RE: The i3 and BMW 360-degrees Electric
Discussion
Technomatt said:
As we are on a heavy 'cut and paste' run:
The Many Costs of Obama’s Electric Car Folly
![](http://thumbsnap.com/sc/jQPPuFz3.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/jQPPuFz3" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/jQPPuFz3.jpg)
It appears that there is no end in sight to the Obama Administration's costly quest to electrify America's auto fleet, despite the recent flurry of reports that continue to confirm that the benefits of electric vehicles (EVs) are practically nonexistent in comparison to the costs. One of these reports even came from Obama's own NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) panel which downplayed the importance of EVs and claimed that electric cars will only need to account for between one and three percent of car manufacturer's product portfolios by 2025 for lofty government EPA requirements to be met.
The Autoguide.com article on the NHTSA panel findings states, "Despite those findings, the government has willingly shoveled millions of dollars at manufacturers and consumers in a ploy to popularize electric cars." I would whole-heartedly agree with that, except it has been "billions" of dollars shoveled, not "millions." And money is not all that has been shoveled as the hype for plug-in EVs like the Chevy Volt misrepresented the potential for the current technology claiming huge demand for a vehicle that was to be a game-changer. The demand has still not materialized, but the costs to taxpayers and consumers continue to climb.
The costs to both taxpayers and consumers are accumulating in many areas, some more obvious than others. President Obama initially dumped $2.4 billion into the EV market in the form of grants (primarily to develop the much-hyped Chevy Volt) back in 2009. Federal tax credits for EVs cost taxpayers $7,500 per vehicle sold. State tax credits add an average of close to $2,000 each. Less obvious is the fact that drivers of EVs are not paying their fair share of gasoline taxes to maintain the nation's highways.
Consumers of all new vehicles will have to pay the price as well. Automakers are currently absorbing huge losses for EVs, which are still not economically viable. These costs will have to be passed along to buyers as more commercially logical gas-powered cars will have to see price increases to make up for the losses. As reported by Businessweek.com and Bloomberg, if automakers do not offer steep discounts on EVs they will not be able to meet increasingly strict state and federal requirements.
Context is a little important here The Many Costs of Obama’s Electric Car Folly
It appears that there is no end in sight to the Obama Administration's costly quest to electrify America's auto fleet, despite the recent flurry of reports that continue to confirm that the benefits of electric vehicles (EVs) are practically nonexistent in comparison to the costs. One of these reports even came from Obama's own NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) panel which downplayed the importance of EVs and claimed that electric cars will only need to account for between one and three percent of car manufacturer's product portfolios by 2025 for lofty government EPA requirements to be met.
The Autoguide.com article on the NHTSA panel findings states, "Despite those findings, the government has willingly shoveled millions of dollars at manufacturers and consumers in a ploy to popularize electric cars." I would whole-heartedly agree with that, except it has been "billions" of dollars shoveled, not "millions." And money is not all that has been shoveled as the hype for plug-in EVs like the Chevy Volt misrepresented the potential for the current technology claiming huge demand for a vehicle that was to be a game-changer. The demand has still not materialized, but the costs to taxpayers and consumers continue to climb.
The costs to both taxpayers and consumers are accumulating in many areas, some more obvious than others. President Obama initially dumped $2.4 billion into the EV market in the form of grants (primarily to develop the much-hyped Chevy Volt) back in 2009. Federal tax credits for EVs cost taxpayers $7,500 per vehicle sold. State tax credits add an average of close to $2,000 each. Less obvious is the fact that drivers of EVs are not paying their fair share of gasoline taxes to maintain the nation's highways.
Consumers of all new vehicles will have to pay the price as well. Automakers are currently absorbing huge losses for EVs, which are still not economically viable. These costs will have to be passed along to buyers as more commercially logical gas-powered cars will have to see price increases to make up for the losses. As reported by Businessweek.com and Bloomberg, if automakers do not offer steep discounts on EVs they will not be able to meet increasingly strict state and federal requirements.
The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
DonkeyApple said:
Context is a little important here
The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
What is also important, contextually, is a balanced viewpoint that embraces opposing and valid non-politically driven green and lobbyist agendas The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Context is a little important here
The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
What is also important, contextually, is a balanced viewpoint that embraces opposing and valid non-politically driven green and lobbyist agendas The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
DonkeyApple said:
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Context is a little important here
The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
What is also important, contextually, is a balanced viewpoint that embraces opposing and valid non-politically driven green and lobbyist agendas The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Context is a little important here
The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
What is also important, contextually, is a balanced viewpoint that embraces opposing and valid non-politically driven green and lobbyist agendas The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
No one is being so silly as to post Eco junk to support their view that EVs are interesting and potentially great fun as well as beneficial. And it seems silly to post this stuff from the other loons.
And I don't see how you can claim to be correct when it is just your personal view that you haven't backed up with real facts. But have however openly tried to mislead with made up statements.
DonkeyApple said:
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Context is a little important here
The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
What is also important, contextually, is a balanced viewpoint that embraces opposing and valid non-politically driven green and lobbyist agendas The NLPC, who published this article, is the private lobby group to the Republican, anti Obama, Richard Mellon, the sole heir to the Mellon oil business
The NLPC lobby group regularly publishes articles which aren't exactly true but are written in order to fuel oil industry agenda.
No one is being so silly as to post Eco junk to support their view that EVs are interesting and potentially great fun as well as beneficial. And it seems silly to post this stuff from the other loons.
And I don't see how you can claim to be correct when it is just your personal view that you haven't backed up with real facts. But have however openly tried to mislead with made up statements.
I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
Technomatt said:
I’ve previously provided data on actual % sales data and failed sales projections, real Govt £ funding support for subsidies, CO2 EV production front loading, large scale CO2 reductions through initiatives with ICE and links to relevant dialogue and debate on an alternate viewpoint on the credibility and feasibility of EVs in both the near and long term.
I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
Ah yes, the sums you tried to pass of as spent as opposed to allocated and the claims that sales were declining. I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
If you stuck to the truth and actually thought out some of the credible issues then you'd find support instead of ridicule.
DonkeyApple said:
Technomatt said:
I’ve previously provided data on actual % sales data and failed sales projections, real Govt £ funding support for subsidies, CO2 EV production front loading, large scale CO2 reductions through initiatives with ICE and links to relevant dialogue and debate on an alternate viewpoint on the credibility and feasibility of EVs in both the near and long term.
I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
Ah yes, the sums you tried to pass of as spent as opposed to allocated and the claims that sales were declining. I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
If you stuck to the truth and actually thought out some of the credible issues then you'd find support instead of ridicule.
I can now add ridicule to your defensive use of looney/biased/junk.
Technomatt said:
DonkeyApple said:
Technomatt said:
I’ve previously provided data on actual % sales data and failed sales projections, real Govt £ funding support for subsidies, CO2 EV production front loading, large scale CO2 reductions through initiatives with ICE and links to relevant dialogue and debate on an alternate viewpoint on the credibility and feasibility of EVs in both the near and long term.
I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
Ah yes, the sums you tried to pass of as spent as opposed to allocated and the claims that sales were declining. I sense though, anything that does not chime in with your personal views is given a convenient ‘looney/biased/junk’ tag.
If you stuck to the truth and actually thought out some of the credible issues then you'd find support instead of ridicule.
I can now add ridicule to your defensive use of looney/biased/junk.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff