Posted on 02/05/2013 9:26:42 AM PST by jazusamo
According to Toyota Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, "Because of its shortcomings - driving range, cost and recharging time - the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars; we need something entirely new." Uchiyamada is considered the "father of the Prius."
An article by Reuter's exposes the limitations of EVs and focuses on Toyota's, along with Nissan's, change in strategy, which is now moving away from EVs. Even the most ideological and extreme green energy proponents and backers of the Chevy Volt will have to open their eyes to the sad truth uncovered by the latest report.
The truth is that the technology of lithium-ion based, pure electric vehicles is not the most efficient manner to power motor vehicles. This is something that has been said before by many credible sources. In fact, I previously reported that auto industry executives and engineers voiced similar concerns . Even General Motors' executive director of powertrain-engine engineering, Sam Winegarden, once presented evidence that lithium-ion batteries, used in electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf and GM's plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt, were ranked close to zero compared to gasoline and diesel fuels, which delivered the most energy for the least amount of weight and cost to the consumer. Now, Uchiyamada becomes the most credible source to weigh in and attention should be paid to his opinion.
The recent Reuter's article states the obvious, "The reality is that consumers continue to show little interest in electric vehicles, or EVs, which dominated U.S. streets in the first decade of the 20th century before being displaced by gasoline-powered cars." Also, "Despite the promise of 'green' transportation - and despite billions of dollars in investment, most recently by Nissan Motor Co - EVs continue to be plagued by many of the problems that eventually scuttled electrics in the 1910s and more recently in the 1990s. Those include high cost, short driving range and lack of charging stations." It is important to note that the criticisms are aimed at plug-in EVs and not hybrids like the Toyota Prius.
American taxpayers and voters should open their eyes to the insane waste of taxpayer money on a pursuit by the Obama Administration to electrify the US auto fleet before considering whether or not this is the most efficient manner in which to wean America off of fossil fuels. The criticisms (i.e. reality) are coming from non-biased sources, not from right wing extremists or oil proponents. Why is the truth so hard to see? Why aren't Republican representatives questioning the green farce? How many billions of dollars need to be wasted on the green folly before the truth is exposed? No one in government is fighting to end the madness, even though a recent congressional budget office report showed that EVs are costing taxpayers billions of dollars with little benefit.
January's dismal sales figures for the Chevy Volt confirm the lack of interest by consumers in costly plug-in vehicles and some Chevy dealers have pulled the plug on the car . General Motors has been dishonest regarding demand for the vehicle and has had to manufacture demand with incentivized leases. Taxpayers pay $7,500 in federal subsidies on each plug-in EV sold (or leased) and sales are still swooning. Nissan has thrown away almost $6,000 on incentives on its competing Leaf, and the car sells even less than the Volt! What is it going to take to get the picture?
The saddest part of the green boondoggle story is that our own government is responsible for the wasteful focus on plug-in vehicles. General Motors still has Obama-appointed management that will not back off on the plug-in EV technology. In fact, they are doubling down on the losing hand. But Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Nissan executive vice president, sheds light on the true driving force behind the EV madness. Reuter's quotes Yamashita as he blames rising government fuel efficiency standards, "It is not possible to meet (future) regulations unless vehicles are electrified."
So, there you have it. Our government forces automakers to build cars that few want in a misguided strategy that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars backing a technology that was unproven and now admittedly not the best alternative to gas-powered vehicles. Auto manufacturers are not trying to make money selling the cars, nor are they even concerned with the low sales, with the exception of GM which has staked its reputation on the Volt and has had political motivations. The automakers don't have to sell a lot of these cars to meet rising government standards; they only have to offer them, which does nothing to actually help the environment or oil dependence. Now how stupid is that?
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
Do you have proof or just blowing smoke out of your you know what.
Well obviously government motors is a total disaster as is any industry nationalized by any sort of government. But in the case of mere investing as is the case for Tesla where the money has no (hopefully) strings then it's still a good thing, IMHO. Seed money or growth/expansion funding is a good thing when carefully applied. And certainly not for more than a year or two. By then, any business that can't stand on it's own should fail as the free market dictates.
No it isn’t.. Government should not be giving money to any business period..
I have done a bit of research on this...electric cars are way more efficient than internal combustion engines. The cost per mile for the charge even with the battery life factored in is WAY less than gasoline and that does not even take into account the big maintenance savings..big. Just a little research will show you this regardless of the left or right view.
Well now, you know, that's a pretty good point now that I think of it. They're asking us to assume the risk the entrepreneur is supposed to assume themselves as entering into the business in the first place. Why don't they get their own loans? If a bank refuses them money then it means that in it's risk assessment, the lender has determined that the prospective client is not a good business risk. I stand corrected. Good show!
Really? I thought this was a gas engine car from day one. I know two guys that worked on the design, Larry Nitz and Greg Hubbard - that's what they told me. And Lutz' book says that also...
IMO, electric vehicles makes perfect sense in specific environment. Say crowded urban environment + mild climate. In Southern Europe or SE Asia for example these cars must be much more convenient than regular cars.
“I wouldn’t write them all off just yet. Heck, I’d buy one of THESE if I could afford one and if they continue to be successful, the prices will come down. “
Well, lets see; I live in the DFW area (Texas) and drive to El Paso every now and then. It’s about a 700 mile drive. Soo, lets say, I could get about 60 miles per charge while driving 60mph with ac and radio off. Lets also say it will take about eight hours for each recharge. So, the total elapsed time to travel 60 miles would be nine hours. So, in theory, I could make the trip in about 4.4 days. Now, that’s a perfect situation. Anyone who’s ever made that drive knows you have to pay attention to your gas tank so to not get caught on empty between gas stations as there are some long stretches of nothing on this route. Judy image the problems with finding a place to plug in your EV? Also, just imagine the ridicule you will have to endure from the locals. I don’t even want to think about that. Think I will just stay with my crew cab Silverado - thanks but no thanks on these EV’s, LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.