CKA Forums :: GM Kills the Electric Car

I thought they just closed 4 plants to focus on electric and autonomous cars.

It’s an old joke but a true one: Whatever liberals don’t like, they ban. Everything else they want to make mandatory.

Nowhere is that truer than in the “green energy” sector. In the lame-duck session of Congress, Republicans have a chance to push back against this when it comes to one of the Democrats’ favorite boondoggles: subsidizing the electric car.

Remember Solyndra? The solar panel company touted as a success by the Obama administration that went out of business soon after a visit from President Obama in which he held them up as an example of success? That politically connected company cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars because while the “green” business model sounds great, it’s simply not ready for prime time.

Now, imagine that on a larger scale. That’s the story of the electric car.

Electric cars are touted as an important part of combating climate change — the idea that human activity is destroying the planet so it must be managed by bureaucrats. But aside from a few devotees, the public wasn’t interested in electric cars. Not because people hate the planet, but because they are expensive and inconvenient.

You can’t just stop at a gas station and charge your batteries like you can fill up with fuel and be on your way; it takes a while to charge batteries. Plus, electric cars are expensive. Batteries large enough to run a car for even a hundred miles cost a lot of money.

That last part — the cost — is something activists have been dealing with for decades. How do you get people to buy something inconvenient and less useful than something much cheaper and more reliable? All things being equal, electric cars would never have sold. But when liberal politicians want people to live a certain way, nothing is equal.

The government does what it always does when they want to “nudge” or control people into living a certain way; they subsidize it. And the subsidies to electric car makers make the Solyndra debacle look like the change found in your couch.

In the current tax code, taxpayers (all of us) are on the hook for billions of dollars in subsidies in the form of tax credits annually for people who buy electric cars. But the people who buy electric cars likely aren’t your neighbors — they’re wealthy liberals who can afford to spend twice as much on a car than the average American. Fully 78 percent of the subsidies go to people with incomes above $100,000.

For all the talk of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, it’s odd to have leftists advocating for a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy. Yet that’s what the current system does.

But maybe not for much longer.

The lame-duck Congress has a chance to end this ridiculous tax credit and save all of us billions of dollars going forward.

As Congress scrambles to pass the remaining budget items, one of the pet projects that could be ended is this credit, which subsidizes up to $7,500 of the cost of a new electric car with our money. And they should.

Working Americans shouldn’t be picking up a chunk of the tab of a car for people who make enough money to buy a car themselves. If someone wants an electric car, they’ll buy one.

Even some manufacturers of electric cars want them gone. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, said, according to the New York Times, the company would be better off without them. “Tesla’s competitive advantage improves as the incentives go away,” Musk said.

The market would pick winners and losers without the subsidy, not the government manipulating it. The cars people want would sell, the ones they don’t would go away. Frankly, if a company can’t sell its product without taxpayers helping foot the bill, it should go away. Tesla believes it can survive without it, and some of its competitors can’t. The government should allow that to happen across the entire market like it just did with the Chevy Volt.

General Motors announced this week they were discontinuing the Volt because people weren’t buying it, even with the subsidy. Imagine how the market would look, which other companies and products wouldn’t exist, were it not for the taxpayers cover a large part of the bill.

Part of power, a big part, is control; the ability to manipulate how others act. The tax code is riddled with mechanisms to control the public – do this and you get rewarded, do that and you have to pay. Every opportunity to eliminate that perverse power in the tax code should be taken.

Next week, Congress will have the opportunity to eliminate another piece of that control, to free the American people to make their own decisions and save us billions.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s a drop in the bucket, but every bucket is full of drops and you have to start somewhere. Getting us off the hook for subsidizing wealthy people’s “feel good” car purchases is as good of a place to start as any.

They killed their electric car. Other models survive.

Only 1 survives today.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Only 1 survives today.

Officially...correct. The only "survivor", by GM records, is the unit delivered to the Smithsonian.

Unofficially...there is about a dozen or so models around, an unknown number of which are functional. The university donations didn't just sit around.

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

They killed their electric car. Other models survive.

I get 'insecure connection" and can't read the story.

If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt? It’s the one electric car that actually did make some practical sense, at least.

Four hundred-plus miles without stopping and regardless of the weather (other EVs are badly gimped by extremes of heat and cold). Same time to get back on the road as any other car, too.

Other than all the other electric cars, that is.

The Volt is an electric car you don’t need to plan your life around; that you can just get in and drive — on the spur of the moment — and regardless of the state of the battery pack’s charge. If you forgot to plug it in before you went to bed — or just didn’t have time to wait for it to recharge — no worries.

At all.

So what’s the problem?

The Volt — though electric drive — isn’t 100 percent “zero emissions.”

It is only 99-point-something percent “zero emissions.”

Worst of all, it has a tailpipe.

Oh, the humanity!

The Volt is the only electric that solves the range/recharge problems which beset all other electric cars by carrying a generator along with it. There is a very small gas engine — not used to power the wheels but to feed volts back into the Volt’s battery pack, which is what powers the electric motor that makes the car go. The small gas engine kicks on as necessary — when the battery’s charge is running low. So that you can keep on going.

It isn’t connected to the accelerator pedal; it does not rev. It runs at a steady RPM, feeding electricity to the battery pack — very much in the manner of the emergency generator you wheel out when an ice storm downs the power lies.

The Volt goes 50-something miles on a fully charged battery — “zero emissions,” like other EVs. But unlike other EVs, it is not limited by its state of charge, nor does it take comparatively forever to recharge. It can be plugged in, if you like — just like any other EV. But it can also just be driven, without waiting for anything.

Also, it is not dependent on above-freezing weather to recharge.

All other EVs are — because their battery packs cannot be recharged if it’s below freezing outside or you can’t find a place inside that’s above freezing. This is a function of battery chemistry that will remain a serious EV limitation until — and not unless — a different type of battery than those currently available is developed.

The Volt’s gas engine warms up the car, as well as recharges the batteries which propel the car.

Problem solved.

But the fact that it has an internal combustion engine, however minimal its combustion (and its emissions) and no matter how deftly its presence eliminates the two (the three) most crippling functional problems that come with the key fob to an EV, it gets no love from the nudgers of other EVs.

Why?

Sure, it’s expensive vs. otherwise equivalent non-electric cars. But so are other electric cars. Most even more so. The Volt’s base price — $33,520 — is only about $3,500 more than the base price of the least expensive EV on the “market” (in air quotes because there is no real market for EVs; just the fake one created by government mandates) which is the $30,000 Nissan Leaf.

And the Leaf has a best-case range of 150 miles — a range you’ll see only if you drive slowly, in warm weather and without the AC running. If you drive the Leaf at highway speeds, in the winter — with the heat on and the headlights and windshield wipers and AC/fan on (to clear the windshield) — it will not go 150 miles.

It will also have to stop, regardless — and then you will wait for the minimum 30-45 minutes it takes to instill a partial charge back into the batteries at a “fast charger.” This is another function of battery chemistry. “Fast” charging is hard on the battery — reduces its useful life — and thus the safeguard of the partial recharge, to about 80 percent capacity.

Put another way, you lose 20 percent of the best case range.

So the Leaf’s real range is about 120 miles. Its best case range. Sunny — and slow. Turn down the AC.

The Volt goes 400 miles — almost four times as far — and takes a couple of minutes to refuel. Isn’t hobbled by weather or use of necessary accessories such as the AC and heat and windshield wipers.

But it isn’t 100 percent “zero emissions.” And that means it’s a non-starter, no matter that it works. It does not count toward the “zero emissions” production quotas being imposed on the car industry, which means on us.

It’s not just the Volt, either. The reason the Volt’s brilliantly practical system hasn’t been adopted by other EVs — to make them acceptably functional, at least — is because of the “zero emissions” idiocy, which smacks of a hysterical religious cult more than anything else.

A vehicle that is 99-point-something-percent free of emissions ought to suffice — if the real cause for the hysteria is in fact emissions. But it’s not. Emissions is the excuse. If other EVs ever become practical — and heaven forbid, affordable — then a new excuse will be found to crush their larynxes, too.

Meanwhile, GM has also canceled another eminently practical car — the Cruze — which just happens to be the only passenger car remaining (after VW had its larynx crushed) available with a diesel engine. It cost thousands less than the Volt — and could go more than 600 miles on a tank.

Interesting.

If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt?

Because they only sold about 17,000 of them last year. Period.
No grand conspiracy theory or political bullshit necessary.

They're also killing off gas models that sold over 70,000 as that isn't good enough.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

They killed their electric car. Other models survive.

I get 'insecure connection" and can't read the story.

Hmmm...something wrong on your end I think. You should try Brave for your browsing. Secure and it will get you through to reputable sites like The Spectator.

herbie herbie:

This, plus the fact that hybrids will be illegal for new vehicle sales in 12 years, in many countries...including one of the big "opening" markets (India).

I wouldn't be shocked if every manufacturer has cut all of their hybrid and fuel lineups by 2025.

$1:

If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt?

Because they only sold about 17,000 of them last year. Period.
No grand conspiracy theory or political bullshit necessary.

Author:	Newsbot [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	GM Kills the Electric Car
Title: GM Kills the Electric Car Category: Environmental Posted By: N_Fiddledog Date: 2018-11-29 00:25:39

Author:	N_Fiddledog [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:45 am ]
Post subject:
"It's not just the Volt, either. The reason the Volt's brilliantly practical system hasn't been adopted by other EVs - to make them acceptably functional, at least - is because of the "zero emissions" idiocy, which smacks of a hysterical religious cult more than anything else. A vehicle that is 99-point-something-percent free of emissions ought to suffice - if the real cause for the hysteria is in fact emissions. But it's not. Emissions is the excuse. If other EVs ever become practical - and heaven forbid, affordable - then a new excuse will be found to crush their larynxes, too. Meanwhile, GM has also canceled another eminently practical car - the Cruze - which just happens to be the only passenger car remaining (after VW had its larynx crushed) available with a diesel engine. It cost thousands less than the Volt - and could go more than 600 miles on a tank. Interesting." https://spectator.org/gm-kills-the-electric-car/

Author:	llama66 [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
I thought they just closed 4 plants to focus on electric and autonomous cars.

Author:	DrCaleb [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
llama66 llama66: I thought they just closed 4 plants to focus on electric and autonomous cars. They did. The Volt was a money loser. They are still producing the "Bolt". https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev-electric-car

Author:	N_Fiddledog [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
OK...this is only tangential to the topic but I liked it and wanted to share it somewhere. OPINION: IT’S TIME TO KILL ELECTRIC LEMONS $1: It’s an old joke but a true one: Whatever liberals don’t like, they ban. Everything else they want to make mandatory. Nowhere is that truer than in the “green energy” sector. In the lame-duck session of Congress, Republicans have a chance to push back against this when it comes to one of the Democrats’ favorite boondoggles: subsidizing the electric car. Remember Solyndra? The solar panel company touted as a success by the Obama administration that went out of business soon after a visit from President Obama in which he held them up as an example of success? That politically connected company cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars because while the “green” business model sounds great, it’s simply not ready for prime time. Now, imagine that on a larger scale. That’s the story of the electric car. Electric cars are touted as an important part of combating climate change — the idea that human activity is destroying the planet so it must be managed by bureaucrats. But aside from a few devotees, the public wasn’t interested in electric cars. Not because people hate the planet, but because they are expensive and inconvenient. You can’t just stop at a gas station and charge your batteries like you can fill up with fuel and be on your way; it takes a while to charge batteries. Plus, electric cars are expensive. Batteries large enough to run a car for even a hundred miles cost a lot of money. That last part — the cost — is something activists have been dealing with for decades. How do you get people to buy something inconvenient and less useful than something much cheaper and more reliable? All things being equal, electric cars would never have sold. But when liberal politicians want people to live a certain way, nothing is equal. The government does what it always does when they want to “nudge” or control people into living a certain way; they subsidize it. And the subsidies to electric car makers make the Solyndra debacle look like the change found in your couch. In the current tax code, taxpayers (all of us) are on the hook for billions of dollars in subsidies in the form of tax credits annually for people who buy electric cars. But the people who buy electric cars likely aren’t your neighbors — they’re wealthy liberals who can afford to spend twice as much on a car than the average American. Fully 78 percent of the subsidies go to people with incomes above $100,000. For all the talk of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, it’s odd to have leftists advocating for a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy. Yet that’s what the current system does. But maybe not for much longer. The lame-duck Congress has a chance to end this ridiculous tax credit and save all of us billions of dollars going forward. As Congress scrambles to pass the remaining budget items, one of the pet projects that could be ended is this credit, which subsidizes up to $7,500 of the cost of a new electric car with our money. And they should. Working Americans shouldn’t be picking up a chunk of the tab of a car for people who make enough money to buy a car themselves. If someone wants an electric car, they’ll buy one. Even some manufacturers of electric cars want them gone. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, said, according to the New York Times, the company would be better off without them. “Tesla’s competitive advantage improves as the incentives go away,” Musk said. The market would pick winners and losers without the subsidy, not the government manipulating it. The cars people want would sell, the ones they don’t would go away. Frankly, if a company can’t sell its product without taxpayers helping foot the bill, it should go away. Tesla believes it can survive without it, and some of its competitors can’t. The government should allow that to happen across the entire market like it just did with the Chevy Volt. General Motors announced this week they were discontinuing the Volt because people weren’t buying it, even with the subsidy. Imagine how the market would look, which other companies and products wouldn’t exist, were it not for the taxpayers cover a large part of the bill. Part of power, a big part, is control; the ability to manipulate how others act. The tax code is riddled with mechanisms to control the public – do this and you get rewarded, do that and you have to pay. Every opportunity to eliminate that perverse power in the tax code should be taken. Next week, Congress will have the opportunity to eliminate another piece of that control, to free the American people to make their own decisions and save us billions. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a drop in the bucket, but every bucket is full of drops and you have to start somewhere. Getting us off the hook for subsidizing wealthy people’s “feel good” car purchases is as good of a place to start as any. https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/28/time ... ic-lemons/

