/2013 5:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?
I had a friend that retired a year ago, is liberal, and would not agree at all with Mint. I think liberals like Mint are some new kind of nutjob liberal that, like other nutjobs, seems to come out of the woodwork whenever the economy goes to crap. What you say Mint makes not a lick of sense and this is coming from a born and raised liberal (who no longer belongs to any group BTW).


RE: LOLectric
By Spuke on 8/6/2013 5:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?
I had a friend that retired a year ago, is liberal, and would not agree at all with Mint. I think liberals like Mint are some new kind of nutjob liberal that, like other nutjobs, seems to come out of the woodwork whenever the economy goes to crap. What you say Mint makes not a lick of sense and this is coming from a born and raised liberal (who no longer belongs to any group BTW).


RE: LOLectric
By Spuke on 8/6/2013 5:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?
I had a friend that retired a year ago, is liberal, and would not agree at all with Mint. I think liberals like Mint are some new kind of nutjob liberal that, like other nutjobs, seems to come out of the woodwork whenever the economy goes to crap. What you say Mint makes not a lick of sense and this is coming from a born and raised liberal (who no longer belongs to any group BTW).


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 9:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
Quintuple post? Wow.

No, I am not a normal liberal. I'm pro-nuclear, and generally anti wind and solar. I think AGW is happening, but that it's not worth combating.

Regarding the risk of default, what I said makes perfect sense. We have a fiat currency that we control, and despite the high deficit, we have low interest rates and low core inflation. That means nobody feels the slightest danger of default. For more evidence, see my post above about credit default swaps.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 9:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's NOT what you said. You said we lost our credit rating because of the GOP. A point you've utterly failed to defend, because you know it's a lie. And you backed it up with Sesame Street logic for Liberal retards that makes zero economic sense, or common sense for that matter.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 9:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Go read above. A post on CDS data is there now.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/7/2013 12:08:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, I am not a normal liberal. I'm pro-nuclear, and generally anti wind and solar. I think AGW is happening, but that it's not worth combating.


You like to talk a lot but don't make any effort to genuinely understand what you are saying...seem like a typical liberal to me...

FYI the very same computer "climate models" that weather stations use to forecast the weather for a week, with a horrendous track record, were expanded to longer time frames. The models predicted "abnormal" rises in temperature and thus the faith-based-science of "climate change" was born.

Let me reiterate that - the entire global warming 'doomsday' predictions were all based on the same shoddy mathematical models used for the 5-day forecast.

They struggle to predict TOMORROW'S weather; they have no business telling us what thy think the weather is going to be 50, 100 or 200 years from now.

quote:
Regarding the risk of default, what I said makes perfect sense. We have a fiat currency that we control, and despite the high deficit, we have low interest rates and low core inflation. That means nobody feels the slightest danger of default. For more evidence, see my post above about credit default swaps.


Please stop calling subjective material "evidence". Evidence has its roots in fact, and is not "open to interpretation"...none of what you said in any of your comments is remotely considered as evidence.

Bernanke's policies of keeping the interest rate low has created an artificial stock market "boom". It's artificial because people are putting money into stocks since there are no returns to be made in bonds, and this inflates stock prices despite most companies just sitting on the capital and not using it to growth their businesses.

Credit Default Swaps were basically insurance against risky investments like mortgage notes, where the insurance company was counting on government-backed loans to be reimbursed if the borrower defaulted. They distorted the true risk of the investment, leading a lot of people to put money into financial products that were riskier than presented.

The bottom line here is that printing money to pay bills produces nothing of value. Currency is an IOU and if we're just printing one IOU to cover the last one, the economy is primed to implode.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/7/2013 1:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You like to talk a lot but don't make any effort to genuinely understand what you are saying...
Look who's talking. How much nonsense can you fit into one post?

Well, let's see:
quote:
FYI the very same computer "climate models" that weather stations use to forecast the weather for a week, with a horrendous track record, were expanded to longer time frames.
LOL no they weren't. Weather and climate prediction have little in common. But more importantly, why are you putting words into my mouth?

Where did I say anything about climate models?

How did you possibly interpret my downplaying of AGW as acceptance of a 'doomsday'? I quite clearly said I do NOT see the value in preventing it.

quote:
They struggle to predict TOMORROW'S weather; they have no business telling us what thy think the weather is going to be 50, 100 or 200 years from now.
You don't even understand the difference between weather and climate, yet you have the audacity to tell me that I don't understand anything? Talk about pot calling the kettle black...

quote:
Credit Default Swaps were basically insurance against risky investments like mortgage notes

Credit default swaps don't just exist for mortgage notes, and you'd realize that if you were paying attention. They also exist for gov't bonds: If the gov't in question goes bankrupt, the seller of the CDS (i.e. the insurer) pays the buyer. The spread on a CDS is a direct measure of default risk as seen by the free market.
http://www.surlytrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011...
When did the risk shoot up?

quote:
It's artificial because people are putting money into stocks since there are no returns to be made in bonds
Do you understand anything in economics? Interest rates are low precisely because there is so much demand for them, despite the gargantuan supply. A preference for stocks over bonds would make bond rates go up, not down. The reality is that the wealthy (including foreign gov'ts) are so desperate for safe investments that they're willing to buy trillions in bonds with negative real interest rates, and put a further $10T in bank deposits at near zero rates.

quote:
The bottom line here is that printing money to pay bills produces nothing of value.
Paying bills with non-printed money doesn't produce anything of value either. If someone is willing to lend you money near 0% interest, then they'll be equally willing to idle that money in the bank if you stop borrowing it.

You only get new production by using money to pay for it. Sound like something to you?


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/8/2013 10:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL no they weren't. Weather and climate prediction have little in common. But more importantly, why are you putting words into my mouth?


Wrong. They are closely intertwined.

Weather is the observation of present atmospheric conditions.

Climate is the observation of weather patters over periods of time.

The concept of "climate" makes an assumption that there are repeating patterns in weather, but that is an assumption and not a requirement. In other words, if the climate changes drastically in the next few years it's not a sign of anything being right or wrong - it just shows that our assumptions about weather following a set pattern was incorrect.

In order to predict changes to the climate in the future, you would need to have a model that extrapolates current and past weather data. Oh wait, this is exactly the same technique used to forecast the weather.

quote:
How did you possibly interpret my downplaying of AGW as acceptance of a 'doomsday'? I quite clearly said I do NOT see the value in preventing it.


Yes, you stated that you do not see the value in preventing it; but you did not refute it altogether...and since the push for EVs and Hybrids is largely spearheaded by the false claims that our climate is degrading 'because of human activity', it's perfectly relevant.

quote:
You don't even understand the difference between weather and climate, yet you have the audacity to tell me that I don't understand anything? Talk about pot calling the kettle black.


See first paragraph.

quote:
Credit default swaps don't just exist for mortgage notes, and you'd realize that if you were paying attention.


Speaking of paying attention, we're talking about risky investments. Most investors would not purchase a CDS on a bond. The whole point of buying bonds is to earn a steady return over a long period of time with a minimal risk.

quote:
The spread on a CDS is a direct measure of default risk as seen by the free market. When did the risk shoot up?


In the context of mortgage notes that were bundled by banks and sold as "mortgage backed securities", the risk level was misrepresented by the banks to both investors and insurers. That is why AIG collapsed when the investment banks did.

The risk did not "shoot up" it was always "a lot higher than people thought".

quote:
Do you understand anything in economics? Interest rates are low precisely because there is so much demand for them, despite the gargantuan supply.


Hahaha wow, you really just said this? Totally wrong.

The interest rate set by the federal reserve bank, which is the rate that banks pay to borrow money the US doesn't have, is low because borrowers - be they people or businesses - cannot or will not pay higher rates.

The interest rate being low is basically an admission that the US dollar isn't worth much, because if it was it would command a higher rate. A low interest rate represents a low confidence in the dollar, which means a low confidence in the US government.

quote:
A preference for stocks over bonds would make bond rates go up, not down. The reality is that the wealthy (including foreign gov'ts) are so desperate for safe investments that they're willing to buy trillions in bonds with negative real interest rates, and put a further $10T in bank deposits at near zero rates.


They're not looking for "safe" investments they are looking for higher returns than 0.01% per year. Stocks are inherently risky because you are betting that a company is going to do well, but in this economy there isn't much going on. It's a waiting game.

Now if investors can get 2-3% by investing in a company by buying stock, or buying stock in a company that's paying decent dividends, it's better than sitting on a pile of money that is losing value as inflation continues.

The side effect of the US government forcing investors to put money into the stock market if they want a return at all is what's artificially inflating it. That's why the indexes have hit record highs even though the companies those indexes track are really just biding their time.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 5:33:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yet some idiots like Mint and his Liberal sources are actually saying that in the United States's case, if it were to remove a curb on debt growth, in their view this would increase creditworthiness!!!!

And that it's all the GOP's fault they didn't agree to the suicidal and moronic logic of that. Just...WTF!?


That seems to be the prevailing logic, or more fundamentally, that we can fix our economic problems by spending more, expanding government and buying into the notion that our personal shortcomings will offset by yet another social program or entitlement.

I'd like to see the elected republicans grow some balls and stop opening negotiations with an almost desperate willingness to compromise on the demands of the left. When a liberal talks sh1t they need to respond forcefully and unapologetically...they should also stop dissing the Tea Party thinking that it's the Tea Party and conservatives that make republicans look bad and stop believing that the higher ground means sticking their noses up and saying/doing nothing when a liberal tosses ad hominem invective their way.

EVs, Hybrids, bullsh1t CAFE standards, a purposeful "war" against abundant fossil fuels are are result of our government overstepping its responsibilities simply because it's too big. If people thought electric cars were a good idea they would show that by buying them. They're not, and things could be a lot better than they are now but policies based on cronyism, activism and special interests are stifling true American progress.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 9:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If people thought electric cars were a good idea they would show that by buying them.
The majority of people can't make that decision, because they can't afford new cars:
http://www.edmunds.com/industry-center/commentary/...
They're left with the cars that the generally higher income folk leave behind for them on the used car market.

