Obama Electric Car Fiasco Is A Case of "Unchecked Righteousness"

That's the conclusion of Washington Post columnist Charles Lane in his terrific op-ed, "The Electric Car Mistake," in today's edition. Lane shows just how hollow President Barack Obama's promise to put one million electric cars on America's highways by 2015 is turning out to be. As Lane reports:

President Obama repeatedly declared that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans ... and tax incentives to buyers.

Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That’s about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama’s goal was not preposterous.

Federal billions cannot overcome the fact that electric vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids meet few, if any, of real consumers’ needs. Compared with gas-powered cars, they deliver inferior performance at much higher cost. As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded last June: “Despite their many potential advantages, all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future.”

Lane pulls no punches when he explains why the Obama administration's electric car plan is a fiasco:

I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public. Nor was the electric-car dream a Democrats-only delusion. Several Republican pols shared it, too.

Rather, the debacle is a case study in unchecked righteousness. The administration assumed the worthiness and urgency of its goals. Americans should want electric cars, and therefore they would, apparently.

For background see my 2010 article, "Revving Up Electric Cars with Government Cash," where I reported on my visit to the federally subsidized and now defunct car battery manufactuer, Ener1 - which is now bankrupt. Go here for to read New York Times reporter John Broder's account of his less-than-successful test-drive last week of the new all-eletctric Tesla S model from Washington to Boston. Naturally Tesla disagrees.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SugarFree||

    Lane pulls no punches when he explains why the Obama administration's electric car plan is a fiasco:

    I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public.

    Sounds like a pulled punch to me. Or maybe a swing and a miss in T-ball.

  • ||

    It's all in the parsing. He makes His Pestilency look incompetent and like he was swindled by some snake-oil salesman...

  • crashland||

    Bullshit. The president used the public teat to allow his cronies to feast.

    He shouldn't be in the WH, he should be in jail.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't see who feasted off the electric car fiasco. GM sure as hell didn't benefit, this was the dance they had to do to get BO's dollars stuffed in their underwear.

  • db||

    Manufacturers of batteries and ultracapacitors, and the specialized motors and variable speed drives required for vehicle service are laughing all the way to the bank.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    And the people constructing all those unused public charging stations.

  • wareagle||

    Sounds like a pulled punch to me. Or maybe a swing and a miss in T-ball.

    or a true believer seeing what he wants to see. If after this time, someone doubts Obama's intentions, there is no point in talking to them.

  • ||

    This is WaPo we are talking about...

  • Tman||

    It was just a coincidence that GM was already bankrupt and relying on the president to keep them and their Union contracts afloat. Honest!

    The Chevy Volt has only sold something like 21,000 units SO FAR TO DATE.

    And that's with the taxpayers footing a fifth of the sticker price. If you honestly think Obama's intentions with the electric car push were anything other than "what I need to do to get re-elected" than you are a fucking moron.

  • entropy||

    Is that before or after channel stuffing? GM sometimes like to consider something sold just because it's up for sale. They sell the cars to GM dealers and that counts as 'sold' while it sits on the dealer lot.

  • Tman||

    If you go by the Wiki link for the Volt, it says something around 40,000 units. But the other data I found stated the "non-government sales" was more likely around 21K.

    Either way they've sold less than 50,000 of these things in three years. I can honestly say I've never seen one on the road, but I'm in Tennessee and they don't see to have much marketing for the Volt around here.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And that's with the taxpayers footing a fifth of the sticker price.

    And that doesn't even begin to account for the subsidies that went in to it BEFORE the sticker price, which is well below the manufacturing cost, is factored in.

  • ||

    I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    This is blatant admission that he's retarded. Or that he's incredibly fucking retarded. I'll let you decide which.

  • Lord Humungus||

    yes.

  • ||

    I concur.

  • ||

    Whoa now, I think that's going a bit far. I mean, you can't spell "self-righteous" without "righteous" after all. Some people have a hard time telling the difference.

  • Hyperion||

    I'm going with the latter, throw in a shitload of naivete.

  • Drake||

    And a whole lot of "who gives a fuck?" if it's just a massive waste.

  • ||

    Also, his op-ed will probably be better received if he doesn't assume poor intentions on the part of Dear Leader. Making assumptions of bad faith on the part of people you oppose can backfire.

  • PapayaSF||

    I don't think so. It's a classic example of how liberals think: here's something good, the market is not providing it, so government will "help" and all will be well. And when electric cars don't sell, or when a minimum wage increase causes black unemployment, they really didn't intend those consequences.

    I suppose you can call them retarded for not foreseeing the consequences, but being ideologically blind is not the same as being stupid. In fact, ideological blindness often goes along with being bright.

  • crashland||

    A retarded person is not to blame for their own slowness. Liberals aren't necessarily retarded, but they are willfully blind to the negative consequences of their policies.

    Against the min wage?
    "You are an evil capitalistic pig."

    But I'm against the min wage because it hurts the very people you are trying to help!
    "PIG, YOU DIE, DIE"

    Basically there is no hope of any rational discussions. Willfully blind to consequences. They are a bit like very small, very stupid children, the ones shoving paper clips into electric sockets, again, and again, and again. Sadly unlike such stupid children who only hurt themselves, liberals hurt everybody when their policies become law.

  • Brandybuck||

    Next step in liberal thinking: if the public won't buy these cars then we must force them to buy these cars! It's for their own good!

  • RickC||

    Please don't give them any ideas.

  • Loki||

    They probably won't "force" people to buy electric cars. The next step will be a "sin tax" on all gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. Then when that still fails, they will mandate a "penaltax" that you will have to pay unless you buy a new electric car every three years.

    The "PENALTAX" looms large.

  • PapayaSF||

    And then a mileage tax to make up for the fact that people aren't buying enough gasoline. (This is already being proposed in some states.)

  • Loki||

    Uhg, don't remind me. CO's one of them.

    Although if there was a way to do it that wouldn't involve installing tracking devices on everyone's cars and if it was proposed as a replacement for the gas tax it wouldn't be too bad. Gotta pay for TEH ROADZ somehow, I mean, this isn't SOMALIA, right?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "The administration assumed the worthiness and urgency of its goals."

    The Great Disconnect.

  • Almanian!||

    So it kind of "begged the question" - why, yes, Americans will want choo choo cars. Therefore, we must force automakers to build them! Shit! Do it now!

  • Almanian!||

    You cannot imagine the hundreds of millions - no, it's billions - spent by the auto companies making hybrids and battery electrics just on the if/come. It's stunning.

    And who buys them? The Ed Begley Jrs of the world, of course. So, once again, we subsidize the whims of the wealthy.

    Ain't freedom in a democratic republic just grand! You can do whatever you want - except what we tell you you can't. And you will do what we tell you, whether you want to or not.

    LET FREEDOM RING!

  • Lord Humungus||

    a pure electric car with limited range and long recharging times is not going to be a big seller. Duh.

  • Mike M.||

    Especially when it has a battery that tends to explode if the car bumps something at two miles per hour.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts."

  • stoneymonster||

    Which has, quite literally, NEVER happened.

  • Sevo||

    Boy, you're so full of shit, I'll bet your eyes are brown!
    "After a preliminary NHTSA study showed a fire in a crash-tested Volt was caused by coolant leakage, GM begins a program to reinforce the Volt's battery pack."
    http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-1.....ent-fires/

  • stoneymonster||

    I was referring to Tesla.

    It's a good thing there's nothing in gas cars that can cause fires!

  • stoneymonster||

    Also, I was referring to "explode after a bump". The volt fire was three weeks after a significant impact.

  • Sevo||

    Good thing those goal posts are on wheels. They're hard to move, otherwise.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "New York Times reporter John Broder's account of his less-than-successful test-drive last week of the new all-electric Tesla S model from Washington to Boston. Naturally Tesla disagrees."

    Tesla disagrees?

    You enjoyed your drive! It DID TOO meet all your expectations!"?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Close damned tag!

  • ||

    Nah, the italics works for the "quote". Btw, you forgot the beginning quotation mark for Tesla's 'response'.

  • ||

    I'm wondering how this reaction is going to play when SpaceX loses a rocket.

  • ||

    I don't think they will lose one, Hazel. It's the private sector, and Dr. Peter Venkman assures me they expect results. Besides, the first passengers will be celebrities thus ensuring their safety.

    Now a president...English Bob comes to mind...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That was Dr Raymond Stantz talking about the private sector.

  • ||

    Shit. You're right. I guess I should retire my jersey now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oddly, the two companies operate like there's no connection at all. Hard to believe Musk runs both businesses.

  • Rich||

    Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles

    Good grief, Mr President, simply provide every government employee with an electric vehicle.

  • Drake||

    Why doesn't the Army have plug-in tanks? And the Navy? How about plug-in ships, helicopters, etc...?

  • Brandybuck||

    They have electric tanks. Unfortunately they only have a range of fifty feet before they reach the end of the extension cord...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    All I can hear is Nelson Muntz.

  • Spoonman.||

    Honda, which probably somehow has me cookied as a current Fit owner, advertised a new electric version of the Fit that they're rolling out.

    MSRP is $37k, which is insane enough, but:
    (1) it apparently isn't available in Philadelphia yet
    (2) it can only be leased, for $389/mo
    (3) it has a range of

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That will never work. You pay double for an electric - but how can you get your smug on when nobody can tell it's an EV by looking at it?!! That's why Prius totally dominates the alternate fuel category. Everybody *knows* that a Prius is a hybrid.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I stole this from someone here:

    Physics killed the electric car.

    I have said this in conversation and gotten nothing more than blank stares. America is DOOOOOOOMED.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It also killed the flying car. Damn you, physics!!!

  • A Serious Man||

    Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads...because we'll all be taking our mandated rides on Obama's transcontinental high speed rail line.

  • A Serious Man||

    Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads...because we'll all be taking our mandated rides on Obama's transcontinental high speed rail line.

  • SugarFree||

    Double posting? Where we're going we don't need double posting...because we'll all be using our edit buttons on Welch's registration-friendly high speed commenting software.

  • SugarFree||

    Double posting? Where we're going we don't need double posting...because we'll all be using our edit buttons on Welch's registration-friendly high speed commenting software.

  • Enough About Palin||

    So a round-trip then?

  • Enough About Palin||

    So a round-trip then?

  • A Serious Man||

    This post is coming to you from the future.

  • ||

    Deja vu...

  • ||

    "Woah, I'm getting some major deja vu here."

    "It's not deja vu you idiot."

    "Well, however you pronounce it!"

  • Doctor Whom||

    That's what we get for leaving it up to physics. We should have left it up to pomo/decon literary theory or trendy identity studies.

  • ||

    I agree on the doomed part but this is nothing new. Remember the 200 mpg carburetor? I've heard people with a modicum of science background repeat that physics-defying canard. At least back when people still knew what a carb was.

  • ||

    I'm enjoying watching the unfurling of this story. Watching Tesla motors bitch about a bad product review is fairly entertaining, but it's going to get really funny when the enviro-green crowd jumps into the fray to explain how the New York Times is shilling for big oil companies.

  • grrizzly||

    Check the comments in the Washington Post. The enviro-fascists are in a meltdown.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    they deliver inferior performance at much higher cost.

    Good enough for government work.

  • Rich||

    There's so much more to life than effectiveness and efficiency.

  • ||

    Yes, graft is a wonderful thing.

  • sarcasmic||

    When you're using OPM it doesn't really matter.

  • sarcasmic||

    Practical electric cars have been on the horizon for only a hundred years.

  • JWS||

    " I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public. Nor was the electric-car dream a Democrats-only delusion. Several Republican pols shared it, too.

    Rather, the debacle is a case study in unchecked righteousness. The administration assumed the worthiness and urgency of its goals. Americans should want electric cars, and therefore they would, apparently."

    You see what he's doing here: It's not Obama's fault that billions were wasted on electric cars, it's those free thinking consumers' fault.

  • KPres||

    Wasted billions? That $71,000 per car was an investment. Just like the $400,000 per job in the stimulus.

  • MissMalevolent||

    Well I mean when you're a narcissistic personality type that is constantly having your already massive ego stroked on the daily by a sycophantic media...and a drooling populace of automatons...you're going to be dumb enough to believe that what you think is best for tax paying adults, is better than what they can come up with for themselves.

    And if it doesn't work out, you'll just kick it under the rug and hide behind the wall of the sycophantic press and adoring automatons that provide cover for all your dumb-ass failures of leadership.

    It's good to be king...I mean president.

  • Mike M.||

    This. It's bad enough that this horse's ass really thinks that he knows everything, but it's even worse than 90% of the media are willing enablers of this pathetic delusion of his.

  • albo||

    To the media, if a government program's intentions and goals are good, then it is good. End of oversight.

  • wareagle||

    it's not worse, it's entirely predictable. The MSM is heavily invested in Obama and will stop at nothing to prop him up. It's why Benghazi was a right-wing sour grapes campaign, and it's why the drone program is okay, too.

  • crashland||

    Plus it's really hard to understand them when they have their lips wrapped around O's cock 24x7...

  • albo||

    Only a narcicisst thinks that he can change the market by fiat or decree.

    What politicians and policy wonks don't get is that consumers--acting together through their wallets--are smarter than they are, and will not fall for doing something they don't want to do or are not ready to do any more that me passing a law requiring Jessica Alba to sleep with me will make that actually happen.

  • R C Dean||

    So, the only real question is whether the President is naive and self-righteous, or mendacious and corrupt? I suppose some combination of the two isn't out of the question.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I vote mendacious, venal, and arrogantly ignorant.

  • ||

    Seconded.

  • ||

    Da.

  • wareagle||

    hubris comes to mind. The man personifies it.

  • R C Dean||

    I was reading that someone was was working on taking Fisker's failed sedan, and dropping Corvette engines into it. Which sounds like an awesome idea to me.

  • Tman||

    Meh. I'm not overly impressed with the body style. It looks ok I guess, but it wouldn't be able to compete in the market for luxury sedans currently. Way more attractive options available.

  • R C Dean||

    Apparently, part of the rebuild changes the goofy dip where the windshield meets the hood, and the new one looks much better.

  • Loki||

    Plus the lulz of driving around in a "Fisker" with a big, loud, shouty, gas guzzling V-8 under the hood might be worth it. Not to mention watching good little lib-tards who think you're one of them freak out when you crank that thing up.

  • Mainer2||

    Yup...legendary car guy Bob Lutz

    http://blog.caranddriver.com/d.....auto-show/

  • ||

    He didn’t set out to rip off the public.

    Errrmm...the only person that knows this for sure is Barry O. ad something tells me he ain't gonna talk.

  • A Serious Man||

    It is fascinating to see the child-like faith of a True Believer in Obama. This man literally is incapable of a malicious or self-serving action in their eyes.

  • ||

    You know, there was a pro-wrestler named "Barry O". You shouldn't sully his name like that.

  • HelioCurrent.com||

    Does everybody know that major media has been covering Tesla's response all this morning??

    Tesla has detailed driving logs from Broder's entire trip (where he went, how fast he drove). He took a detour that he denied taking and even defied important recommendations for driving (everything from not charging up all the way to driving too fast). The New York Times piece is beginning to seem like a deliberate hit piece.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The NYT is standing entirely behind their story.

  • R C Dean||

    He took a detour that he denied taking and even defied important recommendations for driving (everything from not charging up all the way to driving too fast).

    So, his review is based on normal driving behavior, and not whatever controlled/scripted drive the company wanted him to take?

    And this is supposed to invalidate his review?

  • tarran||

    I should try that the next time my company comes to me and says my software has a bug:

    "You are taking a detour from the workflow" I'll say. I'm sure *that* will go over well.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, most people don't check their water heater thermostats or their smoke detector batteries, that doesn't mean it's the water heater's fault for blowing up or the smoke detector's fault for not going off during a fire.

  • Sevo||

    Go away, luddite.

  • Sevo||

    Ooops.
    That's for our newest 'oil is icky' idiot.

  • Sevo||

    HelioCurrent.com| 2.12.13 @ 2:17PM |#
    ..."The New York Times piece is beginning to seem like a deliberate hit piece."

    Coming from an obvious propagandist.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    So, behaving exactly as can be anticipated by a consumer?

  • ||

    I didn't even mention Tesla or the NYT. Your reply is a complete non sequitur.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, the poor guy's portfolio took a bad hit today; cut him some slack!

  • Sevo||

    ..."I accept the president’s good intentions. He didn’t set out to rip off the public"...

    Ya know, Il Duce just wanted the trains to run on time.
    Gaddamit, I'm tired of reading about some ignorant politico's 'good intentions'. I'm sure when one of our world leaders launches the nukes it'll be because he only wanted to kill the mosquitoes in that neck of the woods.

  • ||

    "The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!"

  • HelioCurrent.com||

    You do understand that Tesla kept detailed data logs from the Broder trip (where he went, how fast he drove) and it seems Broder deliberately defied important recommendations for driving the Model S and then denied it? It's been all over the web all morning. Kinda surprised you would be in such a rush to post such a scree without even seeing what is happening all over major web media right now.

  • From the Tundra||

    Scree? Crushed rock? Way to completely miss the fucking point. Go buy a goddamn ev, but don't ask us to subsidize the fucking thing. Is that a clear enough screed?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He certainly defied my recommendation for driving the Model S, which is "don't".

  • Sevo||

    "it seems Broder deliberately defied important recommendations for driving the Model S and then denied it?"
    Link?

  • BakedPenguin||

    For it's part, the NYT is standing behind the story.

  • stoneymonster||

    I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see the NYT deny that they had any interest in generated page views by running the car out of battery on the interstate.

  • Sevo||

    I'm equally shocked that Musk is willing to deny his pig of a car is a pig.

  • Mike M.||

    The fact that a car requires so many caveats to be driven "properly" automatically tells you what a piece of crap it is.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, I love how the excuse used by Musk is 'you guys took a detour and went 10 miles over the speed limit!'

    Clearly when on a road trip, no family or individual would ever want to go a little out of the way to see the sights or drive a little over the speed limit.

    If your car dies because someone drove 65 instead of 55, it's a pretty terrible car.

  • mr simple||

    It’s not the first time Musk has accused the media of distortion, either. In March 2011, Tesla sued the BBC for libel, arguing that hosts of the popular TV show “Top Gear” defamed the company by claiming the Tesla Roadster achieved a paltry 55 miles of range on the show’s test track, significantly less than the 200 miles or more Tesla claims for the car. Tesla lost that case.

  • iggy||

    "The US carmaker also complained that Top Gear characterised a blown fuse as a brake failure, and that the model became immobile as a result of overheating."

    Wait...so their argument is 'our car didn't really break down it just stopped because it easily overheats!' and 'The break didn't fail, a fuse just blew!'

    Man, Tesla is really bad at making an argument.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Saying "a fuse failed causing the brakes to become inoperable" instead of "brake failure" is like saying "a bullet that was fired from a cop's gun". In other words, a retarded distinction.

  • SugarFree||

    Click on his name. You can read about why wanting to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights is "insane" and the fossil fuels industry is "evil."

  • From the Tundra||

    Fuck. Sorry - didn't mean to feed it. Nice to know I'm insane and evil while toting guns in my Tahoe - woohoo!

  • SugarFree||

    Don't get snippy. There's a huge list of approved hobbies and vehicles you can choose from. You could ride your Penny-farthing to an urban pickling class, for example.

  • From the Tundra||

    Please don't give them any ideas. Fixies are bad enough.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, for pete's sake.
    Lefty propagandist lies; what's new? Hey, for those of you with high gag-resistance, I understand there's some sleazy asshole going to pontificate on TV this evening.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not on my TV.

  • From the Tundra||

    Nor mine. NHL only this evening. Safer that way

  • iggy||

    Goddamn fossil fuel industry! Things were way better back before coal and oil. Ox power is the best power.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Nothing an individual mandate to buy an electric car can't solve.

  • Pro Libertate||

    As an attorney, I can confirm that such a mandate is legal, under the government's tax power. Not under the Commerce Clause--that's right out. After all, we have a government of limited, enumerated powers.

  • Paul.||

    *ding*

    It is that. Remember the progressive argument about Broccoli?

    That the government can compel you to buy broccoli, it just doesn't because the right people are in charge?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Power should only be limited for some but not for others.

  • BuSab Agent||

    If I were president (and it's a good thing I never will be, because while I may occasionally be delusional and narcissistic it only affects me and my family), I'd mandate external combustion cars. Go properly steam punk.

  • Agammamon||

    I would mandate hydrogen peroxide turbines.

    A car should properly explode when you shoot the gas tank or dirve over a cliff.

    Or get in an accident.

    Or its too hot outside.

    Or you look at it funny.

  • BuSab Agent||

    +1 minivan rollover

  • stoneymonster||

    Funny to see this crowd defend the NYT when it suits them. Think what you want without evidence, but the Telsa is not a Leaf or Volt. They are backordered for months and will sell close to 20000 in this first year.

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah. Everyone knows the NYT is just a mouthpiece for the oil industry and the GOP.

  • tarran||

    HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    stoney, your tears are yummy and sweet! So yummy!

  • stoneymonster||

    Glad I could provide nutrition for you tarran.

  • ||

    Yeah, you are either with Team NYT or against them. How dare libertarians stake out a position that defies this clear-cut dichotomy?

  • Sevo||

    stoneymonster| 2.12.13 @ 2:28PM |#
    ..."Think what you want without evidence, but the Telsa is not a Leaf or Volt. They are backordered for months and will sell close to 20000 in this first year."

    Could be; there are probably that number of ignorant rich lefties willing to leave the thing in the garage.
    What'll be interesting to watch is the repair costs and the resale prices.
    BTW, did you take in in the shorts today?

  • stoneymonster||

    Nope, have no position in TSLA. Thanks though!

    Signed,
    Ignorant rich libertarian

  • Sevo||

    "libertarian"

    You use that word; I don't think you know what it means

  • stoneymonster||

    Yeah, sorry. Didn't know you were the ideological gatekeeper.

    I don't have to prove myself to you, just because you have a problem with a particular product. You know nothing about me or my philosophy.

  • Sevo||

    "You know nothing about me or my philosophy."

    What you've posted here is all lies, right?

  • stoneymonster||

    Yup, you caught me anonymous internet troll person.

  • Sevo||

    stoneymonster| 2.12.13 @ 6:43PM |#
    "Yup, you caught me anonymous internet troll person."

    Poor, poor sm. Caught at bullshit, trying for victimhood!
    Go suck on a battery.

  • KPres||

    They're defending a corporate executive against an investigative reporter for a left-wing newspaper. How ya like that?

  • iggy||

    The car runs $54,000 - $100,000 according to an article linked and the company lost 61 million dollars last year.

    What's really funny is seeing a liberal defend a product that only rich people can buy.

  • Sevo||

    I drive SF-LA several times a year. I could fly, but fuck TSA.
    Usually, I rent a car since most of the rental agencies no longer charge by the mile, and I can get a car that takes the cheapest gas and gets good mileage.
    With a stop for lunch and another for gas, its ~ 7hrs.
    At best, a Tesla would add at least two hours to the drive and probably some nail-biting. At worst, it means an overnight stay in between. Sorta like, oh, 1935.
    Folks, this isn't a car. It's a feel-good toy for those who use our tax money to buy one.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So, you don't use your everyday car for the SF-LA trip. meaning you may as well have an electric car as your every day car.

    My Echo doesn't work very well for towing yard equipment or removing trees from blocked roadways, but that doesn't make it a toy.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 2.12.13 @ 3:17PM |#
    "So, you don't use your everyday car for the SF-LA trip. meaning you may as well have an electric car as your every day car"

    Gee, are you competing in the conclusion-jump this year? You're on for the gold already!
    Idiot.

  • Agammamon||

    Not for me - its 10 miles each way to the nearest decent grocery store. 12.5 to get to work. Also you cant toss 3-4 people and tools/supplies in the back like you can my Jeep.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    1935 would at least get you direct on a train. Tesla is more like 1850 bumfuck stage company.

  • Paul.||

    Federal billions cannot overcome the fact that electric vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids meet few, if any, of real consumers’ needs.

  • Paul.||

    I accept the president’s good intentions

    I don't.

  • Paul.||

    He didn’t set out to rip off the public.

    No, he set out to manipulate the public for the acquisition of power.

    Nor was the electric-car dream a Democrats-only delusion. Several Republican pols shared it, too.

    Which two?

    I got no love for republicans, but trains that are high speed and run on time, and hybridizing and electrifying every car in America is a decidedly progressive ideal.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Hello. I'm an electric car. I can't go very fast, nor very far.

  • tarran||

    ... and I take half an hour to refuel for every hour driven.

  • Pro Libertate||

    In concept, I think we'll eventually move to electric cars. Via the market. But that will only happen when batteries (or flywheels or whatever) get efficient and safe enough to equal or exceed the performance of I/C. And, of course, even when the technology is ready for prime time, there's still the very significant issue of deploying the recharging station infrastructure.

    Probably about the time all of that is done, Mr. Fusion will hit the market.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Electric cars are saving the earth for future generations... Why don't you guys get it? The earth is dangerously warming; why there's even a consensus or balance of evidence or somesuch... Only bigots care about cost. Tesla saves lives! Deal with it.

  • Sevo||

    Pudgeboy| 2.12.13 @ 3:13PM |#
    "Electric cars are saving the earth for future generations... Why don't you guys get it? The earth is dangerously warming; why there's even a consensus or balance of evidence or somesuch... Only bigots care about cost. Tesla saves lives! Deal with it."

    Sarc or stupidity?

  • Paul.||

    Sarc. Mucho Sarco.

  • Sevo||

    Sorry.
    My meter is really taking a beating today.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    We should hang one positive and one negative wire over every lane of road in America, and put two spring loaded poles on the roof of all the cars to touch the wires.

  • BuSab Agent||

    +1 hotwheels race track

  • Paul.||

    The 480-volt Supercharger stations deliver enough power for 150 miles of travel in 30 minutes, and a full charge in about an hour

    So stopping for gas is a minimum 30 minute wait, maybe an hour. Nice. Imagine getting to one of these places where all the pumps are full. Your wait could be up to 30 minutes before you can even pull up to the station.

    Oh, and if... IF you run out of gas, can you carry a small battery the size of say, oh, a gallon-container of gas and get to a gas station where you can... fill up?

  • Pro Libertate||

    We should build roads on inclines in whatever direction the government determines we should be able to drive. On the way to work, I coast downhill. On the way home, I coast downhill.

  • Pro Libertate||

    For the short distance I drive home, there's a battery and/or flywheel. Elevators get me to the top of the hill.

  • Sevo||

    Paul,
    It's worse than that.
    Ever see anyone run the fuel to zero and hope there's a gas station?
    Figure along about 75 miles and you start scouting for a charge. And turning off the AC at 100 miles.

  • Agammamon||

    Electric cars give "gas tank chicken" whole ne wedge - the range-meter give a rather poor estimate that can change drastically depending on things like temperature.

    You could be driving along thinking there's 75 miles left and suddenly the damn thing just coasts to a halt - the meter reading 0.

  • Sevo||

    And, boy, AAA just doesn't show up with a 5-gal can of electrons, either!

  • Paul.||

    New zoning regulations... everyting must be at the bottom of a hill.

    I have it on very good authority that it would be very easy for a legislator to just say, "build everything at the bottom of a hill."

    It blows me away that no one has passed this regulation.

    By grabthar's hammer, what a savings...

    This NYT article is actually really good. It's especially good because it confirms every suspicion and negative feeling I have towards modern electric vehicles. and anything which agrees with me is most excellent.

  • Paul.||

    supposed to be reply to Pro L's excellent suggestion above.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm trying to come up with a catchy name. Something with gravity--Gravity Motor?

  • From the Tundra||

    The Newton?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, excellent. Or the Einsteiner.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, or maybe the Relativitator.

  • Paul.||

    I like the last one, but with one minor mod: Relativitron.

  • Agammamon||

    Imagine this -

    The proliferation of traffic police and speed and red-light cameras means that the modern driver can no longer get away with violating traffic law.

    But with GM's newest line-up you can break the most important law there is -Thermodynamics!

    Come to your nearest GM dealer and take a test drive in the luxury Perpetual Motion.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why not both? The company that will build all of the giant inclines will be called Relativitronics, but the car will be called the Relativitron. The truck will be called the Relativitator.

  • H. Reardon||

    build everything at the bottom of a hill

    You've never dealt with a state EPA attempting to build anything. The bottom of the hill is where the water drains, therefor protected.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, they'll love this scheme, as they'll control everything at the bottom of the hill, which will be where everyone works, lives, and shops.

  • Paul.||

    No, it's where the water drains from that needs to be protected: Top of the hill.

    See? The scheme is perfect-- by lore, no one will be allowed to live there. The tops of all hills will be nature preserves.

  • Loki||

    There's a simple legislative solution, if only the EVUL OBSTRUKSHUNIST RETHUGLICANS would allow it: repeal the laws of thermodynamics. Physics is a right wing conspiracy.

  • iggy||

    Look at this. It's from that 'Helio Current' blog

    "Strong capitalism certainly has its place; but as an absolutist philosophy it’s a bunch of bull and the reason is quite simple: Capitalism strives very hard to accrue corporate profits while simultaneously pushing massive risks and damages out onto others. The Glass Steagall repeal categorically was about taking off shackles so Wall Street could repackage and hide risks and at the end of the day people STILL run around in circles blaming government for 2008. Newsflash: 2008 was unwarranted risks by Wall Street and the Street still has not been muzzled. And now corporations are doing the same thing with the climate while the rest of us run around in circles spouting platitudes about the Constitution and government. As nifty as it may sound to think we can magically codify all proper government in a God-inspired 4,750 words or less…Our Founding Fathers did NOT anticipate what corporations are doing to the world climate. Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. And while clever one-word answers like “Capitalism” and “Constitution” are good they do not answer all the most difficult questions in a vacuum. Life is not simple black and white answers. It is composed of infinite gray."

    He hits every left wing talking point that exists. I also love when liberals say "Life is not simple and there are shades of gray!" while writing a blog about how evil rednecks are for not subsidizing green energy.

  • iggy||

    Even better: He says it's a "spontaneous FACEBOOK rant." Man, you must be the least likable person to ever live.

  • Loki||

    I think we may have just found a butt budy for T o n y.

  • GILMORE||

    Did at no point in the entire proposal for 'electric cars' did anyone point out that, erm, despite the fact the *cars* might be electric... the power plants that *create* that electricity still burn fossil-fuels.... and there is *zero* net 'green' effect from simply moving the digestion of fossil fuels upstream from the vehicle?... in fact - less than that - its *a far less effecient* use of that resource, given that the newly multiplied demand for electricity from a million vehicles will require either tons of new transmission lines (turning 'gas stations' into 'power stations')... or of new actual 'increased local electricity generation' = and everyone knows how popular power stations are! Why wouldn't every *environmental* American demand a local power station to power their electric car most efficiently?? That'll be a popular trend.

    Seriously - electric cars are possibly the least 'environmental' proposal ever conceived. How the fuck did anyone not think this shit through??? ARE THEY THAT DUMB~?

    (crickets)

    Ok, I knew that already

  • Loki||

    You forget one thing: electric cars aren't really about "the environment". They're all about rich liberal douches feeling good about themselves while looking down on all the rest of the truck driving rubes in fly over country. That's it. The electricity to run the cars still come from burning fossil fuels, you say? Who cares, as long as its moved downstream and the good right thinking pointy-headed little shitstains don't have to see it or think about it.

    People like Phoney or this new troll "HelloCurrent", who may actually believe the shit they spout on about are (assuming they actually believe their own shit) just useful idiots helping rich lib-tards feel better about themselves.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Without snark, I sincerely believe that much of the environmental movement is based on status identification. Note how almost all of it--electric cars, organic food, whatever--is expensive. Another kind of luxury brand, like Cartier or Apple.

    In fact, a lot of that goes with statism, too. A desire to be associated with the ruling elite, at least to the extent of thinking in just the same way and liking "elite" culture.

  • Sevo||

    "Note how almost all of it--electric cars, organic food, whatever--is expensive. Another kind of luxury brand, like Cartier or Apple."

    And the the lies to make the brand ORGANIC into some sort of 'green' entity when in fact it's the opposite.

  • GILMORE||

    The electricity to run the cars still come from burning fossil fuels, you say? Who cares, as long as its moved downstream...

    Yeah... well, technically "upstream". i.e. in combustion engines, you buy the Gas, you put it in yer car, you burn it up.

    in 'electric' cars, they maintain an illusion they're not 'consuming fossil fuels'.... despite simply converting coal and natural gas from electricity plants into that in-efficient Juice they just sucked into their snobmobile.

  • Agammamon||

    A logical arguement must be dismissed with absolute conviction!

    You sir, are wrong, wrong, wrong, worng!

  • GILMORE||

    e.g.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....532.x/full

    Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles

    "EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure."

    yeah, without the 'clean electricity' to go with it.... they basically suck

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I agree that battery replacement schedules are a sensitive issue for EVs. But even when the electrons come from relatively dirty sources, and despite generation, transmission, and charging losses, the remarkable efficiency of electric motors over combustion engines still allows EVs to get better overall mileage and burn "cleaner" than their combustion engine counterparts. Here in the US, many regions have very clean sources of electricity to supply the grid. Plus, a number of EVs now on the road are powered by solar rechargers that their wealthy owners installed at home; as more EVs come into use, more opportunities will arise for entrepreneurs to provide public charging facilities based on solar or other renewable, greenhouse-gas-free energy sources. Let's see what happens.

  • GILMORE||

    " Let's see what happens."

    we just have

    they still suck, there is no magical energy savings

    the end

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    There was much improvement in the past couple of decades. More is expected. Again, let's see. I disagree that EVs suck. Have you driven one? LED lights once sucked. But you can get pretty decent LED lights for reasonable prices now; my own personal experience shows that switching to them PAYS the increased bulb price via electricity bill savings in very short order. Much the same has already been true for EVs, and will become more generally true with each passing year.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Ah! The venerable South Park pastime of tossing stones at passing vehicles!

    May I just ask how many here (including Mr. Bailey) have ever driven either the Tesla Roadster or Model S for any significant length of time?

    May I further suggest that only those who have are experienced enough to offer an informed opinion as to whether those EVs underperform, relative to their respective asking prices?

    I do not own a Tesla, but I did spend my own money to rent a Roadster for a day, and I certainly felt $100K worth of performance. I look forward to trying out the Model S under similar circumstances soon.

    I disagreed with Tesla's move to seek government financing. But so far, they are making good on their promises to bring improved, more affordable vehicles to market with each new product generation. If they can pay back the US taxpayer and resume the original strategy of getting the vehicle purchases of successive waves of rich guys to finance the development of successively more affordable EVs, they'll remain golden in my eyes.

    While we're waiting, the scoffers here should arrange to drive a Tesla for a day. You'll have a lot of fun behind the wheel, and learn a lot, if my experience is any yardstick.

  • GILMORE||

    I do not own a Tesla, but I did spend my own money to rent a Roadster for a day, and I certainly felt $100K worth of performance

    feelings!

    It was the semi-eco-boner you were nursing. just like eating a $20 sandwich that was 'free range, far trade, rainforest safe...'

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    No. I wasn't nursing any eco-boner. I like to drive fast, zippy cars. I'm also very stingy at restaurants, though I will pay for quality I can taste, and tip well for superior service.

    The point is, auto performance is at least as much about feelings as about specifications. How does all that performance make you feel? If it is noticeable and makes you feel good, you'll pay good money for it and rightly so. If it is only a number on a chart, you won't feel or value it.

    Believe me, even if you don't give a rat's ass about the environment, but you like high-powered cars, driving a Tesla will make you feel great. Helping the environment is a bonus, but if we just break even on the environmental equation, I'm good with that. EVs do significantly better than break even, though.

  • دردشة بغدادية||

    Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world
    http://www.iraaqna.com/vb

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement