Government Motors (GM)

[Conan71]

Oh, and then there's that whole space program thingy, which gave us the microwave oven, Tang, and a burgeoning private space program. 

The private space program is somewhere between a mixed bag of dubious success and a complete boondoggle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketplane_Limited,_Inc.

[we vs us]

"Picking winners and losers" is such a Luntzian phrase. . . . built to wrap the maximum amount of ideological derision into a phrase that only loosely describes what's happening.  

What's happening ISN'T picking winners or losers -- which suggests that certain players are artificially wiped off the playing field while others are given everything on the board.  For instance, the subsidies and tax shelters and whatever else the "free-market oriented" Mackinac Center for Public Policy rolled into its analysis in no way shape or form destroys the internal combustion engine market . . . nor does it effect one iota the vast subsidy structure supporting our fossil fuel industry, either.  In other words, government support of the Volt hurts no one and could potentially benefit us exponentially.  Why?  Ultimately more miles at a much lower cost, not to mention vastly improved battery technology which, in our currently mobile world would be a crucial improvement; and even further down the road a change to electricity generation and delivery.  

[we vs us]

The private space program is somewhere between a mixed bag of dubious success and a complete boondoggle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketplane_Limited,_Inc.

Slightly less boondoggley:

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

[we vs us]

The other difference is green energy and all those initiatives have been heavily politicized.  It represents a bonanza for those who can peddle the most influence, regardless of the merits or lack thereof.  In some cases, they don't even have to prove they have the current capability to turn out products that consumers or industry can use or they can produce at a competitive price without huge government subsidy.  

I don't think you're wrong, but it differs from the fossil fuel industry not one iota in the amount of politicization, influence to be peddled, and general hay to be made.  What it does is upend some of the entrenched players that, worldwide, have investments and profits in the trillions of dollars in "traditional" energy sources.  Green tech isn't more corrupt than oil and gas (a pretty high bar there, wouldn't you agree?), but it definitely threatens to profoundly disrupt a relatively settled sector of the economy.  That, I'd think, is more than enough reason for oil and gas interests to mobilize everyone they can to quash or marginalize green tech.  And that would include think tanks like the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.  

An BTW, I think green tech is marching forward regardless of government subsidy.  There's a level of interest in it that far exceeds what we've seen in the past, and government help will only speed a process that is ongoing and -- thankfully -- now organic.  

[Townsend]

For the Volt, they have had a couple of battery fires and leakage from a battery after crash testing, but from what I have read and heard they were being tested well beyond normal crash test limits. Will have to see if I can find an article about it.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/gm-defends-safety-of-chevrolet-volt/

Yeah...do the same with any vehicle and forget to unplug its battery in storage.  There's a good chance of fire then too.

This is not a major engineering flaw as suggested by our resident talkoutofhisasser.

Now how does the Leaf, a 100% electric car, get 99 mpg?

[Red Arrow]

Now how does the Leaf, a 100% electric car, get 99 mpg?

EPA estimate of the fossil fuel used in many areas to generate the electricity used by the car to charge the battery.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/11/nissan-leaf-99-mpg-epa-electric-car/1

[Townsend]

EPA estimate of the fossil fuel used in many areas to generate the electricity used by the car to charge the battery.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/11/nissan-leaf-99-mpg-epa-electric-car/1

Ceded.  Now stuff it Red.

I mean...well done.

[Red Arrow]

Quote from Audi USA CEO Lawrence Ulrich: "No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla," he said. "So there are not enough idiots who will buy it."  He also said that the Volt would only appeal to the "intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are."

For a reference point:

$15,000. x (30 mi/gal) / ($4.00 $/gal) = 112,500 miles

[Red Arrow]

Ceded.  Now stuff it Red.

I mean...well done.

I wonder if the EPA has also estimated the pollution due to the generation of the electricity.  Or how many snail darters were killed to make the hydro-electric plant.  Or birds killed by the wind farms.  Or people radiated by leaky nuclear plants destroyed by a tsunami. Or CO2 eating, O2 emitting plants that didn't grow because their sunlight was absorbed to make electricity.

I am all for increasing efficiency but nothing is free.  I am talking about impact to the environment as well as $.

OK, now you can say "stuff it".

[Gaspar]

You have to remember that government = force.  In a free market economy government can not compete unless it represents a monopoly for a product or service.

There are several favorite liberal examples where government was Da Bomb (some literally).  But all of those examples were where government led without competition because there was no economic advantage to a competitor.

I think it's funny that WeVsUs would mention the space program, because had their been economic demand (financial reward) the space program would have been a private sector endeavor.  Though I am very proud of the achievements of NASA as a national project, it cannot be compared with a privately funded endeavor.  

[we vs us]

You have to remember that government = force.  In a free market economy government can not compete unless it represents a monopoly for a product or service.

There are several favorite liberal examples where government was Da Bomb (some literally).  But all of those examples were where government led without competition because there was no economic advantage to a competitor.

I think it's funny that WeVsUs would mention the space program, because had their been economic demand (financial reward) the space program would have been a private sector endeavor.  Though I am very proud of the achievements of NASA as a national project, it cannot be compared with a privately funded endeavor.  

Why can't it be compared with it?  I think it's clear that the barrier to entry into space as a market/environment/whatever it is was far far too high and risky for a private company to attempt.  Further, before the government ventured into it, there wasn't ANY economic value to it.  Not only wasn't there a perceived ROI for venturing into space, it wasn't even envisioned as a market at all. 

In this case, government did what it always does, which is invest, research, explore, build out some level of infrastructure and then turn it over to companies to develop the market.  It happened this way with the space race, but it also happened this way with the western frontier, happened this way with the highway system, happened this way with the internet.  It also happened in part with our ports and airports and railroads. 

You always assume that liberals want the government to provide its own competing service and then undercut the free market until there's nothing left but the government.  I think because underneath it all you think all lefties are hardcore communists.  Refuting that would take more time or effort than I'm willing to put in, but suffice to say that if you look around and listen, it's obvious: no one wants the government to build its own cars.  No one wants the government to build their own solar panels.  Pick a product.  No one is asking for the government equivalent.  But what people are asking for is the gov to invest in things the free market won't/can't.  Which, as almost all liberals agree, should be its role. 

[dbacks fan]

This is what you get when the Gov't builds cars.


http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html

[we vs us]

This is what you get when the Gov't builds cars.


http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html

Agreed.  Do you hear anyone asking the government to open its own factories and start churning these babies out? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Don't forget when considering the 'efficiency' of electric generation...in addition to the fuel to electric output (probably averages around 35%) and the efficiency of transmitting that electricity over 70% efficient power grid, there is another loss in the charging of the battery - for every 100 units of electricity capacity of the battery, about 115-120 units of electricity are used to charge that battery to that full condition.  20%.

So, for every 100 units of heat content of coal going into the plant at Oologah, there is roughly 19.6 units placed into that car battery.

100(.35 X .7 x .8 ) = 19.6

This is one of the things that makes natural gas such a great solution to comfort heating, water heating, and any other place where you need efficient heat.  Modern furnace has 94% or better efficiency - 100 units burned gives 94 units into the house.  Water heater is probably 80% or slightly better (one interesting side effect is that it still beats electricity cost at 100% efficiency.)

[Gaspar]

Agreed.  Do you hear anyone asking the government to open its own factories and start churning these babies out? 

Course not!  The government would never take over a car company and then promote any specific vehicle.  That would be insane, and un-American!