Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 So, you said the subsidy might only amount to $100 per car eventually. How many cars would need to be sold for that to happen? How would we generate enough electricity for all those cars? We would need to sell about a million cars. A steep number but not out of the question. And considering that the government spent the money to fund the research behind the technology other models would also count into that number. Switch to green energy and generating enough electricity for those cars becomes extremely cheap and environmentally friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Switch to green energy and generating enough electricity for those cars becomes extremely cheap and environmentally friendly. Environmentally friendly? Yes because electricity is just pulled form the sky. It's like the electric buses in SF that have a sign on the back that says "Zero Emissions Vehicle." Yeah at this end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Environmentally friendly? Yes because electricity is just pulled form the sky. It's like the electric buses in SF that have a sign on the back that says "Zero Emissions Vehicle." Yeah at this end. I'm sure those buses are powered exclusively by the electricity generated from windmills, solar and hydro plants. And aren't you forgetting about "clean coal" too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Well, if they sold 6000 in one model year you would expect that they would sell 60000 in ten model years. Chances are thought that sales will pick up in the coming years as people become more comfortable with the car. 1) Because car sales are constant and linear with time. It's not like the auto industry is cyclic or anything. 2) Conveniently ignoring the fact that GM missed the sales projections on the Volt by a WIDE margin, which would have been wider if not for fleet purchases by the government. And which sales projections were used to justify the federal subsidy to begin with. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Environmentally friendly? Yes because electricity is just pulled form the sky. It's like the electric buses in SF that have a sign on the back that says "Zero Emissions Vehicle." Yeah at this end. In the case of Solar power and wind power, yes, it is just pulled from the sky. We can also use wave rams to generate electricity from the motion of sea water. Not to mention geothermal energy. 1) Because car sales are constant and linear with time. It's not like the auto industry is cyclic or anything. 2) Conveniently ignoring the fact that GM missed the sales projections on the Volt by a WIDE margin, which would have been wider if not for fleet purchases by the government. And which sales projections were used to justify the federal subsidy to begin with. You're an idiot. Idiot blah blah blah, stupid blah blah blah. How many times does it have to be said that the government put money behind the technology also. The idea that we can mas produce and use electric cars. The more electric cars sold, the less money behind each one. Wow I can't believe that GM missed aggressive sales projections, it's not like that's ever happened before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 We would need to sell about a million cars. A steep number but not out of the question. And considering that the government spent the money to fund the research behind the technology other models would also count into that number. Switch to green energy and generating enough electricity for those cars becomes extremely cheap and environmentally friendly. So, a million cars sold would get the subsidy down to $100 per car? That would mean that the total subsidy would only be 100 million dollars. According to the info in the linked article with 6000 cars sold it was up to $250,000 per car. That's 1.5 billion dollars worth of subsidy. I think that works out to about 15 million cars would need to be sold to get the subsidy to $100 per car. Maybe we should all just ride unicorns instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 In the case of Solar power and wind power, yes, it is just pulled from the sky. We can also use wave rams to generate electricity from the motion of sea water. Not to mention geothermal energy. How many times does it have to be said that the government put money behind the technology also. The idea that we can mas produce and use electric cars. The more electric cars sold, the less money behind each one. Wow I can't believe that GM missed aggressive sales projections, it's not like that's ever happened before... We can also harness the power of 1 million hamsters running on 1 million wheels, but we don't. We burn coal for the vast majority of our energy because its cheap and efficient, and currently the only way we can meet our energy needs at a reasonable cost. Solar, wind, hydro and thermal account for a small percentage of our total energy production, which means electricity is anything but clean. So, all other things equal, increasing the denominator in the division equation yields a lower result? Really? Are you f@#$ing sure? What next Newton, will you edify the board as to how increasing one variable in multiplication leads to a higher product? Missing projections by a ton is a big deal, considering the underlying investment decision was based on said projections. But I'm sure with your mastery of long division that you already knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 How many times does it have to be said that the government put money behind the technology also. The idea that we can mas produce and use electric cars. The more electric cars sold, the less money behind each one. Yeah, and I already said that, retard. There's a distinct problem amortizing R&D costs over the first batch of unit production, doubly so when said R&D is more general than the specific application under discussion. But then, the same logic is used for such brilliant decisions as to cancel the F-22...which I'm sure you were absolutely for. Because you're an idiot. Wow I can't believe that GM missed aggressive sales projections, it's not like that's ever happened before... I wouldn't have even brought it up if you weren't trying to justify the up-front costs using your very own bull **** "6000 units a year is 60000 in ten years" sales projections. Really, you think "Our sales projections used to justify the subsidies were wrong...but that's okay, because these new projections justify them!" is sound reasoning? That's why you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Yeah, and I already said that, retard. There's a distinct problem amortizing R&D costs over the first batch of unit production, doubly so when said R&D is more general than the specific application under discussion. But then, the same logic is used for such brilliant decisions as to cancel the F-22...which I'm sure you were absolutely for. Because you're an