AutoblogGreen

"$60 million in the next three years for cars"

What a waste. I know it is only 60 mil, but it is a pittance and useless waste of money. The industry already has this well in hand. The cost of managing the 60 mil will far outweigh the 60 mil. GOV should just let the experts do their work instead of spending our money like it grows on trees. It would be different if there was no work being done on plug in EV, but that is not the case.
All show and no go.

Reply

So, which giant corporations are getting my tax money so they can sell me things for an even bigger profit?

And which idots would vote for politicians who short-circut the free market by choosing technology leaders based on my tax dollars returned as lobbing dollars?

OK, step right up and raise your hands.

Reply

10000 million going to fund biofuels.
versus
30 million to fund PHEVs.

Gee, that sounds fair.
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png

_

Re: Dad/Tim
What makes you think the existing car market is competitive level playing field in the first place?
http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png

Car companies are so adverse to change, that we wouldn't even have seatbelts (much less airbags) if it weren't for Government regulation.

_

But I will agree with you PHEVs are so overwhelmingly effective, that it can outcompete damned near everything.

But the speed of implementation is really the question.

To date, no mainstream car manufacturer in the world is selling any of them.

And most don't plan to do anything until 2011 or later. (We'll practically have elected our NEXT president by then)

Reply

"Car companies are so adverse to change, that we wouldn't even have seatbelts (much less airbags) if it weren't for Government regulation."

Another nonsense statement not based upon fact. GM had air bags technology installed and tested long before the FEDS ever required them. Volvo had seat belts installed and in use long before the FEDS required them.

Reply

"10000 million going to fund biofuels.
versus
30 million to fund PHEVs.

Gee, that sounds fair."

Both are BS. But let us see, biofuel technology support for an indutry that does not exist (or in it's infancy) or PHEV money for technology that already exists and is being actively developed already.

Reply

"10000 million going to fund biofuels.
versus
30 million to fund PHEVs.

Gee, that sounds fair."

Both are BS. But let us see, biofuel technology support for an industry that does not exist (or in it's infancy) or PHEV money for technology that already exists and is being actively developed already. Prius for sale for decade (?) and GM Volt/Telsa/Saturn VUE/ Ford Escape (taxis in New York already) the G-Wiz in England, etc. Running with PHEV already been worked on for years.

60 mil for 3 years is still BS.

Reply

Lets save 60 million bucks.

Please send this to all govt. officials:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/15/detroit-2008-this-is-what-150-mpge-looks-like-pics-of-the-xh/

Reply

Please don't lose sight of how Washington works. Companies hire lobbying firms to represent them in Congress and to gain access to the White House. The lobbyists write bills, or assist in writing them, submit them to their favorite Congressman, Senator, or President and include subsides, grants, self-serving funds, etc. in the bills. Congress passes the bills, the companies get the tax money, the lobbyist collect their fees and the government deciders receive campaign funds and favors passed to them by the lobbyist. Been going like this for years. But, the middle-class only gets involved at the tail-end of the process: When it's time to pay for the products and when we are allowed to vote.

Did you notice the target distance of electric mode only was set at 40 miles? Isn't that the same target distance set for GM's "Volt?" I rest your honor!

Reply

I've lost my faith in the ability of the free market to bring about the breadth of change that climate change requires - both investors are consumers are far too concerned about the short-term. I have no problem whatsoever with governments funding R&D to give the market a push in the right direction.

That said, I think the whole proposition is just a little bit silly (2016? really now?) since the Volt is scheduled to be on the market by 2010-2011, and will already offer a 40 mile EV range...

Reply

Oops. That should be "both investors AND consumers are far too concerned with the short term"

Reply

Turbofrog - Tell me that you have NOT been into the Socialist coolaid.

It's government giving TAX money and military power to OIL and choosing bad technologies with "investment" that caused this mess in the first place.

Competition isn't working because Government won't allow a level playing field.

Now, if the ONLY did what they were supposed to do... Kill Monopolies. Aren't THEY the world's largest and most powerful monopoly right after their true masters the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, The International Monitary Fund and the World Bank of course? These entities ALSO choose the most profitable technologies (for themselves) by funding or NOT funding.

Reply

Giving Money for technology and/or market entry with PHEV is much too late anyway. Audi had a diesel/eletric plugin-hybrid in 1996 but it was too expensive for the market and production was quit one year later. And Renault had a Kangoo PHEV in france for 2001 wich wasn't expensive. So now it is quite stupid to give money to the competitors of the pioneer companies. It would be much more sensible to lower taxes and fees for environment-friendly vehicles to make market-entry easier for the ones who allready have good technologie.

Reply

"Car companies are so adverse to change, that we wouldn't even have seatbelts (much less airbags) if it weren't for Government regulation."

Ford offered seatbelts as part of an optional "safety package" 1957 through 1959. People didn't order them and they were discontinued. People talk safety but don't want to actually pay for, or use it. Witness the dismal level of seatbelt usage prior to the Feds forcing the states to make it a law.

Reply