Ex-Energy Secretary Chu: Our green-energy loans were “more successful than Wall Street”

posted at 12:41 pm on June 10, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Department of Energy is currently hanging back somewhat with issuing new government (i.e., taxpayer)-backed loans to what federal bureaucrats so augustly deem to be promising green-energy companies through its several loan programs — you’ll remember the highly public Solyndra, Abound Solar, and Fisker Automotive debacles — but over the weekend, former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu sprang to the defense of some of the programs he once oversaw in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, and no, he neither regrets nor apologizes for the socialized losses of the Obama administration’s failed ventures.

Q: How well would you say we’ve done in terms of making that transition in our energy system?

A: Well, certainly the Recovery Act helped a lot, because there were things in it to help deployment. Renewables doubled during the first four years. Most of it’s wind. Solar increased about tenfold, in part because the prices came down. Deployment’s increasing.

Also, the White House is thinking we’ve got to start to plan the (electric) grid. The grid’s going to take decades. I believe we need a new business model. …

Q:And it wasn’t just because Solyndra blew up?

A: No. This is not widely appreciated, but Congress, with the renewable energy loan program, and the advanced (vehicle) manufacturing (program), they appropriated enough for $10 billion in losses – $10 billion. We’re not going to get to $10 billion. We might get to $2 billion. When Solyndra blew up, that was (a half billion). You appropriate $10 billion, and you won’t even tolerate a half a billion?

We’re going to have a few more bankruptcies. Sometimes it’ll be like Solyndra where you get 3 cents on the dollar. Others, it’ll be 80 cents, or something like that. If you look at what got started and what became bankable, was it successful? Yes. We were more successful than Wall Street. So come on, guys.

Well. That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. The Department of Energy is quick to tout that its green-energy loan guarantee program has a success rate in the ninetieth percentile, whatever that means — I suppose we’re meant to overlook the fact that losses could (and likely will) emerge over several more years, but let’s get real here.

It would not matter either way if the Department of Energy had had a one hundred percent success rate or a zero percent success rate, and that Congress has already “budgeted” for the inevitable failures is a travesty in and of itself. It is not the business of the U.S. government to “invest” taxpayers’ dollars in start-up ventures of any kind. Bureaucrats taking risks with money that is not theirs based on political motivations rather than personal and hence careful investment decisions? We already have a private sector that does that job extremely well, because the main interest of the private sector is not political pipe-dreaming but rather turning a profit — and that is a good thing. The only way to succeed is to produce a product that can withstand the competition of the free-market economy based on its on merits.

As I’ve written about China, Germany, and Spain over the weekend, they now have too-expensive energy markets flooded with renewable projects that can’t actually compete or offer a product that consumers voluntarily want to buy because of government-commandeering of the market with subsidies and incentives, and now both their governments and the people they artificially directed to make those investments are suffering crazy losses. With these types of programs, risk is often transferred to taxpayers; the government directs money toward certain projects and in effect possibly inhibits innovation in other areas that aren’t the political darlings of the moment; and they increase the cost of borrowing across the market in general. What’s more, the opportunities for economically costly cronyism get bigger and bigger with every unwarranted involvement in free-market signals the federal government affords itself. Bad idea, all around.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

AllahPundit’s story earlier headlined FIVE Obama scandals, but the story referenced seven scandals.

And those are just the major scandals–they’re not counting little ones…Like Obama sending billions of tax dollars to near-bankrupt companies run by Obama campaign donors.

itsnotaboutme on June 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

He is right, they have made millionaires out of more people, have made billionaires our of people like Gore…

They are much more successful at making specific people very wealthy…

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I should get him to manage my portfolio!

LeftCoastRight on June 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

“We don’t want to tax all businesses out of business,” Obama said.

Yeah, just some of them…

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Guy has a bigger resume than Snowden. Not nearly as successful.

a capella on June 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Gee I wish I could run my finances the the energy dept runs theirs

jaywemm on June 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

You appropriate $10 billion, and you won’t even tolerate a half a billion?