CKA Forums http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

GM Kills the Electric Car http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/gm-kills-the-electric-car-t122229.html	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Sunnyways [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
They killed their electric car. Other models survive.

Author:	DrCaleb [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
Sunnyways Sunnyways: They killed their electric car. Other models survive. GM originally built an all electric car in the mid 90's - the EV-1. Only 1 survives today. I thought this story would be about it, but I get 'insecure connection" and can't read the story. But if they had kept developing it, they would be leaders in the EV field. Like Honda's "Insight" model. Everyone thought it was better than the Prius mainly because of it's innovative engine, but the Prius won.

Author:	peck420 [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
DrCaleb DrCaleb: Only 1 survives today. Officially...correct. The only "survivor", by GM records, is the unit delivered to the Smithsonian. Unofficially...there is about a dozen or so models around, an unknown number of which are functional. The university donations didn't just sit around.

Author:	DrCaleb [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
peck420 peck420: DrCaleb DrCaleb: Only 1 survives today. Officially...correct. The only "survivor", by GM records, is the unit delivered to the Smithsonian. Unofficially...there is about a dozen or so models around, an unknown number of which are functional. The university donations didn't just sit around. I actually didn't know about those! I recall reading about a guy who insisted on buying, not leasing, an EV-1, so he was allowed to keep it after the leases were up on the rest, and they were crushed. I assumed it was the only survivor.