idiot. I wouldn't have even brought it up if you weren't trying to justify the up-front costs using your very own bull **** "6000 units a year is 60000 in ten years" sales projections. Really, you think "Our sales projections used to justify the subsidies were wrong...but that's okay, because these new projections justify them!" is sound reasoning? That's why you're an idiot. Why wouldn't you be all for canceling the F-22 it's government spending isn't it? I was trying to break everything down to a kindergarten level for you since you have about 0 understanding of economy and how it works. I don't have access to the derivatives they are using for their current or future sales projections so I can't really give you one can I? The whole point of this thread is that volts cost 250,000 a piece. The point of my response is that the more cars sold, the less they cost per unit. Get it? Cue the insults in 3, 2, 1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Why wouldn't you be all for canceling the F-22 it's government spending isn't it? I was trying to break everything down to a kindergarten level for you since you have about 0 understanding of economy and how it works. I don't have access to the derivatives they are using for their current or future sales projections so I can't really give you one can I? The whole point of this thread is that volts cost 250,000 a piece. The point of my response is that the more cars sold, the less they cost per unit. Get it? Cue the insults in 3, 2, 1... In my estimation the Volt will be cancelled in the next 12-18 months, because our green president will likely not give GM any more money for such a lemon during an election year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Why wouldn't you be all for canceling the F-22 it's government spending isn't it? I was trying to break everything down to a kindergarten level for you since you have about 0 understanding of economy and how it works. I don't have access to the derivatives they are using for their current or future sales projections so I can't really give you one can I? The whole point of this thread is that volts cost 250,000 a piece. The point of my response is that the more cars sold, the less they cost per unit. Get it? Cue the insults in 3, 2, 1... Do you honestly think that bolded was not understood by all at first glance of the article? You seem to think that if the obvious isn't explicitly stated then it must be foreign or unknown to the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Why wouldn't you be all for canceling the F-22 it's government spending isn't it? I was trying to break everything down to a kindergarten level for you since you have about 0 understanding of economy and how it works. I don't have access to the derivatives they are using for their current or future sales projections so I can't really give you one can I? The whole point of this thread is that volts cost 250,000 a piece. The point of my response is that the more cars sold, the less they cost per unit. Get it? And I already pointed out ALL of that. But I wasn't an idiot about it. That's the key difference. You used some bull **** example that was, in fact, contrary to reality, that you pulled out of your ass to make a point no one was arguing over. And you're still arguing about it. That's what makes you an idiot: not what you believe, but the fact that if you ever had a rational thought it would die of loneliness. I really don't give a **** what you believe. I only care about how you believe it. You believe poorly. Get it now, sweetheart? Cue the insults in 3, 2, 1... Yeah, the issue here isn't that I'm a big ol' curmudgeonly insulting meany. The problem is that you're an idiot. If being called an idiot upsets you, then don't be an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Chances are thought that sales will pick up in the coming years as people become more comfortable with the car. Prior to my current venture, I worked for a half dozen manufacturing firms. I saw countless examples of innovative people being given money to develop and release a product because, in large part, research showed that, once built, people would spend money to have that product. Through all those years and all those companies, there were a number of products which simply failed. And in every one of those situations was at least one idiot who would tell you today that some slight variation of your comment above was the last thing they remembered saying to the CEOs and bean counters right before they were shown the door. Blind faith doesn't even get you the set of steak knives, Skippy. Edited December 27, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 More of all of our money spent for this bs. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875#.Tv825pd0r8A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 What the hell is it about the left that you must like electric cars? Is it a "save mother earth" thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 What the hell is it about the left that you must like electric cars? Is it a "save mother earth" thing? It's because Al Gore says it prevents global war - er, climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 What the hell is it about the left that you must like electric cars? Is it a "save mother earth" thing? Yes, that is a part of what it's about. It's also about lowering our dependence of foreign oil. I'm not a big fan of the alarmist attitude of Gore, but we do know that an increase of global temperature is occurring at the same time as a rise in CO2. It's not hard to put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) What the hell is it about the left that you must like electric cars? Is it a "save mother earth" thing? Can't speak for liberals, but I think I can speak for nationalists with respect to your question. Have you ever been to Dubai? If yes, res ipsa loquitur. If no, then you should go, and after you get over that simultaneous feeling of awe and disgust, it will be obvious why many in the U.S. like electric cars. Edited January 2, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yes, that is a part of what it's about. It's also about lowering our dependence of foreign oil. I'm not a big fan of the alarmist attitude of Gore, but we do know that an increase of global temperature is occurring at the same time as a rise in CO2. It's not hard to put together. Then you should be for drilling in ANWR. Where do you think all this electricity is going to come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Then you should be for drilling in ANWR. Where do you think all this electricity is going to come from? What I would like to see is a combination of moving to electric cars as well as a push toward green energy. I think drilling in ANWR isn't a bad concession as well as off shore. But the overall push needs to be for green and renewable energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts