Vroom Vroom!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, last March, I posted about electric vehicles, specifically about by position on the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. Many of you were correct, however, in that I may have been premature in my evaluations. Among the most relevant data shared was the Volt "selling every one [they could] make" and 20k preorders for the Leaf, and that it was a deliberately slow rollout. The consensus, at least at the time, appeared to be that we needed to have a year under our belt to really get a good grasp on the situation.

So what do we know now in 2012 that we didn't in 2011?

* GM predicted at least 10k Volts sold in 2010, and didn't even come close to that number, missing it by nearly 2400 cars, spurred in part by an allowance to sell the existing demo models. Inexplicably, GM intends to produce 60k of them this year even though demand has not been high. Granted: the Volt only reached nationwide status in the fourth quarter, but that did not seem to show significantly more demand.

* If the Chevy Volt isn't winning over hearts and minds, the Nissan Leaf isn't faring much better. It had higher sales year-long than the Volt, coming in at 9600 sold in the US. The Leaf, however, saw its sales peak over the summer and has mostly seen a precipitous decline from its height.

The issue with electric cars remains the same: they're expensive, they don't go far, and they cost too much to the taxpayer. A Volt costs the taxpayer $250k per vehicle sold on top of the ticket cost to the consumer - no wonder you have to be fairly affluent to drive one. The Volt runs for a whopping 40 miles on electricity (and then another 340 per tank on premium gas), the Leaf a significantly-better-yet-still-sad 110 miles at best, probably closer to 75 - I drove more than that to visit my friend last weekend. With the price tag in the high $20s-low $30s even with tax credits, it's not likely to find many more adopters, etiher - catching only 2% of the market overall isn't much of a splash for an industry with high expectations it set for itself, never mind what the rest of the people who supposedly know what they're doing thought. But, to be fair, even the execs are only thinking 6% market share 13 years from now.

The Jalopnik post above says it best, to me:

I can't look someone in the eye who's about to buy their first car and say, "Look, buy this electric vehicle. It's not very fun. It's not what you want. You can't really haul anything. It's very likely not any better for the environment. But it is very, very quiet. Especially for the hours and hours it takes to charge."

The reality is that we will see viable alternative energy vehicles sooner rather than later. I think, given what we know about the electric options available and the options coming down the turnpike, that electric vehicles are not ready for prime time, and perhaps aren't actually the answer at all. I could still be proven wrong on this, but when we sink literally billions of taxpayer dollars into a technology that so few people want or need, it may be time to say "enough is enough" on the electric car experiment. We now know who killed the electric car - the consumer.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because it's a blunt truth. Developing technology that's new costs a lot of money and in its first generation is extremely unprofitable. This is why the government has traditionally been the one to develop such technology as it doesn't need to worry about profit. If, however, the USA followed libertarian ideals we'd still have our most advanced farming technology being the ass end of a mule and be using muzzle-loading smoothbores that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Which is why Samuel Langley and his 50k government grant did more to advance avionics than the Wright Brothers.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Wright Brothers' bi-plane simply started it. The actual advances were made by European states, and airships were still a major commercial contender into the 1930s. But why let facts intrude upon a good story?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Why are you being this dense?

You stated how crucial it was to aviation that gov't funded it. And yet the actual birth of aviation stemmed from guys who got no gov't funding while those that did (Langley) are forgotten about because they contributed so little.

You're refusing to acknowledge history because it's inconvenient for you. Stop that.

Your argument has no merit on the bare facts.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I stated how crucial it was to aviation's development that government funded it. That I said aviation in general is your assertion, not mine. The Wright Brothers did invent the airplane as private citizens, yes. They no more have credit for the development of aviation afterward than Marconi does for subsequent development of the radio. It is not I who refuses to address history, but you who refuse to even acknowledge the point of the influence of World War I on development of commercial aviation, or to recognize that in the form of the airship commercial aviation already existed at the time.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Your argument of "gov't funding is crucial... unless it's not... but it still is sometimes" is amazing.

Truly amazing how your brain works. You selectively grab what you want from any example with no regard for how it actually plays out. You were arguing for how crucial gov't funding is and then threw out an example with absolutely no regard for how it fit. You're just throwing out cites and claims with no regard for how they fit your narrative.

Gov't funding for the creation of the airplane- Fucking absolutely worthless

Gov't funding once the airplane has been developed and needed some refinements- somewhat useful

But no... you just go all in with your argument and to hell with them pesky facts. The gov't giving out funds to guys who failed to develop airplanes... that's where the development was truly at.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm waiting to see the argument against the facts, as opposed to my person. Thus far it does not exist. And perhaps you think that referring to how my brain works is an argument but I assure you nobody else would. Kindly shift this discussion to a new line of reasoning.