From AutoBlogGreen:
At the keynote speech this morning at the LA Auto Show, the president and CEO of Nissan/Renault, Carolos Ghosn, announced a new alliance with the start of Oregon to bring electric vehicles there in 2010. The deal will see “a supply” of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) available to the city of Portland, Oregon and to support a network of EV charging stations.
Link to full blog post with press release:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/11/19/la-2008-nissan-announces-electric-car-partnership-with-oregon/
20 responses to “LA Auto Show: Nissan announces electric car partnership with Oregon”
Two thoughts:
I hope they are affordable.
How will we get the electricity to charge them? Nuclear?
How will we get the electricity to charge them? Nuclear?
Wind and hydro.
Mostly, they’ll be charging at night.
They seem like a good idea. But maybe we should take a second look at why and how we are promoting the vehicles.
Check out:
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2008/11/10/can-you-spare-a-charge/
I’m watching the wretched auto makers BEG for bailout money.
Alas, had they been producing some of these alternative vehicles maybe they wouldn’t be in this position.
Oh yea, I keep forgetting, with the American style of capitalism, when the big boys fail they can always resort to corporate socialism and get bailed out by our tax dollars.
Funny how American citizens just have to suffer and die.
Todd, it makes sense to subsidize new and promising technologies, which are expensive and don’t have adequate economy of scale to make it in the free market.
Thomas:
Who decides what new technologies are “promising” and warrant subsidy?
Who pays when a subsided technology is a flop?
Who decides what new technologies are “promising” and warrant subsidy?
The people we elect. That’s what happens in a Republic.
Who pays when a subsided technology is a flop?
Whoever the people we elected put on the hook. Usually, it’s us. Don’t like it? Elect someone different.
I for one would rather see the $25 Billion requested by automakers go to advance this technology and others for domestic production than to pay for overseas GM factories producing more gas guzzlers.
Id rather see $25 billion put in my pocket so I don’t have to work any more.
P.S. most elected politicians are lawyers– not engineers, scientists, or entrepreneurs. They are qualified(ish) to make laws, not pick out the next feel good technology fad to throw money at.
I’d rather see the $25B spent on bicycle infrastructure. Dollar for dollar, bicycles have far more impact on climate/peak oil/etc, than electric cars.
About 3 years ago I was looking into buying an electric car, (you can find one home built and used on Craiglists about once a month.) And then I realized that a bicycle could do almost everything I wanted an electric car for, and it is a lot less expensive, and better for me. (Of course there are tradeoffs: A bicycle can’t do 60 on the freeway, but I can get a bicycle to Salem, but I’d have trouble doing that with a pure electric car…)
George Carlin on bicycles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6zj5nhASk0
Alas, had they been producing some of these alternative vehicles maybe they wouldn’t be in this position.
I was thinking about this the other night, and I agree. After all, IMO, it’s the auto industry that socially engineered most of the public into thinking that they needed to drive SUVs everywhere, even for single-occupant trips.
They also have seem to have friends at the EPA (remember when they said that Oregon could not adopt California emissions standards, under the guise that it’s “too expensive?”). And the other day on the radio, I heard an ad touting around 35 MPG as “fuel efficient.”
Which got me to thinking… give them a loan, but only if they produce vehicles that get at least 50 MPG and/or use alternative fuels, starting immediately. Of course, the execs. and others will probably say “that’s too expensive,” while again flying to Washington in private jets. Maybe said executives would like to be sitting in the unemployment line next to everyone else that would lose their jobs.
As for electric cars… it’s a good idea, is coming along far too late, and anything that doesn’t directly use fossil fuels is the direction we should be focusing our research on. We hear about how alternative fuel technologies aren’t proven, but at the same time we probably aren’t giving them enough resources so that the technologies can be proven. (I’m going to guess if all of us were around 100 years ago, we’d be debating over horse-driven carriages, streetcars, and interurbans vs. “horseless carriages.”)
My 1986 Honda Civic got 44 miles per gallon. It cost me $2,300 in 1998.
I still have it. Runs, sorta. Anyone want to buy it? Its carbureted, btw.
“Oh yea, I keep forgetting, with the American style of capitalism, when the big boys fail they can always
resort to corporate socialism and get bailed out by our tax dollars.”
That statement is self renouncing. But in a way the renouncement is correct. Corporate Socialism is NOT
American Capitalism, nor is it Capitalism, is is nothing more and nothing less than Corporate Socialism or
Corporate Welfare. I find it abhorrent and any self respecting American Capitalist would find it as such
also.
“Todd, it makes sense to subsidize new and promising technologies, which are expensive and don’t have
adequate economy of scale to make it in the free market.”
Yeah, like combustion driven cars. That’s exactly how those expanded into the market in the first place.
Gas driven cars. We gave em’ hand outs left and right, so obviously the best decision is to always let the
Government decide who to subsidize. That’s the most efficient method. Jeez, I’ve said it a million times,
one has to be careful what they wish for. What happens if Republicans that dont’ believe in Global Warming
take back over Congress and the PResidency and divert the subsidies to something else. We can’t just let the
Government decide this for us, we the people have to act, otherwise we’ll just keep getting bad ideas rammed
down our throats. This is EXACTLY how we got into the auto dependent oil consuming situation we’re in now
anyway.
NOTE: Nissan btw is building the electric car because they’ve decided it is a good idea for progress.
Nissan generally thinks as a whole that hybrids are absurd (and they are overall, and don’t lower pollution
anymore than a Toyota Camry, Scion, or other small ULEV – They’re ALL ULEVs). They’re build this car because
it is a true and viable economic vehicle. As for these subsidies the Government is throwing at them, that’s
stupid. The market will pick them up when it is good and ready, trying to hurry into something just
imbalances things more. Maybe if instead of increasing our debt and tax burden with hand outs for a few they
should stop subisidizing the gas fueling infrastructure of the country? Eh, how about those apples?
Subsidies are bad, period. One cannot hide from fact subsidies are theft from Americans for a small number
of Americans, if anyone applies simple logic to this practice they would derive that fact. I don’t know
about others, but I tend to believe that stealing from others is wrong. Maybe I’m just not modern enough to
be ok with theft.
Anyway… in Summary
Nissan and others like it (Toyota, Honda, etc) are the ones that will drive the green revolution. The only
thing the Government will do when making decisions on technology preferences for the people will be to
subvert other new or original ideas on combating the problems of global warming. As stated, “P.S. most elected politicians are lawyers– not engineers, scientists, or entrepreneurs. They are qualified(ish) to make laws, not pick out the next feel good technology fad to throw money at.” by Anthony.
Another prime example of the horrible idea it is for the Government to choose sides in this is the MPG. As pointed out by zilfondel, his 1986 Civic got 44 miles per gallon. Anyone stop to ask why? Take no further look than the stupid regulations the federal government has placed on automobile construction. IT’s the same type of stupid mentality that forces us in America to have the least efficient trains, the least efficient transit, and of course the least efficient cars.
America is known for innovation, but we have effectively STOPPED innovating in our physical world since the 60s (funny how certain subsidies and regulations came into effect then – seems to coincide). America created the first bullet trains, the first jet train, several mixed mode automobile types, I believe we were even first to prototype an electric and a hydrogen car. What are we doing? Why are we not getting these to market?
Look at the costs and associated returns on doing this with the overhead and roadblocks the Federal (and State/City) Governments have in the way. Their lust to control things is so overriding that we’re stuck with the crap of the last half century and we’re barely getting ahead of that. Meanwhile Japan, Europe, and others are racing ahead of us. Soon China, India, and others will probably smoke by us and we’ll be playing catch up as followers, hoping that they save the planet instead of us even having much say in the matter…
blagh, I digress. What to do, what to do.
Douglas K. wrote: Wind and hydro.
Except that wind power constitutes about 1-2% of our electricity mix and is not stable (the wind doesn’t blow all the time), and hydro power is less than 50% of our electricity mix (in Seattle it is >90%.)
Which leaves 50% of the Portland’s power mix produced by coal, natural gas, and other generation methods.
Even the most optimistic forecasts for wind power is no more than 20%, and that would require wind turbines to be mounted pretty much EVERYWHERE where the wind blows – that means both in the water on the Oregon Coast and on the hillsides just onshore. There is already significant opposition to putting wind turbines in/around/near the Oregon Coast both on land or on water.
The most promising opportunity for energy generation is nuclear; and my employer commissioned a LLC to build a nuclear power plant – and dissolved it after it was not cost-effective. After being told (by the Oregon PUC) that we can’t build new coal plants in Wyoming, the name of the game is not to increase consumption but decrease it. While electric cars will have the benefit of mostly charging at night (save for those charging stations that give free power subsidized by ratepayers that work during the day), the problems of unstable wind power generation will remain forever unless someone knows how to control the weather for purposes of good and not evil.
There is some real hypocrisy by Governor Kulongoski in that on one hand he is courting auto manufacturers from Japan and China to sell their cars in Oregon, while telling Oregonians to buy local products on the other hand. Furthermore, Kulongoski himself travels around in a full sized luxury sedan at times accompanied by a full sized SUV. The Governor is not only selling out the American manufacturers and sending American jobs overseas, but he is also obviously full of double standards – one standard for the affluent so they can maintain their high and mighty lifestyles, and another socialistic applied standard for the rest of the people which includes cramming working class people and families into teeny-weenie little foreign produced cars that do not in reality fit their needs. To adhere to his own rhetoric, the Governor himself, immediately needs to be the person traveling around in a teeny-weenie little car. Moreover, taxpayers should not be subsidizing imports from overseas with $5,000. tax credits at the expense of American jobs.
Terry –
What American manufacturer has a highway-legal general-purpose all-electric car?
GM is the closest with their Volt program, but it is not ready for production and will be gasoline-powered plus plug-in, more of a hybrid with limited all-electric range.
There’s USA-based Tesla motors with a production all-electric sports car (final assembly in USA), but it’s over $100K, not a general purpose or family vehicle. They’re working on a sedan to be all-US, but no prototypes have been shown yet.
The tax credit, as far as I know, is applicable to a class of vehicle, not a particular manufacturer. This is a subsidy for companies which care to market a particular type of product. The fact that Detroit is behind the curve a bit on this is not Kulongoski’s fault.
Any company that wants to step up to the plate should be eligible for the tax credit, foreign or domestic.
PS… Most of the electricity to power these new cars will be produced in our region.
Matthew said; “I’d rather see the $25B spent on bicycle infrastructure. Dollar for dollar, bicycles have far more impact on climate/peak oil/etc, than electric cars.”
As if the taxpayers, specifically motorists, aren’t already continually bailing out the bicyclists from paying their own way for the specialized infrastructure they use and rant for. That $25B ought to come directly from the bicyclists in the from a direct tax on the bicycling mode of transport plus bike license and registration fees.
As for the American auto industry: In 2000 and 2001 I worked for a GM contractor where GM employees were on site. I did some telephone support services directly to the GM dealerships nationwide. At that time, GM and Ford were selling trucks and SUVs because that was what the public wanted and was purchasing. The small GM cars and SUVs were not selling well. GM was for the most part loosing money on their small lineup and therefore some models were discontinued. The EV1 electric car GM produced a few of decades ago cost significantly more to produce than GM could actually sell the vehicles for. The real problem at GM is that GM it is too top heavy to be efficient when making changes to models and adapting to an unpredictable changing market. The era of lousy GM products actually took place in the 1970s. Since that gave GM a bad rap, they never were able to regain back their market share with American consumers.
Bob R said: “Most of the electricity to power these new cars will be produced in our region.”
The average wind farm being built today requires only about eight employees to operate, four of them being maintenance people. Moreover if the electric plug-in cars are so great, the public will buy them up as fast as they can be produced without taxpayer assistance. Tax dollars ought not to be supporting foreign manufacturers. That is the selling off of America to foreign investors.
Bob R. Says:
What American manufacturer has a highway-legal general-purpose all-electric car?
GM is the closest with their Volt program, but it is not ready for production and will be gasoline-powered plus plug-in, more of a hybrid with limited all-electric range.
According to the morning Oregonian, the Volt is several years out at best and will be selling for $40,000, with a 40-mile limit on the electric engine. How GM expects this to compete with Japanese or Chinese electric or hybrid autos is a complete mystery.