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]

Jeff thinks it's too expensive to develop the technology, leaving aside that the government developing such technology is for precisely that region: new technology is too pricey for the private sector to use and remain profitable. And as a converse to his and Bogey's point of view, I offer every single attempt to replace the F-16 by private industry here in the USA. All of it's overengineered and breaks down if you fart next to it, because the private sector can't develop new technology *and* remain private at the same time. The other flip-side of Bogey's argument is that railroads, canals, and the like were all done by the government because individually wealthy citizens weren't about to put good money into something that cost an arm and a leg to build and would provide distant, ultimate results. Good sense from a business POV, bad for technological development.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Then part, if not all of the problem here as I see it is that you interchangeably use the "You libertarians" line with a handful of people you have issues with here on LJ. It's the "you libertarians" schtick that I'm having difficulty with. It's just as annoying as when I see conservatives and neocons use the "You liberals, and your wharrgarble..." There are about a thousand and one ways to come to a libertarian-type conclusion (I exaggerate, but seriously the ways to get to a destination are numerous and varied) but you reduce it to shallowness when you pick and choose your examples of it and comfortably slap the libertarian label on it. I've got issues with other libertarians at times myself, and I count myself as one if only because of the proximity of end-result positions I have with that group, though my reasons for getting there are as individual as my taste in music.

Some of your actual points about ideology-driven economics and analysis actually have been addressed by certain libertarian thinkers, and I might even be able to discuss those elements with you as a point we have in common- a launching point as it were, but I'm discouraged from doing so anyway by your much more frequent "you libertarians are all like this, and those 'x' are all like 'y' tactics. Why would I want to even test those waters? What hope is there in venturing there?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The odds that someone might actually use a point instead of their "intuition" and Anatoly Fomenko-level "analysis"? FWIW, you're the exception to the rule in almost all occasions, and it's refreshing to meet one libertarian who's able to avoid using science fiction to prove points in an argument or simple drive-by snark.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The odds in this case, I would suggest matter all for naught. That I exist at all is enough to suggest that others do to (I've met others as well, though you'll have to take my word for it), and as long as those of us see you maintain your particular style, we're going to do as any sane liberal would avoid the "You Liberals" conservatives. Give a wide berth and walk the other way.

It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy you're setting yourself up for. You don't present yourself as someone most level-headed libertarians would want to open up to. It doesn't even just apply to political discussions. People should always present themselves to others as people they themselves would like to meet were they in others' shoes.

I appreciate the kind words, of greater appreciation would be someone I feel like I don't have to begin every conversation with "Yeah, but that's not how I approach it."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's hardly self-fulfilling. On other forums almost all the avowed libertarians and objectivists have without fail been banned, the only exception is one guy with a blog who finds arguing from S.M. Stirling novels to discuss real-life situations, or alternately George Lucas films, to be a worthwhile endeavour. You are literally the only libertarian I have ever met who sticks to logic, reason, avoids attacking other people's minds/sanity/literacy and can formulate statements without going into Orwellian territory in terms of misuse of words and lies about what was said without ever doing otherwise.

I say "you libertarians" because you are the sole exception to a rule that has otherwise invariably carried over. My usual impression of libertarians is of people who scream that the United Kingdom is totalitarian and needs to be liberated by US bombers blasting its cities to rubble or the kind of argument expressing itself with regular and depressing refrains that I and others who disagree with the avowed champions of "freedom" are either insane, illiterate, liars, or all of the above at once. So congrats for being the only sane one I've ever met and know that in every occasion where I do say it, you're the one excluded from those statements.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

How much of your experience is internet-based? Because I've been around political boards long enough to know that this place here is the anomaly, and that other boards that cater to the circle-jerk are breeding grounds for exactly the kind of behavior you're describing, but independent of what kind of ideology it is that forms the basis.

I hear what you're saying about the hopeless ideologues, but I can't deny the real flesh-and-blood people I know personally. You may know me as your only contrary example to the noise, but I know several others with whom I've shared long, thoughtful, and entertaining conversations with as well, if you'll believe me. If there's two, then three, or four, then (to get back to the odds) there are more yet still uncounted. You may never run into another one on the internet, but to reiterate this is the internet. There is no opinion worth having here that isn't represented to unreasonable extremes. It seems to be the nature of the beast. Also speaking for myself and the others I know, we're not of the personality types that go about talking about our politics loudly outside of our general company, and only usually during moments that you could call appropriate.

I'm sorry your experience has been so poor. I can't hope to do any more than offer my own examples as evidence that indeed, the reality is not a simple as it might appear.