Go look at polls. CAFE is highly supported by the public:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/11/su...
93% want higher standards for fuel economy.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/bt...
86% even back in 2006.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 11:45:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The majority of people can't make that decision, because they can't afford new cars:
http://www.edmunds.com/industry-center/commentary/...
They're left with the cars that the generally higher income folk leave behind for them on the used car market.


Now you're citing an OpEd on Edmunds as "evidence" that if only people could afford to buy new cars, they'd spend nearly $40K on an EV when they could get a better-equipped and more practical gas version of a vehicle in the same class for less than half of the price of the electric car?? I don't think so, chief. The new car market is certainly in a cool period due to the abundance of 2-3 year old used cars combined with the ongoing obamaconomy, but that is hardly the reason EVs are not selling.

They're not selling because unlike you, most people are just not that dumb...and certainly after all those magical unicorn-esque benefits that you keep ranting about, EVs should be selling themselves...and yet...they don't.

quote:
Go look at polls. CAFE is highly supported by the public:


Dude, don't bother posting if all you're going to do is post links to sh1t that is irrelevant. Make your own arguments or GTFO.

If you ask someone a poll question along the lines of, "Wouldn't you like a car that gets 60 MPG?" but say nothing else, you can expect most people to say "yes" and then make a claim that the person "supports" these unrealistic fuel economy mandates, when in reality you're just leading them on.

The reality is that the average consumer doesn't make the connection between ridiculous CAFE standards and getting force-fed cars like the prius and volt. Just doesn't click in most peoples' minds. The CAFE standards are a prime example of government overstep and interference in a key industry.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 11:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think Mint is clinically insane. He seems to just bend reality in whatever way is necessary for his ideology to make sense in his mind.

Saying the "majority of people can't afford new cars" is a complete and total fabrication.

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2013/01/10/u-s-auto-...

OOOPS!!!``

The truth that Mint cannot bring himself to see, is that "most" auto buyers see no value added in the extra expense involved in an EV purchase. Deep down he knows this, obviously, because he supports the stupid EV subsidies.

quote:
They're not selling because unlike you, most people are just not that dumb...and certainly after all those magical unicorn-esque benefits that you keep ranting about, EVs should be selling themselves...and yet...they don't.


Bingo!


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/7/2013 1:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
You pointed out a link that shows 14.5M new car sales in 2012.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost...
40.5M used cars were sold in 2012.

That means 74% of car sales were for used vehicles.

Surprise surprise, Reclaimer fails again.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2013 2:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
PER YEAR, idiot. Where did I claim people buy a new car every single year? Obviously the new/used car buying pattern is cyclical. Duh?

And of course used car sales trump new car sales. That's ALWAYS been the case and always will be. But have I proven there's plenty of new car sales growth to support EV's? Hell yes. The fact that they aren't selling as much as you would like sure as hell isn't because people can't afford them.

American's somehow were able to "afford" 379,332 BMW's last year. And that's just ONE luxury brand priced on par or above the Volt. Hello?

Surprise, you fail again. Fact, new car sales are at a five year high. Just when you're trying to claim people can't "afford" new cars, so that's why EV's aren't selling. It's just another example of you creating BS out of thin air to support your world view.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/7/2013 8:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying the "majority of people can't afford new cars" is a complete and total fabrication.
Where is the fabrication? You now admit yourself that most people buy used cars.

It's clear that the point I made completely flew over your head. Once again, I said most car buyers are "left with the cars that the generally higher income folk leave behind for them on the used car market." Do you get it yet? 3 out of 4 car buyers have almost no influence on how fuel efficient the nation's fleet of cars will be. They just get whatever the new car buyers chose a few years ago.

Those new car buyers are generally more affluent and care less about fuel economy.
quote:
Just when you're trying to claim people can't "afford" new cars, so that's why EV's aren't selling.
First of all, EVs are selling. 2012 tripled 2011 sales, and 1H2013 is doubling 1H2012 so far. It's faster growth than hybrids had at their introduction.

But you're missing the context of the conversation, where Eric was saying we don't need CAFE because people will choose efficient cars if they're in demand. The problem is new car buyers don't care if they're leaving behind an inefficient car for subsequent owners. The other 3/4 car buyers wish that decision considered lifetime operation costs, hence their support for CAFE.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/7/2013 2:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you're citing an OpEd on Edmunds as "evidence"

The oped wasn't the evidence. The data from Polk was: 34% of new cars are bought by people earning over $100k, and 39% by people earning between $50k and $100k.

~75% of people 15+ yrs old earn less than $50k, but they only buy 27% of new cars.
quote:
They're not selling because unlike you, most people are just not that dumb
You wish they weren't selling. It's growing faster than hybrids did in their early years and this year they've doubled 2012's first half sales.

quote:
Dude, don't bother posting if all you're going to do is post links to sh1t that is irrelevant.
Irrelevant? So you're saying that a gov't should NOT do what its populace overwhelmingly asks it to? Cars pollute the air everyone breathes and are near essential to modern life. The people have every right to demand regulations ranging from emissions to safety to dimensions to driving laws.

Shall we just abolish democracy and make you the dictator of the US?


RE: LOLectric
By dderby on 8/7/2013 12:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes! If what the 'people' want something that runs afoul of the Constitution. Remember, the Great Terror of the French Revolution, the German Holocaust and internment of American Japanese were all very popular. The constitutional role of government, according to T. Jefferson is National Defnense and a postal service. Give me a constitutional argument for CAFE standards at a national level?


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/8/2013 9:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The oped wasn't the evidence. The data from Polk was: 34% of new cars are bought by people earning over $100k, and 39% by people earning between $50k and $100k.

~75% of people 15+ yrs old earn less than $50k, but they only buy 27% of new cars.


The point that seems to elude you is that the new car market is healthy. People ARE buying new cars and not buying EVs.

quote:
You wish they weren't selling. It's growing faster than hybrids did in their early years and this year they've doubled 2012's first half sales.


If they remove tax subsidies from EVs and Hybrids, along with any incentives for manufacturers to produce them over regular gasoline cars, and they sell then you'll have a point.

For now all you have is conjecture mixed with delusion. I really don't have a reason for EVs not to sell if that's what the market wants. I do have a problem when the government and EPA decide to force people to buy a specific type of vehicle for bullsh1t reasons.

quote:
Irrelevant? So you're saying that a gov't should NOT do what its populace overwhelmingly asks it to? Cars pollute the air everyone breathes and are near essential to modern life. The people have every right to demand regulations ranging from emissions to safety to dimensions to driving laws.


Cars represent a miniscule amount of the total air pollutant producers. They're about the same level as cow farts.

When you can prove that the tailpipe emissions from my car are directly responsible for a health condition you have (other than mental retardation, because that's a pre-existing condition), I will consider driving more to accelerate your demise and put you out of your misery. Fair deal?

quote:
Shall we just abolish democracy and make you the dictator of the US?


Your idea of democracy is satisfying the whims of an ignorant vocal minority that substitutes knowledge and wisdom with hope and change.

I think all voters should be required to pass an aptitude test that focuses on reading comprehension (in ENGLISH only), reasoning and cognitive skills. Passing this test gives them a federal voter ID that needs to be renewed every 2 years; Failure to pass the test means no voting...and that 90% of the liberal voting base would vanish.


RE: LOLectric
By JediJeb on 8/6/2013 6:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The downgrade was entirely due to the GOP threatening to bankrupt the gov't by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.


I have a simple question. Why do we even have a dept ceiling if we can move it any time we want? And if it can be moved wouldn't that cause more problems than fixing it in place as far as credit is concerned? As an individual, the more you raise your credit limits on things like credit cards, while continuing to max them out, causes your credit score to drop, why shouldn't it work the same for the government?


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 10:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, the US gov't is not an individual.

The debt ceiling is there for precisely the reason that the GOP is using it for: to threaten US default. The country hasn't maintained its debt for decades, outside of a few Clinton years.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 1:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Go look at the post I replied to. flatrock is directly blaming EV subsidies for "the government goes into damage control mode and cuts off the funding to all kinds of programs"

That is clearly nonsense, and if you're really a conservative, then you should be proud of what I truthfully pointed out: The GOP is responsible for cuts to programs, and they did it through FUD. It's no different from how climate change talk is more FUD than a rational discussion of cost/benefit, or the silly Keystone XL opposition.

Well, the difference is that the enviros will fail with their FUD, as Obama will eventually approve Keystone, and won't get any carbon tax/cap in place.


RE: LOLectric
By KCjoker on 8/6/2013 6:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well Bill Clinton thought the deficit was a big problem. He spoke about it a lot when he was POTUS. He's hardly a GOPer.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 7:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Bill Clinton today wouldn't even be allowed in the Democrat party if he was running for office. That is how much the Democrat party has been usurped by these radical extremists.


RE: LOLectric
By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2013 3:04:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why can't people just understand subsidies, grants and low interest loans are a government's way to encouraging the private industry to head towards a direction.


And therein lies the issue some of us have with the subsidies. Using the power of the Government to force an industry into a "direction" is not a good way to promote change.

If this "direction" was truly beneficial and better than traditional market paradigms, you wouldn't need the Government's involvement. The market would gravitate there naturally.

quote:
These subsidies will be a drop in the bucket compared to the impact EVs will have on the Trade Balance.


Could I see some unbiased documentation showing that? Sounds like more idealistic fluff from the EV crowd to me. I've seen similar claims, but they never hold up to analysis.

quote:
These subsidies will disappear just like the hybrid subsidies. People cried about those things back then too.


Yes and your side made the same claims back then as they do now about EV's. Did hybrid passenger vehicles signal the dawn of the new Age of Prosperity you people heralded? Funny but things still look the same to me today.


RE: LOLectric
By mike8675309 on 8/6/2013 10:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The short range of the battery, which drops even more at higher travel speeds means the only people who can get the most out of an electric vehicle don't drive all that much, which means that their costs per mile are much lower...