Author:	N_Fiddledog [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
DrCaleb DrCaleb: Sunnyways Sunnyways: They killed their electric car. Other models survive. I get 'insecure connection" and can't read the story. Hmmm...something wrong on your end I think. You should try Brave for your browsing. Secure and it will get you through to reputable sites like The Spectator. In the meantime, not to worry. I'm always happy to help out. Here's the article: $1: If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt? It’s the one electric car that actually did make some practical sense, at least. Four hundred-plus miles without stopping and regardless of the weather (other EVs are badly gimped by extremes of heat and cold). Same time to get back on the road as any other car, too. Other than all the other electric cars, that is. The Volt is an electric car you don’t need to plan your life around; that you can just get in and drive — on the spur of the moment — and regardless of the state of the battery pack’s charge. If you forgot to plug it in before you went to bed — or just didn’t have time to wait for it to recharge — no worries. At all. So what’s the problem? The Volt — though electric drive — isn’t 100 percent “zero emissions.” It is only 99-point-something percent “zero emissions.” Worst of all, it has a tailpipe. Oh, the humanity! The Volt is the only electric that solves the range/recharge problems which beset all other electric cars by carrying a generator along with it. There is a very small gas engine — not used to power the wheels but to feed volts back into the Volt’s battery pack, which is what powers the electric motor that makes the car go. The small gas engine kicks on as necessary — when the battery’s charge is running low. So that you can keep on going. It isn’t connected to the accelerator pedal; it does not rev. It runs at a steady RPM, feeding electricity to the battery pack — very much in the manner of the emergency generator you wheel out when an ice storm downs the power lies. The Volt goes 50-something miles on a fully charged battery — “zero emissions,” like other EVs. But unlike other EVs, it is not limited by its state of charge, nor does it take comparatively forever to recharge. It can be plugged in, if you like — just like any other EV. But it can also just be driven, without waiting for anything. Also, it is not dependent on above-freezing weather to recharge. All other EVs are — because their battery packs cannot be recharged if it’s below freezing outside or you can’t find a place inside that’s above freezing. This is a function of battery chemistry that will remain a serious EV limitation until — and not unless — a different type of battery than those currently available is developed. The Volt’s gas engine warms up the car, as well as recharges the batteries which propel the car. Problem solved. But the fact that it has an internal combustion engine, however minimal its combustion (and its emissions) and no matter how deftly its presence eliminates the two (the three) most crippling functional problems that come with the key fob to an EV, it gets no love from the nudgers of other EVs. Why? Sure, it’s expensive vs. otherwise equivalent non-electric cars. But so are other electric cars. Most even more so. The Volt’s base price — $33,520 — is only about $3,500 more than the base price of the least expensive EV on the “market” (in air quotes because there is no real market for EVs; just the fake one created by government mandates) which is the $30,000 Nissan Leaf. And the Leaf has a best-case range of 150 miles — a range you’ll see only if you drive slowly, in warm weather and without the AC running. If you drive the Leaf at highway speeds, in the winter — with the heat on and the headlights and windshield wipers and AC/fan on (to clear the windshield) — it will not go 150 miles. It will also have to stop, regardless — and then you will wait for the minimum 30-45 minutes it takes to instill a partial charge back into the batteries at a “fast charger.” This is another function of battery chemistry. “Fast” charging is hard on the battery — reduces its useful life — and thus the safeguard of the partial recharge, to about 80 percent capacity. Put another way, you lose 20 percent of the best case range. So the Leaf’s real range is about 120 miles. Its best case range. Sunny — and slow. Turn down the AC. The Volt goes 400 miles — almost four times as far — and takes a couple of minutes to refuel. Isn’t hobbled by weather or use of necessary accessories such as the AC and heat and windshield wipers. But it isn’t 100 percent “zero emissions.” And that means it’s a non-starter, no matter that it works. It does not count toward the “zero emissions” production quotas being imposed on the car industry, which means on us. It’s not just the Volt, either. The reason the Volt’s brilliantly practical system hasn’t been adopted by other EVs — to make them acceptably functional, at least — is because of the “zero emissions” idiocy, which smacks of a hysterical religious cult more than anything else. A vehicle that is 99-point-something-percent free of emissions ought to suffice — if the real cause for the hysteria is in fact emissions. But it’s not. Emissions is the excuse. If other EVs ever become practical — and heaven forbid, affordable — then a new excuse will be found to crush their larynxes, too. Meanwhile, GM has also canceled another eminently practical car — the Cruze — which just happens to be the only passenger car remaining (after VW had its larynx crushed) available with a diesel engine. It cost thousands less than the Volt — and could go more than 600 miles on a tank. Interesting.

Author:	herbie [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
$1: If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt? Because they only sold about 17,000 of them last year. Period. No grand conspiracy theory or political bullshit necessary. They're also killing off gas models that sold over 70,000 as that isn't good enough.

Author:	peck420 [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
herbie herbie: Because they only sold about 17,000 of them last year. Period. No grand conspiracy theory or political bullshit necessary. They're also killing off gas models that sold over 70,000 as that isn't good enough. This, plus the fact that hybrids will be illegal for new vehicle sales in 12 years, in many countries...including one of the big "opening" markets (India). I wouldn't be shocked if every manufacturer has cut all of their hybrid and fuel lineups by 2025.

Author:	Sunnyways [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog: DrCaleb DrCaleb: Sunnyways Sunnyways: They killed their electric car. Other models survive. I get 'insecure connection" and can't read the story. Hmmm...something wrong on your end I think. You should try Brave for your browsing. Secure and it will get you through to reputable sites like The Spectator. Strictly speaking, that’s from The American Spectator, not The Spectator in the UK.

Author:	PublicAnimalNo9 [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
peck420 peck420: herbie herbie: Because they only sold about 17,000 of them last year. Period. No grand conspiracy theory or political bullshit necessary. They're also killing off gas models that sold over 70,000 as that isn't good enough. This, plus the fact that hybrids will be illegal for new vehicle sales in 12 years, in many countries...including one of the big "opening" markets (India). I wouldn't be shocked if every manufacturer has cut all of their hybrid and fuel lineups by 2025. Awesome! We can exchange one kind of toxic landscape for another kind of toxic landscape. At least 20% of China's farmland is now toxic as a result of battery production and the mining for the elements for said batteries. Can't wait until countries like Mongolia get into full-scale lithium production.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©

Author:	N_Fiddledog [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: GM Kills the Electric Car
herbie herbie: $1: If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt? Because they only sold about 17,000 of them last year. Period. No grand conspiracy theory or political bullshit necessary. Really? So everything below it in sales should also go then. Is that what you're saying? I mean, EVs aren't about the politics. It's all about the sales, right?