moshe_levy Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Selden, note the age of that article is now over a year old. Since then, you see several very scientific attempts to put "real world" consumption figures on EVs, extended range EVs, and such. Consumer Reports has a very comprehensive formula which they explain in this month's Auto Issue (and I've found their estimates of "real world" consumption more accurate than anyone else's. Motor Trend did a fantastic article as well, showing state-by-state consumption based on that state's primary source of electrical production. As expected, whether an EV makes sense economically or even from an environmental perspective is a complication question depending on personal factors such as driving habits and location. I do resent the Forbes article's continual focus on politics, as though these vehicles haven't been in planning since well before the current administration, and as though the Leaf has no politics behind it (considering the amount that the state of TN poured into subsidizing Nissan to build Leafs there). The constant drumbeat of anti-EV politics is usually built upon a horribly inaccurate picture of selective subsidies on behalf of the few when in fact the entire industry is on the dole in one form or another. Finally I caution you not to compare the Prius Nickel battery pack with the new gen Li-Ion packs in Volt, Leaf, Tesla, etc. Nobody really knows how Li-Ion will hold up. They have a HUGE advantage over Nickel in terms of capacity per size / mass, but there is no real reliability data - yet. We have to start somewhere. And for the record, the figure of 250k miles on a Prius pack is nothing to brag about. Several taxi companies with Prius fleets are getting close to 500-600k miles per pack, still going strong. Canadian fleets have units with over 1 million KMs, still going. They trade maintenance tips on my Prius forum and all agree they are the most reliable vehicles they have ever used for commercial fleet duty. No mean feat. -MKL Link to comment
Selden Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Moshe, Can you provide some links to other articles on this? It's obviously a very controversial and complex subject. I could do my own searching, but I suspect that you have the information at your fingertips. I agree that durability of the newer battery systems is unknown at this time. Toyota is also using Li ion batteries, and one would hope that with their experience in hybrid drive train engineering, they wouldn't go with a system that didn't at least equal what they've been building for the past decade, but we really won't have any answers until around 2020. Who knows what technology will be "hot" by then. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Selden, you mean articles on MPGe or the Prius' reliability? Let me know. Yes, Toyota is now using Li-Ion in the Prius plug-ins. Basically just copying what owners have done for years. On older models some owners shelled out some $10-15k i the early years to retrofit the Nickel batteries with Li-Ion in order to achieve plug in capability. Now you can get it straight from the factory, though there are still aftermarket companies that sell the cells for retrofit to older models. -MKL Link to comment
AviP Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sales have been on an uptick recently, though. Last month the Volt outsold the Leaf 2 to 1. Hopefully this will continue. This just in: GM Will Stop Making Volt Plug-in for 5 Weeks. Read the section titled "Insufficient Demand". Link to comment
lawnchairboy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 from the linky: "The fact that GM is now facing an oversupply of Volts suggests that consumer demand is just not that strong for these vehicles,” said Lacey Plache, chief economist for auto-research website Edmunds.com." that about covers it. Link to comment
Selden Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Selden, you mean articles on MPGe or the Prius' reliability? Let me know. MPGe Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 OK. For MPGe, even the basic Wiki page is quite informative - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent and note the May 2011 rule (joint per NHTSA and EPA) which the Forbes article precedes. I do not know of a Consumer Reports link to cover their calculations so it' sbest to subscribe to that magazine unless someone else knows of a link. Re "real world" testing nobody I have read holds a candle to the Motor Trend report which IS online here http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1108_2011_chevrolet_volt_vs_2011_nissan_leaf_vs_2011_toyota_prius_comparison/viewall.html This is a superb, comprehensive article. Note the state-by-state charting of emissions based on energy supply: The text should list state-by-state energy supply and assume local supply (so coal for electric in midwestern states, more renewable supply on the east coast, etc.). It does in the magazine test, anyway. Kudos to Motor Trend. They went from the crappiest to the best car mag under Australian editor Angus MacKensie's leadership. In depth reporting like this is why. -MKL Link to comment
philbytx Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Regarding the Volt lack of salability. Why on earth the government didn't push for CNG I just can't fathom. Establish a larger infrastructure and concurrently have Government Motors build CNG vehicles! Also, a Government mandate for CNG use in all public vehicles (a lot of municipalities have CNG buses now) plus tax incentives for existing diesel to CNG conversions. We have CNG "up the wazoo" here and it is an established technology with clearly recognizable cost savings. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 CNG? What is that, natural gas? -MKL Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Oh, OK. Just wanted to make sure. Yes, CNG is another alternative to oil, and many are working on it. So far it has NOT been accepted into mainstream commuter cars - mostly due to safety concerns, packaging concerns (the tanks take up much trunk space,) and the fact that efficiency is often not all that much better than a straight gas powered car. Influential customers like Fedex have stated outight they want electric as opposed to natural gas vehicles, and that's a big blow to CNG because right now acceptance is only at the fleet and commercial level. As it stands today, only the Honda Civic GX http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/civic-natural-gas.aspx is available to consumers, and even then only in 4 states. However, GM is working on it http://www.hybridcars.com/news/gm-exploring-natural-gas-engines-consumer-vehicles-30344.html and we know that FIAT sells a variety of CNG products in Europe, so it is a safe bet they will transfer that technology over to Chrysler soon, especially if T. Boone Pickens has any say over it! It is also likely that in fact NG will be used as a cleaner burning alternative to coal in electrical generation, so in a effect may be helping the case for EVs indirectly as well. -MKL Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 BTW - note the Civic GX's trunk is a paltry 6 cubic feet. Maybe two shopping bags worth of space. Hence the packaging downside. That's why this is used in larger trucks and fleet vehicles, and not yet a viable alternative to battery technology, which is far easier to package. Note also that economy is not all that much better than the standard Civic gas powered version. -MKL Link to comment