I disagree. Due to the smaller range the people purchasing these are those that have shorter trips, sure. But that type of driving is precisely where the internal combustion engine efficiency is lowest. Idling at controlled intersections. Starting up and driving 5 miles and shutting the engine off, never fully warming up. Sitting in traffic on a road. All very inefficient uses of an ICE powered car and I propose that the cost per mile in such a use is enormous. A perfect situation for an electric car.


RE: LOLectric
By flatrock on 8/6/2013 10:46:53 AM , Rating: 1
Yes it is the perfect situation for an electric car, which is exactly why the electric car is the WRONG solution to reducing CO2 emissions and reducing our reliance on oil.

It is a solution that addresses a tiny percentage of gasoline consumption by motor vehicles. It has receive a huge percentage of government subsidies, and is still no where near cost effective even in that perfect situation.

If you focus on just cars being used for short commutes most of which are at lower speeds, electric vehicles have been a failure that shows promise of an eventual success though at an absurdly high investment cost for the gains that may eventually develop.

If you look at it in the scope of reducing our overall consumption of gasoline, it have been a colossal failure. An interesting technology with some future promise, but a horrible overall investment.

Even if EVs were now becoming cost effective to produce, that would only make it a success within a narrow niche. EVs should never have been given so great of a percentage of our tax dollars because even if the research was considerably more successful, it would have been a poor investment because it doesn't provide a large public benefit. The decision was political, not practical.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a solution that addresses a tiny percentage of gasoline consumption by motor vehicles
PHEVs, like the Volt in this article, are usable by everyone, and can offload 70%+ of driving to the grid. 40 miles a day (or more with daytime charging) is no joke.

CO2 emissions will go down as the grid changes, but they aren't the primary justification of EVs. It's about lifetime cost and urban air pollution.

quote:
If you focus on just cars being used for short commutes most of which are at lower speeds
Stop perpetuating this strawman. EVs are in fact most economical for people with 60 mile roundtrip daily commutes. If there's a charger at work, they can go even longer.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/6/2013 10:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
At higher speeds ALL cars get lower economy. There's nothing special about EVs there, and in fact the cost equation further benefits EVs that way. 50+ miles a day is not just "short trips". Heavy commuters can put 15k+ miles a year on an EV.

EVs are not just "expensive toys". They get people from point A to point B. The more that people buy them now, the more used EVs will be available 5-10 years from now, helping middle and lower class families save $100+ per month on fuel for the life of the car. When the batteries wear down they can be refurbished with far cheaper future cells.

Electric motors last forever (we know that from the industrial sector), so we could be talking about a 25 year lifetime after a battery refurb, and who knows how much gas will cost then. An EV could displace $20-30k in fuel costs. FYI, data from the Tesla Roadster is suggesting 85% capacity after 100k miles.

A purely free market won't get you long term optimization, because most consumers only purchase with shorter time frames in mind, and new car buyers are affluent (a third earn $100k+, another third earn $50k+). That's why the 100M+ older cars on the road today average 20MPG, as used car buyers are living with the collective purchasing decisions of people 5-15 years ago.

I never mentioned CO2. At the very least, though, urban pollution gets reduced, and it has a tangible effect on public health.

Don't be so myopic in thinking EVs are only for smaller cars, or that the latter don't matter. The Model S is already taking market share from the performance-luxury segment where cars get 15-20 MPG, and the Model X will do the same. Smaller cars have enough numbers that they do matter.

The subsidy is only for the first 200k vehicles for each manufacturer, and then slowly phases out, just like it did for the Prius. It'll be maybe $10-20B over 10 years by the time it runs out. Current law won't ever get 10% of auto sales being subsidized, but even if a hypothetical future law extends $5k subsidies, look above. It's an easy societal win down the road.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 4:57:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At higher speeds ALL cars get lower economy. There's nothing special about EVs there, and in fact the cost equation further benefits EVs that way. 50+ miles a day is not just "short trips". Heavy commuters can put 15k+ miles a year on an EV.


False. Unlike chemical fuels, the more current you draw from a battery the more its voltage drops, which means the motor it is powering runs slower and the battery expends more of its stored energy as heat. There is a threshold of sustained current that must be maintained unless you want to experience severe capacity reductions.

In a gasoline car, you'll use a bit more fuel if you have a heavy foot but the car will be no worse for wear and average MPG will still be quite high.

quote:
They get people from point A to point B. The more that people buy them now, the more used EVs will be available 5-10 years from now, helping middle and lower class families save $100+ per month on fuel for the life of the car. When the batteries wear down they can be refurbished with far cheaper future cells.


Oh look, the idiot liberal knows what middle class families need. They need to pay $35K for a $15K car so they can save $100/mo in gas. THAT'S SO SMART!

Or they could buy a 80s era Honda CRX and enjoy 50 MPG in a car that costs $1,500 to buy.

quote:
Electric motors last forever (we know that from the industrial sector), so we could be talking about a 25 year lifetime after a battery refurb, and who knows how much gas will cost then.


