Posted on 09/25/2012 4:27:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
A new Congressional Budget Office report tells Obama what the rest of us have known for some time: Your bet on electric cars wasn’t an investment, but a gamble; a dumb gamble.
And now you’ve just come up snake eyes.
“Despite the federal government pumping $7.5 billion into the electric vehicle industry in the United States through 2019,” writes the CSMonitor.com, “overall national gasoline consumption is unlikely to be significantly affected, according to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).”
The CBO says that even if Obama increased the amount of the subsidy, it would make little difference to the gasoline usage or emissions output because automakers would still be required to hit fuel efficiency targets. Instead, the CBO says that either a tax on gasoline or carbon is the only way to increase the attractiveness of electric cars to consumers.
Duh.
That’s because electric cars don’t save gas, they don’t save money and they don’t save the “planet.”
They are only a vanity-plumping, amenity purchase for the metro-testicled.
“Assuming that everything else is equal” says the CBO, “the larger an electric vehicle’s battery capacity, the greater its cost disadvantage relative to conventional vehicles—and thus the larger the tax credit needed to make it cost-competitive.”
It’s not like none of us pointed this out at the time Obama unveiled his plan to put a million electric vehicles on the road before he destabilized the Middle East.
Ok, so he didn’t tell us that last part.
Dr. Strange-Chu told us about that one.
“Somehow,” Strange-Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
Hey? How about a regional civil war? We could lob a few missiles at Libya?
But even with Middle East and North African disorders keeping oil prices high, electric vehicles are still not cost competitive- nor does the consumer seem to want them at any cost.
General Motors essentially confirmed Obama’s bad bet when they admitted over the weekend that the recent rash of “viral” Chevy Volt sales have been stoked by discounts of as much as $10,000 off the MSRP of $40,000.
Two weeks ago industry insiders revealed that General Motors was taking a loss of around $50,000 per Chevy Volt sold. That was assuming a sales price without the new and improved $10k discount. If you add in the $7,500 government subsidy, the Volt’s cost to the consumer is around $22,500.
Cost to the taxpayers is much, much higher.
Before the discount, the Volt cost General Motors- a joint venture between Obama, Inc., and the United Auto Workers that was subsidized by your tax dollars- around $650 million just this year according to estimates by industry insiders. In August alone the discount bumped up the price to GM by another $28 million.
So far this year the company has sold around 13,000 Volts, compared to the 60,000 unit goal that they set at the beginning of the year.
"Let's face it, over $40,000 is asking a lot for a compact car," says Bob Lutz, who helped develop the Volt- and was present when GM was hurling toward bankruptcy.
"Its prime purpose was to introduce a new generation of technology," says the now-retired Lutz, according to CBSNews. "And at the same time ... demonstrate to the world that GM is way more technologically capable than the people give it credit for."
Show- offs.
I never knew technology was capable of losing this much money so quickly.
I’m impressed.
And now so is the Congressional Budget Office.
Toyota just pretty much pulled out of its all electric vehicle manufacturing, only a hundred will be built.
The company is the government.
How many of those 13,000 cars did it sell to itself?
After Obama is prosecuted and convicted, maybe the US can buy them all. And use them to power ol’ Sparky.
Really? Who bought them?
The Chevy Volt... Well lets see, other than having no redeeming qualities I’m looking for in a vehicle, it is also over-priced, made by a company I despise at the hands of union goofs I don’t trust and don’t want to support. Yeah, what a winner.
More like a money pit.
Junkies can’t help but look for a new high as they spiral more and more into their addiction.
In this case, a dangerous and expensive addiction to “green energy”.
Someone freakin stop this train....
There is another way to reduce the cost. That would be to promote the early death of retired UAW members and their spouses. The money saved could be returned to the treasury
I work for a global company, which I prefer not to mention. The job comes with a company car and I am being told that my next car is a Chevy Volt. The corporation is pushing this car as one of their fleet vehicles. The funny thing is due to where I live it will more than likely never receive an electrical charge.
I would possibly buy a used Chevy Volt, because of its batteries that I can use as an emergency storage device.
When the SHTF Volt owners will put the cars up on blocks, feed it with solar panels, wind generators, hand cranked alternators or even dog treadmills, just to charge it up so they have a massive battery for their puters and cell phones in mommas basement.
I saw a 3 year lease offer in my Sunday paper.
$129/MONTH
They are basically giving these things away. I only have a 9 mile commute. It could concieveably work for someone like me. I can see how some people might lease these cars but not want to own it. Also, if you have a big pickup truck that you want to keep to tow/plow/work, etc.
Must be GE, right?
Seems the industry is well in touch with the direction this election is going to go.
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.