Chevrolet Volt

[Trajan]

We will pay more as petro based transportation costs rise.
There will be a turnover point on alternatively powered vehicles.
But since we are not quite there yet we should abandon that route?

abandon them as in how? we are SUBSIDIZING the cost and sales of these vehicles. How much does that count for?

The break even point is actually close to $4 a gallon...think on that for a moment.....

we ARE pursuing battery tech. that will in the 10-15 year time span ( hopefully0 change the cost effectiveness.....and in the meantime?

We subsidize our entire highway system. Should we quit doing that?

thats not a subsidy to or for a defined market.It was a public good issue, in that everyone would use such. And it is maintained by tax dollars.

We subsidized the transcontinental railway.

yes we did. same as above.

We subsidized nuclear power, Rural electrification, etc.

No one asked for that, the TVA was pushed into and took the market for instance. There iutltites that were ready willing and able to provide that power.
There are hundreds of utilities that are not subsidized so as to create a market in this fashion.Those you mentioned above are for the public good and serve everyone not a sect. of the populace.

We have spent trillions subsidizing petro and still are.

no, I am sorry, tax breaks aren't subsidies in this context. The oil co's paid, between 1970 and 2004 over 500 billion in taxes and they netted 650 billion. Please show me the same formula and justification for the volt and leaf?

we ae paying people to buy cars,these cars are not efficable, these cars are not a public good or serve everyone minus

 

[Granny]

Since Consumer Reports does not have any kind of corporate ads, sponsorships, etc., they are pretty much free to call the shots as they see them after testing a product of any kind - without bias. The "pros" and "cons" are decided by each individual as to how good, bad or economical a particular product would be for his or her personal uses.

I would not want to have one of the green cars for a variety of reasons: they're just 'ucking ugly, way too small to be safe for anybody, I couldn't afford the car to begin with or to replace the battery, and I don't need my utility bills any higher than they are already.

What are they actually saving in terms of conserving energy? Are we saying we're going to have to use these damned hazmat light bulbs in our homes to save energy so we can spend any savings we may have to charge a damned car?

Does anyone know what kind of kw use savings we would realize from the hazmat bulbs vs. kw use of electricity to charge a car battery?

 

[uscitizen]

abandon them as in how? we are SUBSIDIZING the cost and sales of these vehicles. How much does that count for?

The break even point is actually close to $4 a gallon...think on that for a moment.....

we ARE pursuing battery tech. that will in the 10-15 year time span ( hopefully0 change the cost effectiveness.....and in the meantime?

thats not a subsidy to or for a defined market.It was a public good issue, in that everyone would use such. And it is maintained by tax dollars.




yes we did. same as above.



No one asked for that, the TVA was pushed into and took the market for instance. There iutltites that were ready willing and able to provide that power.
There are hundreds of utilities that are not subsidized so as to create a market in this fashion.Those you mentioned above are for the public good and serve everyone not a sect. of the populace.

We have spent trillions subsidizing petro and still are.

no, I am sorry, tax breaks aren't subsidies in this context. The oil co's paid, between 1970 and 2004 over 500 billion in taxes and they netted 650 billion. Please show me the same formula and justification for the volt and leaf?

we ae paying people to buy cars,these cars are not efficable, these cars are not a public good or serve everyone minus

Umm would we have been involved in Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc if not for oil?
These are the subsidies I am speaking of. Oil production externalizing the securing of their supply by US military means.

 

[Trajan]

thats not a subsidy to or for a defined market.It was a public good issue, in that everyone would use such. And it is maintained by tax dollars.




yes we did. same as above.



No one asked for that, the TVA was pushed into and took the market for instance. There iutltites that were ready willing and able to provide that power.
There are hundreds of utilities that are not subsidized so as to create a market in this fashion.Those you mentioned above are for the public good and serve everyone not a sect. of the populace.



no, I am sorry, tax breaks aren't subsidies in this context. The oil co's paid, between 1970 and 2004 over 500 billion in taxes and they netted 650 billion. Please show me the same formula and justification for the volt and leaf?

we ae paying people to buy cars,these cars are not efficable, these cars are not a public good or serve everyone minus

Umm would we have been involved in Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc if not for oil?
These are the subsidies I am speaking of. Oil production externalizing the securing of their supply by US military means.

hey, we would not be involved if Rockefeller had not submarined Henry Ford ala ethanol and hemp as to petroleum based combustion and so what?

What is is, we have oil here, we choose not to pursue it to lighten the load until battery technology matures....so instead we double down and back poor ventures that cost as well and that the gov. has no business doing ( and hasn't and doesn't do well).

 

[uscitizen]

Umm would we have been involved in Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc if not for oil?
These are the subsidies I am speaking of. Oil production externalizing the securing of their supply by US military means.

hey, we would not be involved if Rockefeller had not submarined Henry Ford ala ethanol and hemp as to petroleum based combustion and so what?

What is is, we have oil here, we choose not to pursue it to lighten the load until battery technology matures....so instead we double down and back poor ventures that cost as well and that the gov. has no business doing ( and hasn't and doesn't do well).

Sounds kinda like you are speaking about the Iraq war?

Electric cars will improve. It took us a decade or more to get heaters in cars.

 

[uscitizen]

We will pay more as petro based transportation costs rise.
There will be a turnover point on alternatively powered vehicles.
But since we are not quite there yet we should abandon that route?

If the Obama administration had not presided over the devaluation of the dollar, we would not be seeing $112 oil.

Ohh obama did this in 2007 too?

 

[boedicca]

Man..if you guys ruled the roost back in the old days..there would be no airplanes, running water, toilets, or just about anything.

Come to think of it..the Dark ages..was the height of conservatism!

Were the inventions airplanes, running water, and toilets financed by taxpayer bail outs?

 

[uscitizen]

Running water sure has been finianced by tax dollars.

all that aside, perhaps the volt is a bad vehicle, but the electric car will improve and survive.
You better hope so unless you like paying $10 for gas.

 

[Trajan]

hey, we would not be involved if Rockefeller had not submarined Henry Ford ala ethanol and hemp as to petroleum based combustion and so what?

What is is, we have oil here, we choose not to pursue it to lighten the load until battery technology matures....so instead we double down and back poor ventures that cost as well and that the gov. has no business doing ( and hasn't and doesn't do well).

Sounds kinda like you are speaking about the Iraq war?

Electric cars will improve. It took us a decade or more to get heaters in cars.

and it took till 1960 I believe to get AC.

again whats your point USC? I already said batt tech has to mature, throwing money at ventures making the cars BEFORE they do is silly, its a waste, if the market and cost efficiency is no go, its a no go except for, the gov. MAKING it so.....

 

[Trajan]

Running water sure has been finianced by tax dollars.

all that aside, perhaps the volt is a bad vehicle, but the electric car will improve and survive.
You better hope so unless you like paying $10 for gas.

you have that exactly backwards amigo.

 

[boedicca]

Running water sure has been finianced by tax dollars.

all that aside, perhaps the volt is a bad vehicle, but the electric car will improve and survive.
You better hope so unless you like paying $10 for gas.

Really? Indoor plumbing was INVENTED by THE GOVERNMENT?

Link, s'il te plait.

 

[GWV5903]

I just cannot understand the anti electric vehicle mania bunch.

So the motive of the Volt is lower our dependency on fossil fuels?

Just a reminder, 70% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuel....

 

[Toronado3800]

Interesting about the heater in the volt.

I wanna drive one.

The idea of a weed eater engine charging a battery for an electrical motor has to be the way to go.

Wonder how the 2015 Volt will perform. Probably a good thing to subsidize if you support the troops.

 

[boedicca]

Interesting about the heater in the volt.

I wanna drive one.

The idea of a weed eater engine charging a battery for an electrical motor has to be the way to go.

Wonder how the 2015 Volt will perform. Probably a good thing to subsidize if you support the troops.

40 miles on one charge.

Not worth it.

 

[Synthaholic]

We will pay more as petro based transportation costs rise.
There will be a turnover point on alternatively powered vehicles.
But since we are not quite there yet we should abandon that route?

If the Obama administration had not presided over the devaluation of the dollar, we would not be seeing $112 oil.

Oh, is that the reason?

I guess Bush also devalued the dollar a few years ago when gas hit $4.00, right?

 

[Synthaholic]

abandon them as in how? we are SUBSIDIZING the cost and sales of these vehicles. How much does that count for?

The break even point is actually close to $4 a gallon...think on that for a moment.....

we ARE pursuing battery tech. that will in the 10-15 year time span ( hopefully0 change the cost effectiveness.....and in the meantime?

thats not a subsidy to or for a defined market.It was a public good issue, in that everyone would use such. And it is maintained by tax dollars.




yes we did. same as above.



No one asked for that, the TVA was pushed into and took the market for instance. There iutltites that were ready willing and able to provide that power.
There are hundreds of utilities that are not subsidized so as to create a market in this fashion.Those you mentioned above are for the public good and serve everyone not a sect. of the populace.

We have spent trillions subsidizing petro and still are.

no, I am sorry, tax breaks aren't subsidies in this context. The oil co's paid, between 1970 and 2004 over 500 billion in taxes and they netted 650 billion. Please show me the same formula and justification for the volt and leaf?

we ae paying people to buy cars,these cars are not efficable, these cars are not a public good or serve everyone minus

You forget about the cost of the military presence in the ME, whose sole reason for being there is to protect our flow of oil.

Convenient.

 

[Synthaholic]

Running water sure has been finianced by tax dollars.

all that aside, perhaps the volt is a bad vehicle, but the electric car will improve and survive.
You better hope so unless you like paying $10 for gas.

Really? Indoor plumbing was INVENTED by THE GOVERNMENT?

Link, s'il te plait.

I've figured out that you are just plain dishonest. Who claimed indoor plumbing was invented by the government?

 

[Synthaholic]

I just cannot understand the anti electric vehicle mania bunch.

So the motive of the Volt is lower our dependency on fossil fuels?

Not fossil fuels - imported oil. Maybe honesty isn't your strong suit, either.

Just a reminder, 70% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuel....

Natural gas, not imported oil.

 

[MikeK]

I don't see these cars becoming popular any time soon.

Someone mentioned these cars have no air conditioning. If that's true I wouldn't own one if they cost $1,000 and got 50mpg.

 

[Zander]

I don't see these cars becoming popular any time soon.

Someone mentioned these cars have no air conditioning. If that's true I wouldn't own one if they cost $1,000 and got 50mpg.

They have a lot of negatives....