Where would libtards be without their logical fallacies. If an industrial electric motor is reliable, then all electric motors must be reliable. No, that's false, so just shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about but you love to pretend that you do.

quote:
A purely free market won't get you long term optimization, because most consumers only purchase with shorter time frames in mind


Wait, are you saying that people buy cars they WANT? I have a car that barely gets 10 MPG but it makes up for that by getting me a lot of pu55y. You are probably a fagg0t because you are a liberal, and therefore are probably more interested in an electrically-powered weiner truck.

quote:
I never mentioned CO2. At the very least, though, urban pollution gets reduced, and it has a tangible effect on public health.


Eat at Mint's - where unsubstantiated comments are always on the house.

quote:
Don't be so myopic in thinking EVs are only for smaller cars, or that the latter don't matter. The Model S is already taking market share from the performance-luxury segment where cars get 15-20 MPG, and the Model X will do the same.


OH WEALLY? Duh model S is taking market share from Audi, BMW or Lexus? I bet they are weally weally wowwied. Maybe the should hiaw a smawt gay like you to show them how to stop losing market share by building more electric cars that nobody wants.

quote:
Current law won't ever get 10% of auto sales being subsidized, but even if a hypothetical future law extends $5k subsidies, look above. It's an easy societal win down the road.


Subsidies for cars should be zero, especially when the entire premise for pushing hybrids and EVs is based on pseudo-science or outright lies.

It will be a societal win when liberalism is branded a form of terrorism (as it should be) so that America regains its pride and dignity.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/7/2013 4:38:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a gasoline car, you'll use a bit more fuel if you have a heavy foot but the car will be no worse for wear and average MPG will still be quite high.
It's not just "a bit":
http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/sedans/120...
Drive at a constant 75mph instead of 60mph, and fuel consumption rises 25-27%.

You qualitative assertions about batteries mean nothing in the face of real data:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=101293...

So we make some assumptions: $4/gal, 45MPG @ 60mph, 36MPG @ 75mph, $0.12/kWh electricity, 3.9 miles/kWh @ 60mph, 3.0 miles/kWh @ 75mph.

Cost per mile:
gas: 8.8c @ 60mph, 11.1c @ 75mph
EV: 3.1c @ 60mph, 4.0c @ 75mph

Subtract, and my original statement stands: An EV saves you more money at higher speed (7.1c per mile) over a gas engine than at lower speeds (5.7c per mile). Of course, these are constant speed figures, and economy goes down for both when you include acceleration and braking, but less so for the EV.

It must suck to keep being proven wrong with data...

quote:
Oh look, the idiot liberal knows what middle class families need. They need to pay $35K for a $15K car so they can save $100/mo in gas. THAT'S SO SMART!
I said 5-10 years from now, i.e. when it's a used car. I also said middle and lower class, and it's obvious they overwhelmingly buy used.

Drop the tired "$35k for $15k car" line. A similarly equipped Cruze costs $25k (the LTZ model). It does work out to be economically favorable:
http://www.digifixpix.com/volt/volt_calc.asp

If you don't think electric motors with single speed gear reduction are fundamentally more reliable than combustion engines with automatic transmissions, fine, keep your head in the sand.

quote:
You are probably a fagg0t because you are a liberal
Wow. On top of mindblowing stupidity, we can add homophobic bigotry to your list of admirable qualities.

quote:
Eat at Mint's - where unsubstantiated comments are always on the house.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en...
http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/In...

quote:
OH WEALLY? Duh model S is taking market share from Audi, BMW or Lexus?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/04/t...
"In the first quarter of this, year Model S sales outpaced Audi A8, BMW 7-series and Mercedes S Class sales"


RE: LOLectric
By CaedenV on 8/6/2013 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
If your issue is initial cost, then sure I think that most people can agree that it does not make sense... and that is reflected in the number of sales we have seen so far. The tax incentive is a joke as well as the car may work towards that $7500 tax refund, but most people buying them do not pay enough in taxes to get the whole refund anyways. Plus the fund that these refunds come from will dry up long before EVs get 'popular' it is merely a starting point to get things moving. I am still not a fan of it, but as far as government issues go this is actually one of their (sadly) better moves they have made the last few years.

Keep in mind also that the refund does not go to the car companies, it goes to the consumers. This means that unlike other subsidies given to solar and other 'green' tech, the price of the car really is the price of the car. When the subsidy goes away we will not see the price of EVs jump through the roof; they will remain on the same track that they have been.

Lastly, remember that the cost of an EV sans battery is quite a bit less than an ICE vehicle and is a very static cost. The cost of the battery packs themselves are dropping like a rock which is why we are seeing EV prices drop over $10,000 in the last 2 years, and the price will continue to drop substantially over the next few years as mass production produces its cost saving magic. In the next 5 years we will see EV models at the same price as ICE models, and in 10 years they will be cheaper than their gas counterparts. Then the owner gets the near 0 maintenance benefit of an electric car; There is no oil to change, you don't need an accessory or drive belt to replace every 60,00Mi, there is no transition to go out, very few fluids to replace or keep an eye on. Really the only thing that you have to worry about is replacing the battery back in 10 years... at which point most people will be shopping for a new car anyways, and batteries will be substantially (25% would be my guess) cheaper than they are right now, and it will likely wear out slower and have a higher range than the pack that came with the car (much like battery replacements for laptops bring nice benefits).

Really truly, all green movement aside, electric cars are a great way to go. The complaints you have are just an issue of the maturity of the technology. It is like people complaining about the cost of SSDs a few years back. Yes, they brought some really nice benefits... but they were also hellishly expensive, and had capacity and reliability issues. Fast forward to today and you would be insane to not get an SSD in a new computer, and an SSD can breathe new life into a 5 year old machine. EVs are going to follow much the same path. Today they are expensive, and have range issues, but provide nice benefits to those who don't do a lot of freeway driving on their commute. In the near future the cost will come down, and the range will hit a nice 150-250 miles which will fit the needs of more of the population.

You cannot say that a tech is 'bad' just because it is new.


RE: LOLectric
By Just Tom on 8/6/2013 4:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep in mind also that the refund does not go to the car companies, it goes to the consumers. This means that unlike other subsidies given to solar and other 'green' tech, the price of the car really is the price of the car. When the subsidy goes away we will not see the price of EVs jump through the roof; they will remain on the same track that they have been.


The nominal cost will not change but the effective cost will. The whole idea behind the subsidy is that consumers will not buy the vehicle at is true cost. Once the subsidies are ended there will be a increase in the cost of purchasing an EV. The manufacturers might won't increase the sticker price but consumers will still be spending more.

On your second point, that the car companies are not getting the refund, it is true in fact but not in practice. Absent the subsidy the car company would not even make a sale, afterall that is the point of the subsidy. The money is going from the government to the consumer to the car company.


RE: LOLectric
By Rukkian on 8/6/2013 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tax credit is obscene because it's a subsidy for what is essentially an expensive toy that makes some people with the money to spend on them feel good about themselves. I like tech toys as much if not more than the next guy, and I think electric vehicles are a great idea, but having taxpayers foot $7500 which is over 20% of the cost of the vehicle is absolutely obscene. And that is far from the only subsidy.


I agree with this, but think it needs to go further: Why do we give credits for anything? Why do people get credits for owning a home, going to school, or anything. Why not just lower peoples taxes to a much lower rate, but get rid of all credits. Just because it is a new credit, does not mean it does not fit in with what the government has been moving to for many, many years.

quote:
EVs would make sense if the production costs weren't so high. The meet a lot of ideological goals, and they allow for much greater energy efficiency since power plants are far more efficient.


Here is where the credit actually might make some sense. Costs do not come down until production can scale up. You have a chicken and egg problem. Nobody wants to buy EV's (or any new tech) until it is economical, and pratical. EV's currently are not economical due to economy of scale, and not practical due to charging location limitations. The economical side will come as more buy them, getting the costs down. The practical side will not come until there is more demand for the infrustructure.

There are other, very large advantages to ev's, which are harder to show to somebody that does not know. One is the acceleration, as there is no hesitation, and instant torque, which gives a much more responsive drive. Another is the greatly reduced maintenance costs, as there are very few moving parts in an electric engine. While you still have to worry about brakes, tires, etc, other costs, including oil changes are a thing of the past.

I would personally love to own an electric car, but right now it does not work for me. I just bought a 2014 Forrester, and hope that by the time it is time to replace it (hopefully many years down the road), I will be able to buy an affordable electric and have it be practical.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 4:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you see the point in switching to CNG for trucks and trains for lower energy cost (which I agree with), but not gasoline to electric with even lower cost per mile for the nearly 3 trillion vehicle miles traveled in light duty vehicles? You don't see the point in eliminating a huge chunk of maintenance costs?


Switching fleet vehicles makes sense because they account for 60-70% of petroleum-based fuel consumption. Passenger cars and light trucks make up less than half, and shifting industrial fleets to natural gas could lower the price of gasoline back to sub $2-gal prices.

Electricity still needs to be generated all you would get by shifting people from gas to electric is a lot of ugly, impractical cars with limited range and utility. They cannot tow, they suck when the weather is very hot or very cold, their performance is constantly drooping since battery voltage decreases the second you stop charging it and/or put a load on it.

Reducing industrial demand for gasoline and diesel and making that available to consumers would be ideal and it would let people focus on more important issues, like purging liberals and socialists from America.

quote:
Even when natural gas is used to create the electricity going into an EV, you can get 60% efficiency at a CCGT plant but only 30% from a bifuel vehicle.


Sorry bro, that is entirely false because the act of charging batteries is the most inefficient use of energy we have, short of the electricity that MSNBC uses.

Even though IC engines have have 30-40% efficiency in terms of converting the heat from burning fuel into mechanical motion, they are lighter, they are more durable, they are far less sensitive to weather conditions and they offer consistent performance from full to empty tank.

quote:
Oil imports are over half of the trade deficit and we're in a demand limited economy, so of course it's good to get off foreign oil.


Oil is a globally traded commodity. It trades on an open market like stocks and bonds - refineries sell to whoever is willing to pay the most per barrel. There is a misconception among liberals and ignorant folks that a Saudi prince has his hand on a dial that controls the price of oil based on how much money he wants. That's not how it works.

It doesn't matter where the oil comes from and if someone in some other country wants to sell you oil and their price is decent - why SHOULDN'T we buy it?

The government could have imposed an export tax on US refineries to artificially drive up the cost of oil sold to foreign countries, thus making it more profitable to sell it domestically. That's never going to happen. Like I said, we produce a lot of the oil that is sold globally and China is buying a lot of it.

quote:
By your logic we should let other countries make all our goods and not care because hey, it's a global market.


We already do. The US gave up manufacturing back in the 60s when they decided they were too good for blue collar work and that you're either a white collar worker or you're nothing. Thank the liberals for that load of horsesh1t that was distributed through our indoctrinational system.

quote:
EVs make sense for so many reasons, half of which I haven't even mentioned.


No, they don't make sense and yes, it's true that you haven't stated any reasons.


RE: LOLectric
By Mint on 8/8/2013 8:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a misconception among liberals and ignorant folks that a Saudi prince has his hand on a dial that controls the price of oil based on how much money he wants. That's not how it works.
You haven't heard of OPEC and its quotas?

Oil is NOT a free market. It's an inelastic commodity where a cartel controls average prices through production quotas. This type of collusion is illegal in every modern economy, but we have no choice.

If we produce more oil and prices go down, OPEC will cut production a few percent to keep prices high. They would much rather sell 30M bpd at $100/bbl instead of $35 bpd at $50/bbl.

In a free market no individual producer will make more money if he produces more, even if it makes a slight reduction in price, if many producers collude, they can benefit by cutting production.


RE: LOLectric
By CaedenV on 8/6/2013 8:20:20 AM , Rating: 1
I am no friend of eco-nazis, but even I recognize the usefulness of electric cars in the market place. My route to work and back every day costs me ~$6 per day on gas (sometimes as low as $4, sometimes as high at $8). In most electric cars that I have run the numbers on the cost is closer to $0.75 in electricity for the same route. That is nothing short of an astounding decrease in transportation cost. $1560 per year in a gas car vs $200 per year in an electric car.

Yes, there are obvious drawbacks. I cannot afford a large electric car, so I am not going to do long road trips in an all electric car. If I forget to charge it overnight, or there is an extended power outage, then I am essentially up a creek. So I will always have to have that gas powered vehicle for long trips, moving the whole family from point A to B, and for those rare times that electricity is not available.
But as a daily driver to and from work? It absolutely makes sense! I am still not planning on making my purchase until the entry price is a bit more on par with the all-gas counterparts, but I don't think it will be long now. I mean we are already seeing some electric cars like the ForTwo ED3 being in the same price range as the gas version. It won't be long


RE: LOLectric
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/6/2013 8:56:38 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, as a second car it makes sense. When my wife's car gets replaced, it will most definitely be replaced with an EV. Her daily commute is less than 10 miles.


RE: LOLectric
By chripuck on 8/6/2013 11:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Volt is big enough to carry one kid around and if I need both of them then I'll take my wife's gas guzzling SUV (still 24 mpg...)

I drive 40 miles round trip each day with access to a slow charger at work: this will save me huge amounts of money and is worth it now that the price is coming down.


RE: LOLectric
By jimbojimbo on 8/6/2013 12:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
You do know how the Volt works right? If there's an extended power outage it'll just use gas so you'll be fine.

Using your math why wait until the cost of an EV is the same as an all gas car if it's going to save you $1360/year? With that information you can get a car and wind up paying $113/month more for it and still break even. Therefore you can buy an EV when it's still more expensive than an all gas car.


RE: LOLectric
By EricMartello on 8/6/2013 4:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am no friend of eco-nazis, but even I recognize the usefulness of electric cars in the market place. My route to work and back every day costs me ~$6 per day on gas (sometimes as low as $4, sometimes as high at $8). In most electric cars that I have run the numbers on the cost is closer to $0.75 in electricity for the same route. That is nothing short of an astounding decrease in transportation cost. $1560 per year in a gas car vs $200 per year in an electric car.


Your math fails because you're not factoring the PREMIUM in price that you pay for something like a Volt vs buying plain old gasoline car in the same class, like a Chevy Cruze.

The volt is costing you $39,000, and even with a $5K discount you are paying nearly double for what it would cost to buy you a comparably equipped Cruze (starts at $17K MSRP).

So lets say you got a Volt for $34K ($39K - $5K discount). You could have bought a nicely equipped Cruze for $18K, which means you'd have to save $16K in fuel costs before you even break even.

Even at $4/gallon it would take you 4,000 gallons of fuel to hit that mark. The Cruze Eco gets ~40 MPG, which means driving 160,000 miles before the Volt starts saving you money on gas.

Don't postulate cost savings as a reason to get an electric car because it's a sorry rationalization. Electric cars will continue to be impractical until battery technology is vastly improved.


RE: LOLectric
By flyingpants1 on 8/7/2013 7:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
...Uhh yeah.. The Volt starts at $27.5k after rebate and the cruze is $17k, About $10.5k less.

$10.5k can be made up with a few years of commuting and less maintenance.


RE: LOLectric
By InsGadget on 8/6/2013 9:42:37 AM , Rating: 1
Thank you everyone for voting this down so I don't have to waste my precious mod points.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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