In President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union speech, he laid down an ambitious goal:
“We can replace our dependence on oil with biofuels and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015″ Obama said in January 2011.
CBS surveyed the market back in June and reported the bad news for Obama:
To get to one million, the White House pinned its hopes on 11 models of electric vehicles – including the Karma. Our CBS News investigation found that six of the 11 — Ford Focus, Ford Transit Connect, Fisker Nina/Atlantic, Tesla Model S, Tesla Roadster and Think City — either haven’t made their first delivery, stopped production, or are already out of business.
Others aren’t even close to the government’s 2015 projections. For example, 36,000 Fisker Karmas and 505,000 Chevy Volts were supposed to be made. But current projections slash the Karma’s 2015 number in half to 18,000 and put the Volt at one-eighth of the goal at 62,000.
[...]
When told about the CBS News projection that only 300,000 electric vehicles would be on the road instead of the proposed 1 million, the Energy Department’s David Sandalow said, “Well, let’s hope that we can move faster. And if we don’t hit that goal in 2015, let’s hit it in 2016.”
CBS News pointed out that the Energy Department hoped that Think City would produce 57,000 cars, but only built 263 and went out of business. Ford Transit Connect was supposed to make 4,200 vehicles, but only built 500 and filed for bankruptcy.
But, Sandalow reminded that there were some successes.
“General Motors sold more than 5,000 last year,” he said. “And so did Nissan. Around the world this industry is exploding. Innovation involves risks. Any type of new industry is going to encounter some successes and some failures.”
One would think that an “exploding” market would mean sales considerably more than 10,000 units a year for the two largest car makers on the planet. But you and I aren’t in government and math is obviously not their best subject.
So maybe this will be the year that EV’s really take off? Alas, the signs are not good:
Electric vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids are off to a tough start in January after a disappointing 2012.
General Motors Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. all reported much lower sales of EVs and plug-in hybrids in January over December, citing lower inventory and the decision of many customers to buy before the end of the tax year.
GM said sales of its plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt rose 89 percent to 1,140 over January 2012.
But that’s still much lower than recent months — including the 2,633 Volts sold in December. It’s the lowest number of Volts sold in a month since February 2012, when GM sold just 1,023.
GM spokeswoman Michele Malcho said low inventories in California crimped sales in January after a huge month in December. The company is working to replenish volume in California.
In total, California and Michigan account for 46 percent of Volt retail sales.
Toyota said January sales of the Prius plug-in fell from 1,361 in December to 874 in January.
Bill Fay, U.S. sales chief for the Toyota brand, said the company remains “very optimistic” about hybrid sales, which were up 45 percent in January. Fay said the company has “moderate expectations” for the plug-in.
Nissan said January 2013 Leaf EV sales fell 3.8 percent over 2012 to 650 — but fell by more than half over December’s 1,489 sold.
Remember, we’re talking about a goal of a million EV’s on the road by 2015. And GM is talking about a monthly total of 1140?
Never fear, however. Obama wants to pour another $4.7 billion into companies that have little chance of becoming profitable. That should be good for a couple of hundred more EV’s on the road. This is in addition to the tens of billions in taxpayer-backed loans and outright grants to companies who are now either out of business, or performing so far below expectations as to be a joke.
When government tasks itself to pick winners and losers in the market, they invariably choose incorrectly. Electric cars will eventually become a viable product when someone invents a battery that won’t have to be recharged every 50 miles. But that day is far away, and is being pushed back by government interference.
“Remember, we’re talking about a goal of a million EV’s on the road by 2015. And GM is talking about a monthly total of 1140?”
Impressive – at that rate, we should reach our goal in only 73 years!
Funny how history repeats itself.
A decade ago, the talking-point-lock-step-minions made fun of the Toyota Prius and its modest year one sales.
In 2012, the Toyota Prius is the #3 nameplate world wide and THE major source of revenue and profit for Toyota.
The Chevy Volt generated $1,000,000,000 in 2012 (its first full year of national sales… it launched on 11.01.2011) far ahead of Prius year 1 revenue.
But how much did it cost GM make them? Or is the new math for Volt similar to the new math for how the Obama Administration calculates job growth (only look at job creation but forget to subtract job losses)?
Dear Bubblehead:
According to predictions made when I was younger, we were supposed to have flying cars and by populating the solar system by now, too. What’s your point? Do you have one?
Past performance is not a guarantee of future success. Besides, the point here is to make fun of idiot politicians making mind-numbingly stupid predictions.
On the third hand, what’s going to power those electric cars, now that Obama is well on his way to eliminating a significant fraction of our electrical capacity?
There aren’t enough rich Hollywood celebrities to buy these things.
One of the reasons the automobile did so well initially is that it ran on what was, 100 years ago, a waste product. Gasoline was often poured off by refineries making the kerosene then widely used for illumination—ironically, those who decry the “pollution” created by cars do not realize that by providing a market for gasoline the automobile was a factor in cleaning up the environment.
Because the automobile could run not only on gasoline, which is easily portable, but could, in a pinch, run on alcohol or kerosene or any other reasonably volatile flammable substance, once Ford pioneered their inexpensive manufacture they could be found in all manner of remote locales.
Electric cars are not only expensive in themselves. They do not run on a waste product, but instead compete for electricity with other demands for the same commodity—a commodity which the current Administration is hell-bent on making more expensive and less readily available. They also require charging stations to be able to obtain this fuel. On this basis alone, the electric automobile is guaranteed to remain a footnote in the history of transportation.
What is really needed is a car that can be refueled in minutes, with some sort of energy that can transport it 500 miles before it needs fuel again. Wait, that sounds just like any of the 4 gas (well 1 is a diesel) vehicles sitting in my driveway today.
The viable electric car was 20 years off back in the 1950′s, and is 20 years off today.
Twenty years off in 1913 and twenty years off in 2013.
Voltboy, there ain’t no way the Volt outsold anything, you are completely boggled about that. Still, the Volt is a quite decent effort and “deserves” more success than it’s had, as do electric cars generally – for urban use.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/03/1393931/general-motors-tripled-sales-of-chevy-volt-in-2012-selling-one-million-vehicles-over-30-mpg/?mobile=nc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Sales
I’m currently commuting a grand distance of 6 miles each way through gridlock traffic, ideal for an electric NOT EVEN CAPABLE OF FREEWAY SPEED. Better yet for a bus, forsooth, but that would double the travel time. A subway may be available on this route (Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles) starting around 2041. Wonderful. Chrysler dealers were selling a (retired) Lee Iocacca glorified golf cart a few years back which would be ideal – except in a collision with a Tahoe or even a Volt. I’d ride a bicycle and get home much faster, except I’d be killed inside of a month by the same traffic.
So what am I on about? There may *be* some valid uses for electric vehicles, but the Volt ain’t it.
Of these million on the road, does that number include the burned out hulks from exploded batteries, ones that died before the owners could find someplace to recharge, those that did find a recharge station sitting for hours while they recharge?
The only way I can see to make these even close to viable would be to make them safe so that they no longer catch fire for no good reason, more powerful so that they can be made into a larger model that can actually carry more load other than their batteries, and self recharging to increase their effective driving range. The way they are now, the only ones that can afford them are the people that can afford two or three cars and even then the electric car is just a status symbol so they can feel good about doing something for the environment. Until they make them safe, reliable, and affordable, while also retaining their resale value, nobody in their right mind is going to buy one of the silly little toys.
1. Out 250,000+ car-b-ques per year on the roads, ZERO (not even one) was caused by a Chevy Volt.
2. My Chevy Volt has the exact same range as my last car (350 miles). If my battery no longer has charge, I still get 38MPG with the gasoline generator. My average is often well over 100MPG even with my 55 roundtrip commute.
3. I only have one car, It is a Chevy Volt. I have put 4 large suitcases, 4 small suitcases, 4 people to the airport. I has the same capacity as any other car its size.
So what you’re saying is that if some schmuck laid down $42,000 for a Ford Focus Electric Ford hasn’t even made delivery of the car yet? What am I saying! Ain’t nobody bought an overpriced compact car from Ford.
I drive a Chevy Volt. The problem is not the car itself. It is the well funded propaganda against it.
The following are facts that counterpoise most of the factless-babble-speak-talking-points issued by “Big Brothers Koch” to their minions.
1. I drive 55 miles per day (about 15-20 miles/day more than the average roundtrip commute). I typically I charge once per day. The electric only range of my car is 35 miles per day. But I typically get over 300 miles of additional range, whenever I want it using the gasoline generator.
2. I pay $170/month more than a comparable car. I save MORE THAN $170/month in fuel (even including electricity costs). My breakeven is ZERO years, ZERO months.
3. In a recent owners poll, almost 50% of Volt drivers consider themselves “right leaning”/ conservative. Makes sense, I would think those that want to conserve and decouple ourselves from $30,000,000,000 per YEAR in corporate welfare to big oil. Only problem? “Big Brother Koch” need to protect their oil interests.. hence, an unprecendented propaganda campaign against EVs.
Yet another example of how the GOP is becoming a SMALLER party by excluding people. Side note…how long until TX turns blue?
4. Chevy Volt has the highest satisfaction of ANY car measured from TWO leading sources: Consumer Reports and JD Power. Higher than Mercedes, Lexus… higher than ANY CAR.
This fact drive the talking-point-minions nuts… how can that be? How about the most logical answer…it is a great car that delivers on its promises? Or are the blinders on so tight, that you have to make up facts to fit the talking points?
5. The Chevy Volt (launched nationally on 11.01.2011) outsold the Prius in year 1. It generated over $1,000,000,000 in revenue for GM. The Prius, which was similarly mocked many years ago, is now a cash cow. It is the #3 nameplate WORLDWIDE. Not a bad template to follow.
“I drive a Chevy Volt. The problem is not the car itself. It is the well funded propaganda against it.”
Says the person who comes in posting propaganda for a car that would not exist save for the $7,500 tax credit that the federal government authorized for the car.
1. Use facts to counterpoise any of my FACTS, not propaganda… FACTS. If you think its propaganda, state what is, the refute it with data. I challenge you.
2. The “George W Bush $7500 EV Tax Credit of 2007″ exists for much the same reason as other tax credits exists, the are intended to influence the market and save/create jobs. I am sure that was what W was thinking when he signed the tax credit.
… And anyway, its a moot point. Thanks to the Norquist pledge, the GOP is contractually obligated to never, EVER remove the tax credit. It is “job creating” remember? I bet I helped create 0.24 jobs with my Chevy Volt.
The GOP and EV Buyers are on the same side of this issue: IN GROVER WE TRUST!
3. If you would like, let us get rid of the $30,000,000,000 per YEAR in corporate welfare to Big Oil. No EV Tax Credit + No Big Oil Corporate welfare = Higher gas prices and more more competitive EV cost of ownership. Level the playing field… FAIR?
Right, Bobble. Reuters reports that Chevy is losing $48,000 on every $41,000 Volt it sells. GM says “Don’t worry, we’ll make it up on volume . . .
‘
Reuters Propaganda Math is very easy to see through….
$48,000 loss is based on amortizing the tooling and R & D for the Volt ($1.2B) over only 22,000 cars ALREADY SOLD. By that logic, you cannot count that burden anymore.
It is done. They made up a “Jesus amortization schedule” and applied all of the burden to only a few cars. So $48K loss for the first 22K is now a $10K+ PROFIT for every Volt made…. since the cost to build is about $10K less than the sales price.
Analogy: “Rusty builds a bridge for $100MM. I walk over for 10 minutes and watch 100 cars pass. I declare ‘Rusty’s boondoggle costs an astounding $1,000,000 per car!’” Fair?
… Actually the “Make it up on volume” completely applies when you are talking about REAL amortization schedules (not the fake math in the Reuters Article).
If Volt sells 3,000,000 over the next 10 years (matching the Prius), then the $1.2B burden will go all the way down to $400/car.
1) I believe Rick Moran posted two articles which are littered with facts that counterpoint your narrative. Or is that to be considered propaganda because Rick Moran linked to them?
2) That is why I said the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This isn’t a GOP/Dem issue as I am well aware that the tax credit started under Bush. Of course, it is now 2013 and Obama is again President. When will it cease to George Bush’s fault for you? Probably never.
3) I am all for getting rid of corporate welfare in any form, whether it is through taxable deductions to Big Oil or tax credits for affluent car buyers to be bribed to buy cars they would otherwise not buy.
And to that point about a couple of outfits rating the Volt higher than Mercedes or Lexus. I highly doubt they would do that but even if they did people continue to buy Mercedes and Lexus whereas hardly anybody is buying electric cars. Sorry, but your propaganda won’t work here.
Dear bubblehead:
Please describe this magical corporate welfare to Big Oil that you mention. You appear to be full of used food.
Anyway you’re missing the point – you must be a liberal. If you want to buy an electric car, AND PAY FOR IT, more power to you. Government should not be part of the equation.
Nice job bringing in the Koch brothers, who have zero to do with this. Your ideology is apparent.
Please describe exactly how a right-leaning Volt owner helps your case in any way.
“Big Brothers Koch”… and others benefit in the following ways:
1. Tax Credits. Favorable treatment the oil industry gets that other industries do NOT get.
2. Military protection: Since much of our oil comes from the Middle East and must be “protected”… and that is not even accounting for dubious wars we get into for no other reason that oil interests.
3. Infrastructure spending: tax payers must spend money to allow big oil to efficiently get from refineries to tanker trucks to the local gas station.
4. Major events like the Gulf Oil spill costs tax payers in three ways: 1. spending to assist with cleaning up the spills. 2. Medical costs associated with hazardous chemicals, 3. Loss of tax revenue from people who lose their job.
On a smaller scale, every time a tanker truck gets into an accident and spills gasoline, tax payers have to spend money to clean it up. If that tanker causes a fire, tax payers have to pay to clean up the mess (in people and property)… and we all have to pay higher healthcare costs.
Add it all up and $30,000,000,000 is a conservative number.
Someday, maybe you’ll discover what the “B” stands for in “CBA.”
Bubblehead:
1) You’re a hypocrite on this. You lambast Big Oil for getting tax credits even though there are no specific tax credits for oil and gas but then excuse yourself for GM getting a tax credit that it can pass on to you to help you buy its car.
2) Every American is entitled to American protection. How does this rise to corporate welfare?
3) Again you are a hypocrite. No renewable energy project can survive on its own without government assistance. Even with that assistance many fold up or operate at a loss.
4) Again, how is this corporate welfare? The last oil spill from the BP explosion was not footed by the taxpayers. Indeed, BP picked up the majority of the costs for that spill and still continues to pay for it to this day.
Let’s all sing along with Sammy Johns.
I am a soccer mom, a Conservative and adore my Chevy Volt. After taking kids to school, I plug into my 220 charger, which is charged by the sun (our house has 7/8 solar power). I plug in between errands. I take them to their after school activities in town and only break into using the gas motor on Monday nights. We lease the car for less than we used to pay for gas. We lease because the technology is changing, and we don’t worry about the battery. We notice the savings on gas, but mostly are thrilled to not support those in the Middle East who wish us ill. I feel dirty and a little ashamed whenever I flip to gas in the Volt. I hope you will try an EV too and I think you will love it. The Volt has gone 8000 miles and I have burned less than ten gallons of gas.