BS: Obama's million PHEVs by 2015?
Only if they come from Japan?Yesterday, Barack Obama said he would give automakers $4 billion to develop a million plug-in hybrid vehicles by 2015. Is this just political nonsense? (more)
GM is hoping that by 2015 - if everything goes perfectly - it will have produced 200,000 plug-in hybrids. Ford and Chrysler are well behind GM in such an effort. So, where will the rest of the plug-in hybrids come from if Obama wants them to be built in the US?
Sure, in addition to the $4 billion - just a fraction of the real world costs of such vehicles - Obama would also give consumers $7000 to buy plug-ins. Never mind that such vehicles will probably cost close to $50,000 (so is this a tax credit for the rich?). Yet, $4 billion and unlimited tax credits won't be nearly enough according to many experts, especially when GM LOST more than $15 billion just the last quarter alone.
Isn't Obama really just talking about a bailout covered in a PHEV's clothes?
While I would love to see an effort to achieve 1 million US-made plug-in hybrids, aren't we just spinning fairy tales? The battery technology behind these next gen PHEVs has NOT yet been proven in mass produceable conditions, and it won't be proven until well after 2010. And, dare I say it, what happens if gas prices drop significantly for a few years (which I'd bet will happen)?
Labels: plug-in hybrid vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:54 AM
17 Comments:
And to be fair, this is at least a better plan than McCain's plug-in prize, for example. Still, is either candidate really living in the real world?
Energy experts have been saying for some time that oil has become a bubble and that demand wasn't sustainable at these prices. Like the internet bubble and the real estate bubble, the oil bubble will burst. Yes, oil prices will once again set new highs, but it might not happen for a few, even several, years. And, if the past demonstrates one thing, Americans will be lulled into a false sense of security.
If gas prices drop below $3.00 will Congress really be interested in spending tens of billions on PHEVs?
good issue.
I think a Dem congress will gladly spend tens of billions on PHEVs. Why not?
About the batteries, I think part of what is unproven about the needed batteries is long term warranty and legal liability. In other words risk.
I think the government can definitely play a role in helping to mitigate that risk. Maybe change liability laws for PHEVs? Unlikely, I guess. Maybe subsidize future battery replacements IF safety recalls are ever needed?
Couple some kind of federal support with Ford and Chrysler getting behind GM's EFlex platform, and you have the major pieces in place for the Big 3 and the federal govt to make an all out push on PHEVs.
Also, I figure the $7 billion and 1 million PHEVs figures are just a marker for the beginning of federal support of PHEVs. A sign of serious intention. The $$ will grow and the PHEV numbers will inevitably come back to earth.
Of course, one should question if this the right bet? What are the opportunity costs?
Anyway, would you be happier with a bigger Obama committment to PHEVs, or would you just rather see Obama talk about supporting hybrids instead?
risk is definitely a big part of the equation, but it isn't just legal risk in and of itself. the reason Toyota held back on its lithium is that when lithium batteries are mass produced its a bit harder to maintain cell integrity. to produce millions of lithium batteries, with 100 percent cell integrity is a serious obstacle. if not, the battery management systems to maintain integrity can keep costs of such vehicles high.
still, i agree that spending money on this venture is worthwhile. the problem, however, is how is it enforced? how does congress ensure that the money is spent correctly?
clinton tried such a program, although not at this scale, and America got the Prius, the Insight more debt and greater foreign oil dependency. Detroit decided it just didn't work.
Also, I guess I'm asking, should PHEVs be the primary focus. Getting as many into hybrids today as possible will push hybrid battery technology which will inevitably lead to plug-in hybrids.
I guess i'd like to see more power in the hands of the people - tax incentives - and less of an automaker bailout. I really believe that Detroit needs to fight for survival in order to learn and grow from decades of ineptness, denial and ignorance.
or, maybe a socialized auto industry - considering their debt, pension and medical obligations - is the only way forward.
You could look at Obama's comment as political BS or optimism. I'm betting on the latter. And if automakers are only able to put out 500 000 PHEV, so be it. As long as everyone is on the right path (which hopefully means fully electric vehicles) then, great.
And as for "what if gas prices go down"... well, I'm hoping that North America as whole has the common sense to look into the future and continues to work towards reducing our oil consumption. That includes driving vehicles that match our actual needs, carpooling, developing renewable tech, as so on.
Nothing wrong with some optimism, jocelyn. I sure hope you're right that North Americans have finally learned, although I think that many Americans will be more than happy to return to their ignorance is bliss mentality.
I think Chevy should start out selling the VOLT at a loss if necessary in order to keep the price well below 30K. Honda did that with the Insight initially. If the Volt is as good as I think it will be, they shouldn't have a problem in the long term. I know it's a risk. 80 to 90% of my driving is less than 40 miles per day which means I could drive for weeks without using any fuel. This will make the Smart Car look like a gas hog. (I'm on the Smart reservation list though)
I also think we should walk away from oil no matter how cheap it gets and leave the middle east and whomever, swimming in the stuff. I usually think in global terms. (we are all part of the human race) But when the oil folks start hijacking us, then it's time get some good ole American ingenuity, creativity, inventiveness and say...keep your oil...see ya! Oil based fuel will be with us for quite a while but we can make a serious dent in the demand. I'm ready.
dahc wrote: "I really believe that Detroit needs to fight for survival in order to learn and grow from decades of ineptness, denial and ignorance."
you don't mind if I call you dahc, do you? :)
Anyway, I certainly agree with you on that point. Maybe the thing to do is to, yes, help the big 3, but REALLY help Tesla and other small companies that have a shot at causing some real creative destruction within the auto industry.
But, yeah, having a repeat of whatever Clinton tried would be the worst situation. Was that the EV1 program?
Having ONLY consumer incentives, maybe really big incentives, say $10K to $15K, would force the companies to get into shape. I believe it worked really well in California at only a $2k to $3K level.
In that program it seems only Toyota was really able to reap the benefits. If a much larger, nationwide incentive were instituted GM, Ford, and Chrysler would have a second chance, and a qualitatively different opportunity. The small California incentive helped to INTRODUCE hybrids to the world and was enough to support a single blockbuster model, the Prius. Maybe I'm giving CA and the incentive too much credit, but could a bigger federal program incentivize a RESTRUCTURING of the industry around hybrids?
Hmm, the incentive should not be PHEV only, rather any hybrid or PHEV or EV. The smart companies could take the money to invest in hybrids, catch up with Toyota, and eventually make it to PHEVs. If GM wants to start with PHEVs, that's their risk, and I think they would be rewarded long term, but Chrysler should at least start to build a hybrid supply chain.
However, one problem I see with Hybrids is that everyone has to either license from Toyota or make these suboptimal designs that steer clear of Toyota's parallel hybrid patents. PHEVs are a way to control your own destiny. But then again, if we just let consumers decide maybe they won't care if it is a mild hybrid (as long as they get their $10K incentive, that is!)
I agree this is a very important topic. However, I do not feel electric-battery power is the correct direction or not enough alternative ideas are being considered. Everyone agrees the we need to remove ourselves from non-renewal resources. Oil is evidently a non-renewal resource. Electricity is another resource-limited power supply. Can we as a nation/world handle one million plug in cars? How will we respond when electric companies prices soar? Or power-blackouts become more frequent? Electrical power is not a solution; unless we are ready to build more dams on our rivers or in the Grand Canyon. These ideas have been suggested, opposed, and tried (TVA) and Hetch Hetchy. We need to look at (1) Solar Power - a mostly dependable daily resource with unlimited daily supply. (2) a quick growing high-energy bio-fuel; that will not jeopardize our growing need of food sources. I am against using corn as a fuel alternative; to me food is more important than fuel. (3) self-contained power source (nuclear power). (4) re-using waste products - decomposing materials produce heat and in my opinion can be harnessed and manufactured fertilizer.
Electricity is not the answer. So in my opinion McCain has a better idea with nuclear power.
More along woodotter's points, but I hate running my electric-powered a/c sparingly during the summer - I certainly won't like plugging in a car or two every day. My electric bill already tops $400 a month!
EVs and PHEVs are not going to replace all cars. There is a market for them however. And let's not forget...this is America. If you want to drive a Humvee to work or even an RV, that's your perogative. If EV/PHEVs don't meet your equirements, then don't buy one. Nuclear power plants are the answer to the world's present and future electrical needs IHMO. I lived in Yarmouth, ME. many years ago and watched my electric bill go down by 60% when a new nuke plant went online up there.
As far as 1 million PHEVs by 2015...I couldn't find any hard numbers but it appears 1 million would be less than 2% of the total cars sold in the US between now and 2015.
alcatholic-
Maybe the thing to do is to, yes, help the big 3, but REALLY help Tesla and other small companies that have a shot at causing some real creative destruction within the auto industry.
Great term "creative destruction".
woodotter-
great points. still, i think electricity does offer more potential than currently exists, but not in its current manifestation.
new solar/fuel cell research by MIT recently reported in Science Magazine indicates that a much more distributed power grid offers huge potential. The research indicates that solar power can now be cheaply stored with the help of new and cheaper fuel cells. this is an angle that Honda and Toyota have now been developing for years.
if we are going to talk PHEVs and EVs, it seems this kind of solar program MUST be an integral piece of the program. (or nuclear power).
even if we go nuclear, phevs and evs could still benefit. bob lutz believes that chevy volts powered by nuclear created electricity are the future.
and you are right about biofuels as well. there is a lot of organic waste sitting in dumps all over the world that can be cheaply turned into fuel. it's a shame not to recycle this energy.
I don't have a huge problem with nuclear power, at least not in the US because we have the resources to effectively manage and secure nuclear power. What worries me is that if the US moves ahead with nuclear power, the rest of the world will follow. Will the rest of the world, especially the developing world, really be able to provide the safety and security required to properly manage nuclear power?
Anyway, a million PHEVs is a nothing compared to America's overall fleet. However, a million vehicles goes a long way to scaling down the costs of PHEV supplies. That's the critical issue at this point, in my opinion.
I agree 1 million is a small number compared to the amount of cars in the US. But I do not think they are developing this concept to stop at 1 million. If it does then it would be a possible solution. When the possibilities reach 2 million or 30 million then we will have to realize that the present electrical grid of production will not meet the demands; much like oil today. Future development can not stop or be held down.
As for Nuclear power... yes it does scare me. But I believe China and France have been using Nuclear power for several years. We are far pass the three mile island errors.
50 grand per car? Who wrote this political hit piece, Carl Rove?
Umm. Bob Lutz. Bob Lutz has stated that because the supply chains don't yet exist for many Volt components, the real world costs of the Volt could be about $48,000.
Gee, doesn't it suck when you have to deal with reality?
i don't disagree, woodotter. still, it isn't countries like the US, France or China that I worry about, it's developing countries that cause me concern.
nonetheless, I'd rather have a more distributed grid where i could generate much of my own power, rather than having to rely on a grid with more centralized power sources. that's not an argument against nuclear, but i don't want to put all my eggs in the nuclear basket.
Post a Comment
<< Home