philbytx Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yup! Compressed Natural Gas.....would buy one in a heartbeat ! Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 You might be able to. I mistakenly said it's only for sale in 4 states above. I now read that changed as of last October, when it rolled out for sale in 35 states. Perhaps Texas is one of them. This is a very localized decision but for someone like me in NJ, it would not be a competitive choice. For the same money I can have a Prius which has an enormous advantage in practicality (more than double the cargo capacity, and that's without the rear seats folded down) and economy (50+ mpg combined vs. Civic GX's 31mpg). The Prius would actually cost less and not have any logistical issues as I'm not sure where I would get CNG around here. That said, it is a FULLY viable alternative from my main standpoint of national security / energy independence / politics, since it does not make use of crude oil. From that perspective it is a total winner, better than anything out there that uses any gas, period. In other states, this analysis would not carry any weight whatsoever. Depends on many factors. It doesn't present a compelling alternative to an efficient subcompact, nevermind hybrid or EV, from a purely economical perspective. What it DOES offer is a clean emissions sheet, but if we dig deeper as to how the CNG was extracted (fracking, anyone?) that picture too might change. I would say then that its biggest advantage is the use of no gas at all to appeal to energy hawks like myself. -MKL Link to comment
philbytx Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 As in my earlier post, the government should mandate (or seriously encourage ) trucks and buses to use CNG, suppliers to ensure a good supply chain and mandate/encourage auto manufacturers to concentrate on designing cars AROUND CNG engines . Link to comment
Fubar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 All- I am closely watching as GM unrolls the Volt, and all the promise it holds to finally put an American car company in a technological leadership position in the Hybrid / EV wars, and yet in looking at various comments on YouTube, or to online blogs, you would think that this is anathema to where the industry is so clearly headed – whether by consumer demand, by force of regulation, or more likely both. Even here in this very forum, I have once in awhile mentioned my own Prius as we discuss the pure economics of riding vs. driving, and I’m surprised at the sometimes outright anger the car provokes in some people. Now, naturally, I am well aware that driving an economical car is about as exciting as watching paint dry. I know people with large families or the need to haul cannot scale down. I too hate the sanctimoneous types who try to lecture others about how their car can travel a little further per gallon. I too love the sound and fury of a rip-snortin’ V8-powered sports car as much as any red blooded male does, and I don’t envision a future of bland, wimpy weeny-mobiles as any sort of automotive eutopia. BUT, I do believe they have their place. I drive mine as part of a larger plan of a way to live my life, to pay as little as I can to King Abdullah even if it means I have to pay a little more for some products. I do it out of a heatfelt political belief that affecting change requires starting with yourself towards the end you’d like to see – in my case, I’d like to see this country become more efficient and less dependent on foreign petroleum, for very obvious reasons. To that end, I put my money where my mouth is, whenever possible. Finally, after decades of absolutely horrid mismanagement (read Steven Rattner’s “Overhaul” if interested), pilfering by the UAW, and all the other ails which have plagued our Detroit, they seem to be catching onto the undeniable fact that product actually matters. In this case, a product like the Volt helps demonstrate that we CAN leapfrog the competition if we put our minds to it, and put our goal beyond the next quarterly statement - In other words, if we give a damn about the future. It really, really baffles me why there seems to be cheerleading for it to fail – from Americans, no less, who have nothing to gain from seeing Detroit sink even further into irrelevance. Given the above contraints – what something like the Volt can and cannot do – why are otherwise intelligent people gleefully predicting its demise before the thing even has a chance? -MKL Gotta count myself in the minority here. The first thing I look at anymore when considering cages is the city mpg. Since 99% of my driving is around town, highway mpg is of no concern. Anything good in town will be good on the slab. My requirements, beyond the obvious MPG: will my 6'5" body fit in/get in comfortably, does it cost less than $25K, cruise control, an upgradeable stereo system (factory boxes suck!) and can it tow the RT. That's it. I will go slushbox if manual isn't available. Hybrid or diesel, "foreign" or "domestic" doesn't matter a rat's ass to me. I want 40 MPG in town (or damned close) over any other concern. Pure electric is fine for a 2nd car, but I don't need one of those. The car is for grocery runs, picking up the kid from school and taking a couple of friends to the hockey game, not much else. For fun I've got the Voot. So, my current car choices would start with the VW Golf or Jetta diesel, Hyundai Elantra (wife's new car) or Accent hatchback (if it can tow 1K #), a Prius C, Camry or Sonata hybrid. The Toyota iQ that is sold everywhere else with a diesel and gets 60+ mpg would fit my needs great. The gas versions elsewhere get over 50+ but here just 36. As for the Volt, $45K for what I can get from a Prius for $25K. Why? Only time will tell if GM can manage to pull a good car out of its butt. I've seen one Volt so far, but tons of Prius and Insights. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 As for the Volt, $45K for what I can get from a Prius for $25K. Why? Only time will tell if GM can manage to pull a good car out of its butt. I've seen one Volt so far, but tons of Prius and Insights. Again, as I told Bob above, this is simply not a valid comparison to make. Out of pocket and equipped similarly, the Volt will cost LESS than a Prius ("5" model, which is over $35k, which is the ONLY apples to apples here as lower Prius models simply don't have the standard equipment that a Volt does) and will deliver exponentially better fuel economy. The Volt fails vs. the Prius in that it can only carry 4 people, and its cargo space is less. -MKL Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 As in my earlier post, the government should mandate (or seriously encourage ) trucks and buses to use CNG, suppliers to ensure a good supply chain and mandate/encourage auto manufacturers to concentrate on designing cars AROUND CNG engines . +1 I am for anything and everything that minimizes our use of foreign oil sources, balanced against the obvious competing interests of our environment, policies, energy planning, economic factors, etc. etc. CNG surely has a role to play. I'd just like to make sure that extraction doesn't cause the sort of mess highlighted in "Gasland" http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/ and other documentaries. There is no point in getting off of foreign oil only to destroy our own environment in the process. So this needs to be managed carefully and precisely. I do not yet know enough to comment on whether the sort of horrendous environmental violations discussed as a side effect of "fracking" are actually true or not. -MKL Link to comment
Paul Mihalka Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 From MSN Money page: Automakers unveil natural-gas pickups The fuel is a cheaper alternative to gasoline, and there's plenty of it. Now if only there were more fill-up stations. By Kim Peterson 2 hours ago Image: Truck drivers (© Exactostock / SuperStock/SuperStock)The price of gas has climbed to an average of $3.77 a gallon nationwide -- a tough break for an economy just starting to recover. But there's another gas in the United States that's awfully cheap and in abundance: natural gas. In fact, new drilling technologies have made this country the largest natural-gas producer in the world. Why aren't automakers looking at more ways to use it? As it turns out, some are. General Motors (GM -1.63%) says it will start taking orders next month for pickups that can run on gasoline and natural gas. It will sell the Chevrolet Silverado and the GMC Sierra 2500 HD with a natural-gas option. One executive said that because natural gas is so much cheaper than gasoline, the new trucks could save drivers as much as $10,000 over three years, Bloomberg reports. Natural-gas trucks are more suited for fleets. There are only about 500 natural-gas fueling stations in the U.S. open to the public, Bloomberg reports, so at this point it's tough for consumers to jump on the technology. But as demand for alternative fuels increases, automakers and fueling stations are starting to respond. Chrysler is expected to announce Tuesday its first from-the-factory pickup that runs on natural gas and gasoline. It will build at least 2,000 specialized Ram trucks starting in June, The Wall Street Journal reports. People have been able to get trucks retrofitted to handle natural gas, but that's complex and requires additional costs, the Journal reports. Building in the natural-gas option at the factory reduces the friction and the expense. "If the opportunity presents itself, we wouldn't turn our back on a CNG-powered passenger car," Chrysler executive Peter Grady told the Journal. "We aren't working on it now, but we do have it in the back of our minds." Honda Motor (HMC -1.53%) sells a passenger car that can run on natural gas, the Civic NG, at about 200 dealers starting at $26,200, the Journal reports. Link to comment
Fubar Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 As for the Volt, $45K for what I can get from a Prius for $25K. Why? Out of pocket and equipped similarly, the Volt will cost LESS than a Prius ("5" model, which is over $35k, which is the ONLY apples to apples here as lower Prius models simply don't have the standard equipment that a Volt does) Well, then you are getting into options. If you need fog lamps, auto-leveling headlights with headlight washers and 17" wheels, you need the Five. If you can forgo those 4 things, a Two will do fine. The Prius II (base model) comes standard with everything I need (no options) in a four-wheeled appliance, gets 50 mpg and travels 600 miles/tank and lists for just under $25K. The Volt requires leather (which I hate sitting on) with the colors I like or when upgrading the stereo and needs to have an low-emissions package added to make it a 50-state car(!). A brand-new hybrid that doesn't meet emission standards in all states. Additionally, it only gets 40 mpg and gets 400 miles/tank. And with no options selected, the Volt lists for $40,000. Can anybody else see why GM is having trouble? Me, I would get the new Prius C Two (53 mpg and only pay $20,600), take the $20,000 "left over" and buy another bike and farkle it, then ride it a bunch. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 There you go. A very individual decision, for sure. Either way if you're getting into something efficient, you're doing the right thing. -MKL Link to comment
RTJohn Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 No thanks. I'll stick to my RT. I get 50 mpg and my soul recharged everytime I ride it. No comparison. Link to comment
upflying Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Another enlightening view of the Volt from the American Spectator. Sounds like they are costing all of us quite a bit more than $40,000 each. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/05/volt-sleeps-with-the-fishes Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Bob, I've read that article. I am still sort of stunned at the level of hatred this car arouses from publications which are supposed to be about politics, specifically right-wing ideological politics. I was a Spectator subscriber myself, by the way, for full disclosure. Now let's examine why the main thrust of the article is exactly backwards. The thrust is: "....the concept itself was misaligned. Electric (and hybrid-electric) cars exist for one reason: To do an end-run around gasoline. The whole point of the exercise, as a practical matter, is to lower the cost of driving by cutting the driver loose from $4 a gallon fuel. But when it takes $40,000 to do that, it becomes pointless as a practical matter." The article then explains that the average Volt owner has a median household income of $170,000.00. Obviously there is a mismatch here - one so big even an organization as traditionally stupid as GM wouldn't miss it. Wealthier people are hurt less by expensive gas. And so, as I have repeated now maybe 10,000 times, these cars DO NOT exist for "one reason." The "one reason" cited by naysayers is personal economics. I.e., buying X car which is economical and costs more to eventually save money based on higher fuel economy. No, no, and no. There is NO data to support this as being a primary or even important reason for Volt buyers especially or hybrid buyers in general. It is like me writing article after article saying "the primary reason BMW riders ride BMW motorcycles is because they have pinstripes." What? To an outsider who knows nothing, maybe they could buy that. To a rider, they know such an author has his head up his ass, very far, and shouldn't be writing about motorcycles in the first place because he's proven he doesn't know the first thing about what riders really think. One more time: The EVs that are out now are for early adopters. They are buying the car to get off gas primarily for political reasons. National energy security, energy independence, environmentalism, etc. etc. "Saving money" on gas doesn't factor in too much. Think about it - they make $170k on average. Common sense tells you the article's whole premise is therefor absurd. As for the "subsidy" argument, it, too, is grossly flawed. First of all, the car just rolled out. So the numbers sold are extemely low. So that makes the cost per car extremely high. Want to know what Japan subsidized the Prius in its first year of sales of a few thousand - or now, after 14 years and many millions sold? Think they made their money back in spades? Yes, they did! Do economies of scale kick in after production ramps up and lower price? Of course it does. Prius proved this years ago. This is business 101 stuff that the study ignores. Second, the author of that study "double dips" into suppliers as "Volt subsidies." Not really. Battery suppliers supply batteries to more than just GM, obviously. And to more than one GM model, obviously. So let's use a BMW example again - it's like me writing an article stating that Bosch (which DOES receive subsidy from the German government) is on the dole for BMW motorcycles. All the subsidies Bosch receives, divided only over BMW motorcycles! As if Bosch isn't also used in BMW, Mercedes, and nearly every other car under the sun. A VERY stupid point to make, because it's not realistic, at all. The bottom line is this: The car is being used as a political football for some reason. It's an American designed, American manufactured car that is at the cutting edge of technology, being continually attacked by American politicans looking to score points with people who are ignorant of the fact that in the automotive industry, every manufacturer is subsidized in some form or another. Whether it's GM's bailout, Chrysler's bailout (on which Uncle made out very well, mind you), Ford's taxpayer-subsidized $5.9b "low / no interest loan" - yes, Ford too - they're all on the lamb. Please don't kid yourself otherwise, and please don't lose sight of the fact that this class of "leaders" on TV are making hay by dragging down an American product designed and built by us. Think about what that says about their mindset and priorities. They are rooting for our auto industry to fail. What does that say??? The larger question is not one of philosophy or ideology. It's a real question! Japan HEAVILY subsizides its auto industry. So does Korea. So does China, Germany, France, South America, Australia, and everybody else. All of them, as a percentage of GDP, far more than we do. FAR more. So if you're GM, or Ford, how do you compete with that level of financing of your R&D and operations? Explain that in a realistic way - not bumper sticker ideological nonsense - a real, concrete answer. And then maybe you will have a grasp of the problem at hand. It's not an easy problem. -MKL Link to comment
upflying Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 How about a $10,000 instant rebate from your friendly taxpayers to buy a slow selling Volt? I am guessing the 5-week shutdown was mean to tighten supply of Volts so dealers can charge top-dollar when the flood of bargain hunters show up at dealers for that $10,000 check. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/electric-car-rebate-obama-budget_n_1279852.html Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 Bob, How about that? Well, at least this article didn't rely on the flawed personal economics argument of the Spectator. This article got that part right: "The people who are buying these vehicles today are demographically very well off," said Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of consumer web site Edmunds.com. "They're buying these vehicles because they're passionate about them … They would buy these vehicles whether there was a rebate or not." Correct. Give that man a cigar! We can indeed have an argument over whether these tax breaks are the right thing to do, or not the right thing to do. From my perspective as an energy hawk, it is the right thing to do. I see a Volt or Leaf as a passive defense machine, like a new tank or fighter jet or defense system. Except instead of being deployed to fight like the latter, the former reduces our need to fight in the first place, by getting us untangled from the mess of Middle Eastern petroleum and all the mess which accompanies that addiction. Don't forget where it comes from, Bob. Canada and Mexico, sure. And also here.... Anyone who reads the papers likely recognizes some of these countries like Syria, like Saudi Arabia, like Congo, like Pakistan, etc. and what they respesent to American values and interests. So here comes that circle James Woolsey talked about. Pay to enrich them, so that they can use that wealth we just gave them to fight us, so we can pay to fight them. It's stupid. Plain and simple. I have yet to hear an intelligent argument in favor of this cycle, which is exactly what we're engaged in. If you have an argument in favor, I'm all ears.... I can and do respect a principled stand against such subsidies, but only from people who are consistent. If you're outraged over a few million in EV subsidies but are dead silent when it comes to the $4 billion (likely much more, depending on which study you read) in annual oil subsidies, I cannot and do not respect that. A true budget hawk is a hawk across the board, not just when politically convenient. If you're going to rail against pennies and ignore the Benjamins thrown around to the usual suspects who are already drowning in record profits, your argument will fall apart in the first 5 seconds. If you've been reading the paper, you know what a fight the so-called "deficit hawks" are putting up against ending subsidies for big oil. Wonder why? Does it look like THEY need taxpayer funded help? Are you angry in proportion to the HUGE windfall thrown their way, as you are at the Volt? Hmmmmmm??? -MKL Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I understand your concerns about importing oil from unstable and unfriendly countries. As I've mentioned before I'm in favor of drilling here to exploit our resources. I really have to question the 2008 map and stats you posted. We imported a whole 1000 barrels a day of oil from Congo, 6000 from Syria, 1000 from Pakistan and a whopping 3000 barrels per day from Mauritania. Hardly seems worth the effort. I get the point-we're dealing with bad guys. But, battery technology forces us to deal with bad guys too. Think China. Within the last couple of months the Chinese goverment declared that they were going to curtail the export of rare earth elements which are used in electronics and yes, batteries. They are a major souce of these elements. So what stops them from blackmailing us over batteries? They are buying up oil options now so for geopolitical purposes is there anything that stops them from cornering the rare earth market? They are smart enough to look out for their own strategic interests which will trump our interests. And I know you're going to tell me they aren't the only source of these elements but they are a major player. My point is simple: There ain't no free lunch. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 >>> understand your concerns about importing oil from unstable and unfriendly countries. As I've mentioned before I'm in favor of drilling here to exploit our resources. I really have to question the 2008 map and stats you posted. We imported a whole 1000 barrels a day of oil from Congo, 6000 from Syria, 1000 from Pakistan and a whopping 3000 barrels per day from Mauritania. Hardly seems worth the effort. I get the point-we're dealing with bad guys. But, battery technology forces us to deal with bad guys too. Think China. Within the last couple of months the Chinese goverment declared that they were going to curtail the export of rare earth elements which are used in electronics and yes, batteries. They are a major souce of these elements. So what stops them from blackmailing us over batteries? They are buying up oil options now so for geopolitical purposes is there anything that stops them from cornering the rare earth market? They are smart enough to look out for their own strategic interests which will trump our interests. And I know you're going to tell me they aren't the only source of these elements but they are a major player. My point is simple: There ain't no free lunch.<<<< Richard- You raise some valid and fair points - all ones we've touched on before in this thread and in others. Ms. Rand was right - there ain't no free lunch. But some lunches do cost more than others. Let me respond at the risk of being repetitous for those who have seen this before: Re where we import from, yes, these are low amount from some of these countries. To me, even one dollar to Syria, to Congo, to Pakistan, etc. is too much. You know what the state is doing with that money, in all of those countries. There is no doubt about it. I don't want my money going there. HUGE amounts are imported from Saudi Arabia. I'm sure I don't need to remind you where 15 of our 19 "friendly flyers" came from. I live next to NYC and lost two classmates at New York University in our first month of graduate school classes 11 years ago. I have not forgotten them or why they perished. So, I don't want my money going there, either. Re China's reserves of rare earth metals, yes, they are a player. But a major one? I don't see it that way. I refer you to our old thread here http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=740781&page=3 as Admin Mike raised this point on that old thread. Here's a new report from Frost & Sullivan showing worldwide lithium reserves: You will notice the stronghold is in Latin America, not China. Not by a longshot. And further still, though Latin America and China have their own issues - not to be discounted lightly - my classmates were not killed by agents of either country in 2001. Neither were any of the thousands of troops who were maimed and killed since 2003. Bad guys in China and Bolivia? Sure, of course! But are all bad guys created equal? I don't think so. There's a big difference in my mind between IP theft, currency manipulation, crooked politics and so on - and the slaughter of American citizens, slaughter of American troops, slaughter of citizens of those countries themselves, sheltering OBL, and so on. I have a very difficult time understanding people who see a moral equivalence between these two areas. Last thread it almost got shut down because I typed what I thought of people with that equivalence mindset before I could censor myself, so this time I'll let that issue lie. Further still, the ASSUmption is that Lithium is the basis for any advancement. In fact, thanks in NO small part to private and public investment, the USA is on the cutting edge of battery technology now. Companies like A123 in MASS are working on next-gen batteries which rely less on rare earth metals and more on advanced technology. Preliminary tests show amazing improvements in capacity, size, weight, and life. Those American designed and hopefully American built cells can be used by American car companies as well, moving us further and further away from the Middle East. You know where the oil comes from. It ain't helping us any to stay on that track. (The Armed Forces certainly recognize that and are mobilizing rapidly to increase efficiencies across the board - a wonderful thing, as the US Armed Forces is the world's single largest consumer of energy). Finally to the point of drill, baby, drill! I am one of those "all of the above" guys. Drill so long as it's done right, with appropriate safeguards in place so we don't wind up with yet another in the long line of environmental disasters ruining our land. But - and this is a BIG but - there has to be emphasis on other sources of supply, and on other ways to curb demand. No solution which doesn't include supply AND demand is viable. Even the MOST optimistic elements on sensationalistic Fox News style reports where drilling is everything and anything else is discounted show the USA has about 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. That is wildly optimistic and disputed by many major scientific publication on the subject, but let's assume it's true. We've got 2% here. And we consume about 20% of the world's supply. So you see, there's a major shortfall that is not going to be addressed by drilling here. It will help, in a very small way, if it's done right and the public isn't on the hook - again - to pay for the externalities like when the state has to go in and clean up the mess oil companies make of the environment. Drilling alone? It's like claiming you will put out the proverbial fire with a medicine dropper. Not even close. There ain't no free lunch. On this we agree. But some cost more than others. Eating my lunch from the Middle East costs TOO MUCH. Too much blood, too much treasure, too much waste. There are no end to the shortfalls. I want to eat my lunch elsewhere. Sure, it will cost me something - but not as much. Not nearly. It's a matter of national security - That's how I see it. -MKL Link to comment
Ken H. Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I have yet to hear an intelligent argument in favor of this cycle, which is exactly what we're engaged in. If you have an argument in favor, I'm all ears.... The value of cheaper fuel is more important to me that the value of my social moral beliefs. Now I’m not saying that’s my argument, but that is the true argument underlying the cycle. Link to comment
Paul Mihalka Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Stupid title on MSN Money article: "GM buyers snub 'Obamamobile' Volt" Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'm sorry if I appear to be redundant but there's only 38 pages to this post alone! Not being familiar with the Frost and Sullivan report of reserves worldwide of Li I had to rely on the Wall Street Journal. I'll ask the question: Are reserves the same as "supplied and on the market". Missing from this report is the mention of Afghanistan which supposedly has rich abundant Li deposits. The point is that if there are reserves it isn't the same thing as availability. We have as much oil in reserve as Saudi Arabia but we aren't doing anything about it. I'm not saying anything one way or the other as a porponent or opponent. I'm just saying beware of which devil you crawl into bed with. Link to comment
upflying Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Another black eye report about the hybrid market. This isn't going to help Fisker repay the $529 million Department of Energy loan. Another Solyndra? http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/03/consumer-reports-fisker-karma-breaks/1 Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96d95eee-6a09-11e1-a26e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oeNXyNbX Moshe-quick new article on China's rare earth use status. I don't know how to activate a link if this doesn't open. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Stupid title on MSN Money article: "GM buyers snub 'Obamamobile' Volt" Beyond stupid. The work started on the concept in 2006. Concept debuted in 2007. It's stupid politics for stupid people. -MKL Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 The point is that if there are reserves it isn't the same thing as availability. We have as much oil in reserve as Saudi Arabia but we aren't doing anything about it. I'm not saying anything one way or the other as a porponent or opponent. I'm just saying beware of which devil you crawl into bed with. "Known reserves" and availability are two different things. I could use your Afghan example and say theoretically, that they have known reserves of X material. Availability means the ability of a party to go and get that material in a cost effective way. Going into a wild warzone certainly limits availability, but not known reserves. Now, what on earth gives you the idea that we have as much oil in reserve as Saudi Arabia? What gives you the idea that we have even a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of that amount? Richard, this is politics. Pure and simple. Here is a compilation of Fox News reports from 2008, when oil was $130 per barrel. Please take careful note two things: 1) Experts cited in said reports based on known US reserves at the time estimated that if we drilled Anwar and it produced as expected, price per barrel would drop by anywhere between 40 cents and $1.40. That's out of $130.00 per barrel, at the time. That is the sum total effect expected from drilling, from the proponents of it! Not even 1%. And this is not from the naysayers - from the people in favor of drilling, and drilling alone as the panacea. Their words, not mine. 2) Watch those commentators. Perhaps some of them are your favorites, or at least closer to your viewpoint than you would expect given what they are saying in these clips. Ask yourself why they are not applying the same logic, reasoning, and talking points now when a different party is in power? The evidence is clear, and the answer is simple... People blinded by ideology? A common occurance. But why are they setting their wrath on these automotive products? That is the mystery I do not understand and why I started this thread to begin with. -MKL Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Another black eye report about the hybrid market. What do you mean "another black eye?" Can I, for example, use the biggest piece of crap gasoline car on the market, and then use it alone as an example to paint its shoddy record as a "black eye" on all other gas vehicles? Obviously not. But that is your line here. Can I point out that some hybrids win the highest ratings in terms of reliability, out of ALL cars in their class, not just hybrids? Like the Prius just winning JD Power's "2012 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study?" Or Consumer Reports' highest reliability ratings, year after year? Or the prestigious German TUV's award for lowest defects per 100 of any car on the market? ANY car, not just hybrids. Or the fact that they are used as taxis all over North America? Hell, the Volt itself - the star of this thread - has stellar reliability ratings in Consumer Reports. For a first-year American car of this level of complexity? Why not be proud that we did it right, instead of rooting for the bad news wherever you can find it. What exactly do you have to gain by attacking our homegrown effort? That is what I seek to find in this thread. Even the question itself as you ask it is loaded. "Another Solyndra," painting any company that gets a loan as Solyndra. Why? Why not A123 which got a loan, and is paying it back handsomely, and is now a world leader in battery technology which have waiting lists for various industries from military to medical to try out. A123 in Massachussetts, employing Americans. Not South Korea, not Germany, not Japan - Mass, USA. Why not Ford, which currently is reporting record profits after its $5.9b taxpayer-funded loan? There are many more examples. But your point is revealed in your question. What is not revealed is the flip side of your ASSumptions. First, that hybrids are unreliable, for which you present one example from one brand new startup company (big surprise?) and ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The second is that Solyndra is yet another example of a failing company that took a loan - go over to your friendly bank, or read the Wall Street Journal sometime, Bob. Companies that take loans go bust all the time, no matter the source of that loan. Solyndra is small potatoes compared to the companies which are flourishing right now in the energy sector. -MKL Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96d95eee-6a09-11e1-a26e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oeNXyNbX Moshe-quick new article on China's rare earth use status. I don't know how to activate a link if this doesn't open. Mike, FT is very frustrating this way in that their links do not open easily and usually redirect you to generic front page. That is what is happening here. You may recall, a few weeks ago we had been discussing the price of oil, and I linked to an FT interview with the Saudi Finance Minister, who said outright that SA was fixing the price of oil at $100 per barrel in order to fund increased social spending to keep the so-called "Arab Spring" from blowing into Riyadh. The link didn't work, but I found a similar article elsewhere and used that. (My point there applies here as well - there is no free market reasoning of supply and demand determining oil prices. The supplier is telling you, outright, that they're fixing the price on issues that have nothing to do with supply, or demand. Yet more reasons to stop getting gouged by these crooks). Anyway, perhaps share the tag line of the article and we can find other sources reporting on the story so we can comment further on it. -MKL Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'd love to open a youtube video at work but big brother has blocking software. So whatever reference you're citing is off limits for comment. "Experts cited in said reports based on known US reserves at the time estimated that if we drilled Anwar and it produced as expected, price per barrel would drop by anywhere between 40 cents and $1.40. That's out of $130.00 per barrel, at the time. That is the sum total effect expected from drilling, from the proponents of it! Not even 1%. And this is not from the naysayers - from the people in favor of drilling, and drilling alone as the panacea. Their words, not mine." This statment on it's face is the usual stuff I expect from the greenies (not necessarily aiming at you) and those with a no drill agenda. I just heard a prominent congress woman Sunday giving an interview tell the interviewer that "It would take 20 years for drilling to have any impact on the price of gas." She cited some, now defunct, government mining and minerals board statistic. 20 years really? I'm supposed to buy that as a reason to do nothing? Every journey starts with the 1st step. Sitting on one's arse will not a step take. People who are green will of course tell us not to drill because it will do no good. We don't have enough oil. We use 25% of the worlds oil(feel guilty-very guilty) and it isn't fair. It's old technology, It's dirty. We can't contruct a pipeline we might pollute something or other. We might____________(insert irrational fear here) We don't have enough etc. etc. So let's do nothing(and be victims) Others, like yourself, get indignant if we find fault with your rational "Ask yourself why they are not applying the same logic, reasoning, and talking points now when a different party is in power?" WE've been having this exact same arguement for 40 stinking years! Everyone (politicians)seems to angle for the ONE PERFECT solution with no in between. If it isn't perfect enough they walk away from the idea all together. Result: No progres like today with the gas price rising. "The evidence is clear, and the answer is simple... People blinded by ideology" Absolutely! And a total lack of common sense. Best Regards. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Rich- When you get a chance, please review the vid. It's not "greenies" talking. It's all Fox News analysts and commentators. That's exactly why I posted it. It will not be possible to dismiss on an ideological basis because in fact it's all coming from the same side of the fence. It is true that every journey starts with the first step. But this jouney has many facets. Supply. Demand. Drilling AND conservation. All of the above. America doesn't have the capacity to meet her demand. Not even close. Step 1 is facing that fact. Step 2 is exploring what options we have to increase supply AND reduce demand. Step 3 is taking action. -MKL Link to comment
FlyingFinn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 At the time of the beginning of this thread I probably would have had to count myself as one of them "hybrid haters". Maybe not a hater but "disliker" for sure. After seeing the DATA provided in this thread I pretty much want to go and get a Prius. If they just made them with leather seats... -- Mikko Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 They do, Mikko, they do. Mine has leather. Dad's Volt is leather too. Heated seats, even. -MKL Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'll look at the video when I get home. Clairvoyance strikes! This wouldn't happen to be a bunch of business types prattling on about "market forces", "supply and demand" and "world oil markets"? LOL I'm guessing, but that seems to be the standard fare there. "...Supply. Demand. Drilling AND conservation. All of the above. America doesn't have the capacity to meet her demand. Not even close. Step 1 is facing that fact. Step 2 is exploring what options we have to increase supply AND reduce demand. Step 3 is taking action." I agree with step 1 in as much as one needs to face facts--problem becomes who's facts. Step 2 is incomplete-we are driving the least amount of miles in 8-10 years. How can we reduce demand any further? You all out East heat with oil and had an exceedingly mild winter-again decreased demand. We saw a significant increase in supply as a result. I guess to do more we could all stay home So what happened to the oil? It got exported!!! The overall benefit went to the oil companies. Step 3 take action- darn right-restrict oil exports until our demand is met. If India can declare no export of cotton and China can limit exports of rare earth metals we sure can withold oil for our own use. There are other steps that would solve the problem in the near term as well. I posted a link in the thread earlier regarding China. About 6 paragrphs in it noted that China accounts for 95% of rare earth production. 13 paragraphs in the article reminds us that processing of these are potentially polluting for the producer. So as I mentioned a couple of pages back, for our "feel good about ourselves" moment is tempered by the fact we just shifted the pollution to someone else's back yard. "Stil ain't no free lunch" Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Rich- "Whose facts" applies to subjective issues like economics and such. It doesn't apply to my Step 2. There is no fact, no study, no paper, no article, and no knowledgeable person any place on earth who would argue that the United States has anything beyond a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the amount of reserves (supply) to meet its own demand. We cannot be self sufficient, or anywhere near it, given current demand. In fact we will never be self sufficient re oil if we all drove bicycles around all day. We are too big, our industry too large, and our own supply too small. We are not blessed with oil under our feet like Saudi Arabia. This is why demand must be addressed, not just supply. How do we reduce demand? You listed some items that are naturally occurring. There are many others which we can do as a country. Like raising MPG fleet averages for cars. And trucks. And planes. And trains. And boats. Like raising minimum efficiency ratings for furnaces, and for air conditioners. Like improving the energy efficiency of our appliances. And of our homes, and of our offices. And so on, and so forth. Don't feel like waiting endlessly for the state to raise these averages? Fine, me neither! Next time you buy a car, buy an efficient one if it meets your lifestyle needs. Same with your fridge, your dishwasher, your furnace, and so on. When these things go, replacements are readily available to enable you to reduce your demand. (My current kitchen of Energy Star microwave, dishwasher, stove, toaster, and fridge appliances consumes less TOTAL COMBINED than my 15 year old Maytag fridge does - I measured it myself). You can do that - it's under your DIRECT and personal control! This isn't a very complicated analogy to make. We have a big, fat, gluttonous pig swilling away in a restaurant. The pig knows he has to get healthy, but he cannot bring himself to accept diet AND exercise. His brain is wired such that he either thinks he must starve himself and stay stationary, or that he can keep swilling so long as he works out more. All the arguments in his head are "either / or," like what sadly passes for political discourse today re energy. Anybody with half a brain knows: It's both. It's all of the above. You want to look like a fitness model? You diet. AND you exercise. It's not one, or the other. You want energy independence? Make more of your own. And suck down less from other places. Watch that vid. Speaks for itself. -MKL Link to comment
Huzband Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Stupid title on MSN Money article: "GM buyers snub 'Obamamobile' Volt" Beyond stupid. The work started on the concept in 2006. Concept debuted in 2007. It's stupid politics for stupid people. -MKL Do you really believe your petty insults make you look any smarter? Or your argument any more valid? Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Danny, Yes, I am definitely stupid, and surely my argument is invalid. Paul is stupid as well since you quoted him saying "Stupid title," with which I wholeheartedly agree. So obviously, we're both really dumb guys. I readily admit it. However, tying a vehicle to the current POTUS (which began concept design several years before the current POTUS was POTUS to begin with) is smart, and valid. Attacking American industry and ingenuity is also smart for American politicians to do, and those who mere voters support such efforts are bordering on Einstein. You've got the whole thing figured out! -MKL Link to comment
Huzband Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yet another lame attempt at your own spin. The more you talk, the faster you go down your own drain. But you just can't see it, can you? And you can't be convinced. Because, you see, you're just too smart. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Tell you what, Danny. You yourself convince easily me - and Paul - and everyone else who thinks that nickname for the car is stupid. Just tell us why it's NOT stupid. What's the intelligent or factual reasoning behind that name? Please explain. -MKL Link to comment
Huzband Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Old Fart Member Registered: 07/20/00 Posts: 11163 Loc: Sykesville, MD Stupid title on MSN Money article: "GM buyers snub 'Obamamobile' Volt" As I read it, Paul was posting an opinion. As I see it, that's what we all do. You, however, stoop to name calling in an attempt to elevate yourself above all that disaggree with you. You still refuse to see how that tears you down. My words here here can't change that, only your own mind can. As for the "Obamamobile" moniker, that's not mine. You think you're very clever in trying to geode me into responding to political inuindo, but it's not happening.. Link to comment
moshe_levy Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 OK, so we just went in a little circle and accomplished nothing. We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think the moniker is stupid, and by extension the ideas behind it are stupid, and so by extension the people themselves behind it are stupid. I don't respect the thinking behind that moniker, or what it represents, and I don't have to pretend to. -MKL Link to comment
majrosebud Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 The Volt got an outstanding report card from the magazine Consumer Reports. Why not buy one? I am going to check it out soon, even though I am not in the market currently. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.