Dan T. Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I wouldn't agree that there is no downside. There are several arguments that are reasonable to oppose some of the green energy initiatives. I don't find all of these arguments convincing, but I also don't simply dismiss them: In general when it comes to the Volt, how much government intervention was involved? Argument 1 seems to be based on GM getting stimulus money, which doesn't have much at all to do with the Volt. The Volt was conceived and engineered by GM before the bailout happened. Argument 2 - I'm pretty sure tax incentives for efficient or clean cars are blind to the technology used to achieve efficiency or clean - so I don't see an issue with that. Argument 3 - I'm trying to think of an example of that. Do you have any? Maybe flourescent light bulbs...is the government forcing those onto us somehow? Maybe low flush toilets. Argument 4 - Boy, you could say that about any legislative action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 In general when it comes to the Volt, how much government intervention was involved?Argument 1 seems to be based on GM getting stimulus money, which doesn't have much at all to do with the Volt. The Volt was conceived and engineered by GM before the bailout happened. Argument 2 - I'm pretty sure tax incentives for efficient or clean cars are blind to the technology used to achieve efficiency or clean - so I don't see an issue with that. Argument 3 - I'm trying to think of an example of that. Do you have any? Maybe flourescent light bulbs...is the government forcing those onto us somehow? Maybe low flush toilets. Argument 4 - Boy, you could say that about any legislative action. Argument 1 - really isn’t about the volt at all. Here is a hypothetical. The government decides that it wants to give $50 million for battery innovation. Two companies are competing for the $50 million. One of the companies is in the district of a chairmen of an energy committee, while the other company is in the district of a freshman congressperson in the minority party. Which company is going to get the $50 million? Now, two years later, it turns out that the company that didn’t get the grant has developed a slightly better technology, but it can't sell it because the government is subsidizing the competition and artificially reducing the cost of the inferior product. Eventually, the company with the better product is going to have to scrap the project because it can't compete due to the government intervention. Argument 2 - Is more of an argument against the idea of giving tax credits to promote car sales, not specific to any technology. I have mixed thoughts about this, but I tend to be against it when we are running deficits. If someone gets a $5,000 tax break to buy a car, that is $5,000 more that we will need to borrow from China through a 30 year bond. So, when my 5 year old daughter turns 35, she is going to get the bill for the car bought in 2010. Maybe that tax credit helped build an industry that benefits my daughter, maybe it was just wasted to subsidize a technology that wasn't ever going to be feasible. I don't like these types of gambles when we are passing the cost onto our kids. We created the mess, we should pay for it. Argument 3- Relates to a lot of products like light bulbs, toilets, and washing machines. Higher fuel/energy efficiency standards, etc, do reduce consumer choice. It isn’t so much a case of the government saying “you have to buy this” as it is a case of telling companies, “you can no longer sell what your consumers have been buying”. Argument 4 – I agree, these arguments are not specific to the energy or car issues. They tend to be related to many areas of government intervention, taxation, spending, and borrowing. I’m not arguing against any specific energy or automotive policy, I’m just saying I can see the downside to some of the policies. That doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t agree with some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 My wife and I both work from home. If we had a car like that we'd never pay any money for gas. Ever. When it gets cheaper I'm buying one. Rush can suck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 My wife and I both work from home. If we had a car like that we'd never pay any money for gas.Ever. When it gets cheaper I'm buying one. Rush can suck it. So you never take any out-of-town trips anywhere by car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I've driven under 3k miles this year and it would have been less, if my last girlfriend wasn't 30 minutes away and on house arrest for a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 So I was curious to compare $/mile between the volt and my 2003 altima. The kwh/mile # comes from the volt's wiki page. 25 mpg is what I average in my car .09244 is what my electric company's website lists for $/kwh. [color="white"] 3.75 $ 1 gallon = 0.15 $ 1 gallon 25 mile 1 mile 36 kWh 0.09244 $ = 0.033 $ 100 miles 1 kwh 1 mile[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 So you never take any out-of-town trips anywhere by car? Ok so I exaggerated. Including our standard long trips we'd have to buy about 2 tanks of gas a year. Give or take a few gallons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Yeah before the current administration undermined US Oil companies by preventing them from drilling domestically and exploring areas where we can have Saudia Arabia type reserves of Natural Gas and multiple places to tap new oil, then sent billions to help another country drill in the Gulf of Mexico which indirectly helps stockholders who contributed to his campaign cough Soros. Now the bright ideas of liberals / progressive is having people ride trains and use windmills for power. Very 19th century of them. http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=96755 MORGANTOWN -- The Morgantown city council may consider a resolution asking for a statewide moratorium on Marcellus Shale permits until the state legislature comes up with regulations to manage the drilling. The city is looking to join nearly two dozen legislators and the city of Lewisburg which have sent letters proposing that the governor call a special session to beef up drilling regulations. Morgantown Deputy Mayor Don Spencer proposed the resolution. "We think it's important to have standards for this new industry that we know can have a negative impact on people's health if it is not handled properly," he said. Spencer is worried that the state doesn't do enough to protect water and air quality, and general health, from the potential mismanagement of Marcellus shale well drilling. It involves drilling thousands of feet below the surface and utilizing large quantities of water and chemicals to recover natural gas. DRILL, BABY, DRILL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.