WaPost throws in the towel: "The Electric Car mistake"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    WaPost throws in the towel: "The Electric Car mistake"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-obamas-electric-car-mistake/2013/02/11/441b39f6-7490-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?hpid=z2

    Like we didnt know this years ago!  But even the WaPost cant keep up the fiction of the massive government waste and failure...

    "The Obama administration’s electric-car fantasy finally may have died on the road between Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn.

    The New York Times’s John M. Broder reported Friday that the Tesla Model S electric car he was test-driving repeatedly ran out of juice, partly because cold weather reduces the battery’s range by about 10 percent. "

    President Obama repeatedly declared that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans — including $465 million for Tesla — and tax incentives to buyers.

    Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That’s about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama’s goal was not preposterous. [71,000 ? How many government sales included in this? ]

    "Federal billions cannot overcome the fact that electric vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids meet few, if any, of real consumers’ needs. Compared with gas-powered cars, they deliver inferior performance at much higher cost. As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded last June: “Despite their many potential advantages, all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future.”

    If you don’t believe the scientists, listen to Takeshi Uchiyamada, the “father” of the Toyota Prius: “Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars.”

    As for Vice President Biden’s 2009 forecast of “billions and billions and billions of dollars in good, new jobs,” the electric car factory at which he made that statement sits idle. Ditto the taxpayer-backed Michigan factory of battery maker LG Chem. Two Energy Department-funded lithium-ion battery makers have gone bankrupt.

    There’s simply no denying that the administration’s electric-vehicle project was a mistake.

    But it’s worth asking precisely what kind of mistake (beyond eminently foreseeable and terribly expensive). As Bruce Springsteen once sang: “Is a dream a lie if it don’t come true, or is it something worse?”

    I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public.[just reward his cronies] Nor was the electric-car dream a Democrats-only delusion. Several Republican pols shared it, too.

    Rather, the debacle is a case study in unchecked righteousness. The administration assumed the worthiness and urgency of its goals. Americans should want electric cars, and therefore they would, apparently. "

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    Everyone with a brain knew this was a prop and not a serious idea at this point.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    The road to innovation is sometimes littered with setbacks.  Recall some of our biggst national accomplishments had numerous failures along the way.  Proving out a new technology requires time and patience.  That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    The road to innovation is sometimes littered with setbacks.  Recall some of our biggst national accomplishments had numerous failures along the way.  Proving out a new technology requires time and patience.  That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. 


    Never said they wouldnt be.

    Just stated that THIS was a political prop and waste!

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    The road to innovation is sometimes littered with setbacks.  Recall some of our biggst national accomplishments had numerous failures along the way.  Proving out a new technology requires time and patience.  That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. 

     



    Very true. But that doesn't mean mistakes can't be pointed out. 

     




    Agreed.  And I also agree with Newster's question of why Tesla was the test bed for funding.  However, I don't know if Tesla was the most mature company and thus most promising option of a company  attempting to bring the electric vehicle to market. 

    That said these mistakes can be valuable teaching tools in understanding the engineering and could very well provide a roadmap forward just by discarding what hasn't worked and searching for a better option.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future.

    Yes.


    That will take place when the technology reaches a point at which it can compete and hopefully eventually surpass the internal combustion engine. Meanwhile, subsidizing an immature technology is (as always) a waste of taxpayers money.

    The federal government has no right to gamble our money betting on companies in the marketplace, regardless of how much the responsible politicians get kickbacks in the form of campaign donations.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    Remember when cell phones were big, bulky, and expensive with batteries that had to be constantly recharged?

    Saw a nice documentary about Henry Ford and how the first company he created to build cars went belly up. 

    And fire - we've come a little ways from having to run 2 sticks together - or waiting for lighting to strike.

    Anybody care to recall who funded the first Nuclear Power plants?

    And what was the cost of sending man to the moon?  Was that a waste of money?

    Remember when the electric weed whackers, or any electric yard tool had to have an extension cord. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    The Tesla S is a nice car with cutting edge technology the only problem is a lack of rapid charging stations.

     

    and now the rest of the story....

     

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

     

     

    BOSTON (CNNMoney)

     

    Can a Tesla Model S make it from Washington, D.C., to Boston without riding on a flatbed truck?

    A reviewer in the New York Times said recently that he failed to make it, setting off a war of words with Tesla founder Elon Musk, who said the Times review was a "fake."

    On Thursday, I took the same drive -- and I made it to Boston, though not without some anxiety that I would run out of juice.

    The key issue is not the car itself, but the location of charging stations, since the Tesla (TSLA) battery pack is good for only 270 miles.

    The most scary part of the trip: the 200 miles between charging stations in Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn. That's not a lot of cushion, especially after I missed an exit adding a few miles to that leg.

    Tesla has a load of instructions to maximize battery power, and I think I followed them pretty well.

    I kept the cruise control pegged to between 60 and 65 much of the way, and kept the climate control at 72 degrees. I minimized stops.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future.

     

    Yes.


    That will take place when the technology reaches a point at which it can compete and hopefully eventually surpass the internal combustion engine. Meanwhile, subsidizing an immature technology is (as always) a waste of taxpayers money.

    The federal government has no right to gamble our money betting on companies in the marketplace, regardless of how much the responsible politicians get kickbacks in the form of campaign donations.

     




    Disagree.  Engineering requires that a concept be proven, only then can it be refined.  Therefore subsidizing technology in its infancy provides the opportunity to build a base of expertise that is crucial to understanding current capabilities vs what it will take to make a technological leap to a more suitable and stable platform that can be further tuned, tweaked, and re-engineered to a final viable product.  And its not the company that is being bet on, its the underlying technology.  If Tesla (or anyone else) produces a viable workable product that can compete with gasoline powered vehicles, but they can't stay in business the patents, the technology, the human resourses who are subject matter experts, etc will all still exist and can be reused elsewhere.  By your logic you would have scrapped the space program after a few rockets exploded on the launch pad.  Technological innovation is chess, not checkers. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    Liberals have a religious fervor, an unabiding faith in Government, no matter the reality.

    They never admit a government failure.

    America's greatest strength is innovation from lean, hungry , hardworking ,  ambitious (what libs call "greedy") private sector  inventors, not, fat overpaid public sector bureaucrats...

    Sorry, you cant have a Government "Innovation Agency" and hire bureaucrats to come up with innovation....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    The road to innovation is sometimes littered with setbacks.  Recall some of our biggst national accomplishments had numerous failures along the way.  Proving out a new technology requires time and patience.  That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. 

     



    Very true. But that doesn't mean mistakes can't be pointed out. 

     

    That said these mistakes can be valuable teaching tools in understanding the engineering and could very well provide a roadmap forward just by discarding what hasn't worked and searching for a better option.




    The only valuable teaching tool to be learned is that government picking winners and losers in the marketplace is a flat failure..it hasnt worked, so let's let's unleash the private sector.

    The greatest contribution to carbon reduction has been 'fracking',  a technology which has led to cheap natural gas and which of course,  government bureaucrats are trying to squelch...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    The road to innovation is sometimes littered with setbacks.  Recall some of our biggst national accomplishments had numerous failures along the way.  Proving out a new technology requires time and patience.  That said while electric vehicles are not a suitable replacement for gas powered engines RIGHT NOW, that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. 

     



    Very true. But that doesn't mean mistakes can't be pointed out. 

     

    That said these mistakes can be valuable teaching tools in understanding the engineering and could very well provide a roadmap forward just by discarding what hasn't worked and searching for a better option.

     




     

    The only valuable teaching tool to be learned is that government picking winners and losers in the marketplace is a flat failure..it hasnt worked, so let's let's unleash the private sector.

    The greatest contribution to carbon reduction has been 'fracking',  a technology which has led to cheap natural gas and which of course,  government bureaucrats are trying to squelch...



    How did the government pick a winner?  What other company was as far along as Tesla was at the time they received funding?  There is already proof that a different media member made the drive from New York to Boston without incident, so the Times reviewer appeared to have acted in bad faith.

    What about the government picking winners in Defense Contracting?  Do you have a problem with that?

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    It's from the truth.always an entertaining exercise in self-delusion when the wingnuts try to claim that the private sector is behind all the inventions that drive the success that America enjoys today.

    Nothing could be farther




    Who's arguing to the contrary?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    ARPANET: The program which gave birth to the internet. 'Nuff said.

    So just quit with the 'private sector' baloney. It's ridiculous.

      

    Statist delusions are laughable. Nuff said?

    Not enough said about the Internet!

    "Statists claim that government "invented" the internet. As President Obama told an audience, "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money."

    In the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz correctly points out that the internet flourished in spite of government, not because of it.

    The government did create Arpanet, the world's first decentralized computer network. It was supposed to help the Department of Defense communicate after a nuclear attack. Even then, government scientists relied heavily on inventions by private companies.

    Arpanet introduced TCP/IP, the protocol that the internet uses to transfer information. That was useful, but for decades, the government possessed the technology it needed to create the Internet, and did very little with it.

    In 1969, Arpanet linked 4 computers. Over the next three years, Email and instant messaging were invented, but they weren't useful to you, because the government's Arpanet linked only 37 computers.

    Only as the program was privatized did the private sector make the investments, in money and creativity, that gave us the internet we have now.

    Why didn't the private sector develop an Arpanet?

    According to Andrew Morriss of The Freeman, two reasons: First, government crowded out the private sector by hiring many talented computer scientists. Second, laws required the FCC to authorize new networks, and "Regulatory barriers to entry, not a lack of entrepreneurial activity, slowed the efforts to build private networks."

    In 1995, government fully privatized their network. That's when the current internet started to flourish. Morriss says, "the real Internet grew out of a spontaneous ordering process of the interactions of millions of individual users.... The explosive growth in commerce, for example, became possible only when the government's ban on commercial use of the networks it financed was lifted."

    Peter Klein, of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, points out that most of the internet went "unforeseen by its original designers - [but was] developed in the private sector." For example, Xerox and Apple developed "a useable graphical user interface (GUI), a lightweight and durable mouse, and the Ethernet protocol."

    Yes, President Obama, government invented the Arpanet. But what happened next shows how government fails, but individuals succeed. Government enacted barriers to private-sector research, and took decades before it allowed all of us to benefit from an important new technology. Once it was privatized, individuals - not government -created the internet that we know today.



    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/07/24/did-government-invent-internet#ixzz2L06VFgIl

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    None of which changes the fact that without the initial government capital, resources, and technology there would not have been anything for the private sector to improve into a viable customer product.  Not o mention the billions in subsidies the government has handed out to service providers to build the infrastructure so that the internet could become a reality in the form we know it today. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    "Fracking: Yep, that technology which allows for the extraction of fossil fuels embedded in rock formations was developed by the US gov't and given to the oil industry."

    Delusional.

    "...in the driver’s seat was George Mitchell, who invested millions of his own money in research and development for fracking and horizontal drilling. His company’s geologist, Jim Henry, first identified Barnett shale as a possibility for more energy. Mitchell spent between $7 million and $8 million of his own money trying to successfully extract shale gas and eventually made it economically viable. He is behind the shale gas revolution, not the government.

    Saying that without government spending we would not have the natural gas production we have today is like saying without the grocery store down the street from your house, you would starve. You find another way to get food. If shale gas production is economical, private companies would have found a way to make it work. The Houston Chronicle reports that “Dan Steward, a former geologist and vice president with Mitchell Energy who wrote a history of the company’s development of the Barnett shale, said industry eventually would have figured out how to make shale gas profitable. ‘But George Mitchell is responsible for making it happen right now, when we need it,’ Steward said.”

    The government’s involvement merely supplants industry dollars with taxpayer dollars. It’s not a matter of congratulating government on dollars well spent if they aid a commercial success or blasting them for wasting taxpayer dollars when a government-propped industry files for bankruptcy. It’s that good economic ideas will find their way to reach the market while bad ones will fall by the wayside. Either way, the use of taxpayer dollars does not make sense."

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: WaPost throws in the towel:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    None of which changes the fact that without the initial government capital, resources, and technology there would not have been anything for the private sector to improve into a viable customer product.  Not o mention the billions in subsidies the government has handed out to service providers to build the infrastructure so that the internet could become a reality in the form we know it today. 

     




     

    You didn't build that !




    Quite right.  The private sector was handed a product that was essentially a prototype.  The government has held their hand all the way through the process of rolling out the internet we know today.  None of the major providers would be able to deliver the servce they do today without the government funding power grid improvements (especially to rural areas), subsidizing the cost to lay buried cable, subsidizing the cost to run above ground cable runs, and other infrastructure. 

     

Share