Correct, we WONT when your own advisers said not to pursue the deal because of glaring pitfalls, but you chose to reward your friends on the back of taxpayers in spite of the recommendation…hate em all.

hillsoftx on June 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM

No wonder the green energy programs failed, with this credentialed moron leading the way. Hay, Steven Chu, you can lie to the people about your failures for political purposed, but it does no good, and you never improve, if you lie to yourself. It is absolutely dumbfounding to me that this idiot says that congress (pelosi and reid) expected to lose ten million dollars on these loans and put the extra money in to cover the expected losses. The programs were successes because they only lost two billion (by their creative accounting). This con artist should be in jail.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM

We’re not going to get to $10 billion. We might get to $2 billion. When Solyndra blew up, that was (a half billion). You appropriate $10 billion, and you won’t even tolerate a half a billion?

Y’know, if I held stock in an investment firm that regularly lost that much money, I’d sell out before they lost some more. What am I gonna do when my country nonchalantly money like this? Refuse to pay taxes?

(Dear NSA monitors. Didn’t mean that. Really.)

apostic on June 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Ex-Energy Secretary Chu: Our green-energy loans were “more successful than Wall Street”

He is correct. Tesla, First Solar, SunPower all at their 52 week highs.

HotAirLib on June 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

This is why you can’t have a big government. There job is too get bigger.

Oil Can on June 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Q: How much taxpayer money was Obama originally set to ‘loan’ Fisker Automotive?

A: $529 million

Q: How much taxpayer money did he ‘loan’ Fisker Automotive before he finally stopped making payments to Fisker long after the Department of Energy first warned him that the company was not meeting the agreed-to milestones set to protect taxpayers?

A: $192 million

Q: How long did Obama wait to tell Congress and the American public that he had stopped the loan because of Fisker’s precarious financial condition?

A: 8 months

Q: How much of its loan investment will the American taxpayer get back ?

A: $0

Q: How many cars did Fisker make?

A: Less than 2,000.

Q: Approximately, how much did it lose per car?

A: $660,000

Q: How many cars has Fisker produced since last summer?

A: 0

Q: Did Fisker ever reopen that former, shuttered General Motors factory in Delaware that it promised in order to produce brand, spanking, new and exciting plug-in, electric hybrid vehicles that Joe Biden told us would be the next, big thing?

A: No.

Q: How many of those ‘billions of dollars in jobs’ that Biden promised his home state would enjoy because of Fisker’s ‘investment’ of our ‘investment dollars’ in Delaware materialised?

A: Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Q: What documents have been drawn up by lawyers for Fisker Automotive and are expected to be filed any day in Federal court?

A. Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Yeah, baby!

Heckva job, Stevie!

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Our green-energy loans were “more successful than Wall Street”

Well, yes, Federal money went directly to Obama donors.

faraway on June 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Here in the United States of Insania…..Chu’s comments all make sense.

Down is up.

Wrong is right.

This country will be fortunate to survive.

PappyD61 on June 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM

lol. The “independent libertarian” who was proud to crawl over broken glass to vote for loser Romney refuses to mention any of the 3 successful green companies i mentioned above. Why am I not surprised?

HotAirLib on June 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

He is correct. Tesla, First Solar, SunPower all at their 52 week highs.

HotAirLib on June 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

LOl. OK, let’s take away the government cheese and see what happens. If they can compete on their own, great. If not?

NotCoach on June 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM

He is correct. Tesla, First Solar, SunPower all at their 52 week highs.

HotAirLib on June 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

LOl. OK, let’s take away the government cheese and see what happens. If they can compete on their own, great. If not?

NotCoach on June 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM

HAL-didn’t we cover all this on a similar thread yesterday?

Epic Fail

2L8 on June 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

HAL-didn’t we cover all this on a similar thread yesterday?

Epic Fail

2L8 on June 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Yeah, I really don’t think HAL the fascist understands what being successful means. He probably thinks living in his parent’s basement and having his parents pay for his room and board is succeeding in life.

NotCoach on June 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM

He is correct. Tesla, First Solar, SunPower all at their 52 week highs.

HotAirLib on June 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Nazi troll is dumb and can’t read as usual.

tetriskid on June 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

This jackass should have been fired for interfering with the Gulf oil well blowout.

slickwillie2001 on June 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Oh yes…from the thread on Spain’s latest misfortunes:

Don’t know about bayam but some of us are doing extremely well owning American Solar companies. First Solar $8 to $52, Sunpower $3 to $19 and Tesla $25 to $102. All within a year.
HotAirLib on June 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Easy, short answer: stock bubble. Lots of libs/proggies buy these stocks because they feel good about supporting solar. Demand drives up price. I’ll bet the P/E ratios have been skyrocketing as well – unless they’re already at infinity because the ratio denominators are ZERO.
Are you 100% invested in these companies? If not, where’s your faith? You could be earning even more! ;)

Marcola on June 10, 2013 at 1:13 AM

2L8 on June 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

‘In sheer numbers — sheer numbers, most of our full-time [workers] are outside the U.S.,’ Mike Ahearn, the Chairman of First Solar, said.

First Solar has received approximately $3.1 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy for three separate projects.

On 24 June 2008, First Solar closed at $288.22.

Today, First Solar opened at $53.60.

In other words, First Solar’s stock has lost 81.4% of its value in 1,813 days.

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I should get him to manage my portfolio!

LeftCoastRight on June 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Got that right, LCR.

Would that we could all live in a world where we can invest other people’s money in failing companies and still make millions/billions of slush fund $$$$ for our families, friends and supporters.

GrannyDee on June 10, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Up is down. Wrong is right. War is peace.

Hope that clears things up for everyone. Carry on.

totherightofthem on June 10, 2013 at 1:13 PM

2L8 on June 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Hotlips is a spectacularly successful hypothetical retroactive investor!

slickwillie2001 on June 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Governing by lying. Don’t worry about the real results. Just make up some lies and make them sound good.

The Rogue Tomato on June 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Stephen Chu: “Fantasy is good politics, and, by the way, my drug habit is not hurting my job performance at all.”

MTF on June 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Meanwhile: back to GAYS/GUNS/AMNESTY (the pre-occupation of the D.C. Ruling class)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/john-boehner-immigration-plan-92471.html?hp=f2

Speaker John Boehner has been stunningly silent about his plans to move immigration reform through the House.

But privately, the Ohio Republican is beginning to sketch out a road map to try to pass some version of an overhaul in his chamber — a welcome sign for proponents of immigration reform.

PappyD61 on June 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

On 3 December 2007, SunPower closed at $133.61.

This morning, it opened at $19.62.

In other words, SunPower’s stock has lost 85.32% of its value in 2,017 days.

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM

blink on June 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM

They will never be viable. What most people do not know is that the first electric vehicle was developed in the 1830s. If electric vehicles were viable and producible in commercial quantities (meaning economically sustainable), they would have long ago been standard fare on the roads.

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Paying for chu’s trip to vegas ok but he is responsible for the losses. Fork it over Mr. Chu.

tim c on June 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Where’d HAL the fascist go? I was hoping for some more stellar economic analysis from him. I need a laugh.

NotCoach on June 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

they appropriated enough for $10 billion in losses – $10 billion. We’re not going to get to $10 billion. We might get to $2 billion.

So it’s safe to assume the remaining $8 Billion will get funneled into some Democratic “new” energy boondoggles.

can_con on June 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

On 3 December 2007, SunPower closed at $133.61.

This morning, it opened at $19.62.

In other words, SunPower’s stock has lost 85.32% of its value in 2,017 days.

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Only in the real world. In OneLand, where Chu and HAL live, it’s going great gangbusters.

As for the early “spike”, it was indeed a bubble, driven by investments from people who believed. For other examples of the same phenomenon at work, Google “South Sea Bubble” and “Tulipomania”. Or just read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles MacKay (1841).

There is no point in trying to use facts with such people. Their version of economics makes fantasy football leagues look reasonable and quantifiable.

clear ether

eon

eon on June 10, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Please tell me that this numbnut hasn’t gone back to teaching.

natasha333 on June 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM

This is nonsense. Battery, solar cell, inverter, regenerative breaking, etc. technologies are changing the cost, performance, and economic metrics every year.

Your claim is as stupid as someone in 1989 claiming that mobile phones will never be viable because they already would have been viable long ago.

blink on June 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Keep in mind that these may improve range, load-bearing ability, etc., but from a purely energy-based standpoint, unless and until there is a high-reliability, non-fossil-fuel burning source of the electricity needed to charge them up to start with, electric vehicles are not “carbon-neutral”, which is the primary argument for preferring them over ICE-powered vehicles.

A Tesla is basically a coal-powered vehicle. Which makes the holier-than-thou attitudes of advocates of it and its class somewhere between hypocrites and inhabitants of Cloud-Cuckoo Land.

Anyone who starts going on about Holy Wind and Holy Sun needs to become acquainted with Ohm’s Law and the Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics. None of which can be repealed by an Act of Congress. (There is only one authority which can do that, and no appeal to it has worked in the last several billion years.)

Let me know when the “Greens” are willing to advocate nuclear and hydroelectric/tide power to keep their electric “dream machines” humming along.

clear ether

eon

eon on June 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Your claim is as stupid as someone in 1989 claiming that mobile phones will never be viable because they already would have been viable long ago.

blink on June 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

So, where do we get the energy from?

Coal? Dams? Nuclear? How about natural gas powered electric plants?

This president wants to close all of the coal plants…solar, wind?

Each car equals about the energy of 1/3 of an average house…think about the brown outs, think about the energy drain, and imagine that it takes about 30 minutes to re-charge a battery (minimum), as opposed to 10 minutes to fill up a tank of gas.

If every house had 2 of these cars, the power grid/distribution of power falls apart.

Maybe in 20 or 30 years, 10% of the cars are battery…but calculations are, the savings would be a wash if you ran a standard gas car for 120,000 miles.

Hybrids seem to make the most sense right now…

And you know what a monopoly can charge for electricity…in your city do you have competing electric companies? Or do you just have one that services all of you?

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM

…they appropriated enough for $10 billion in losses – $10 billion

What the he!! kind of business plan is this?

They PLANNED for 10 Billion in losses?????

WTF?

Tenwheeler on June 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM

eon on June 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

What they lose sight of, the energy required to run an electric car is based on energy measured at the power plant…the energy that reaches your home is 20 to 30% less, a huge loss of energy by time it reaches the charging station for the car.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine…by the laws of physics, every bit of energy produced looses some of it’s “power”. And the further away from the source of that power, the greater the loss.

So unless you had a coal plant, nuclear plant, wind or solar in your backyard…electric cars are a looser.

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM

What the he!! kind of business plan is this?

They PLANNED for 10 Billion in losses?????

WTF?

Tenwheeler on June 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Our mistake is not being in on that plan…they can “lose” $500,000 to me any day…I would be more than happy to write a business plan to save them money.

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Some things that are said are so stupid they are insulting. Et Chu, Brute?

petefrt on June 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

We’re going to have a few more bankruptcies. Sometimes it’ll be like Solyndra where you get 3 cents on the dollar. Others, it’ll be 80 cents, or something like that. If you look at what got started and what became bankable, was it successful? Yes. We were more successful than Wall Street.

So in Chu’s mind getting back on average $.50 per $1 invested is good; and he thinks Wall street would be amazed at someone only losing 50% of their money every year?

Remind me not to let this man invest my money… if he thinks getting back 80% of your investment is good investing I do NOT want his help or advice.

gekkobear on June 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM

This jackass should have been fired for interfering with the Gulf oil well blowout.

slickwillie2001 on June 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Little known trivia. Only BP, Halliburton, and of course the Coast Guard and the Energy Department know how culpable the Federal Government was in that disaster. It went from an oil well blowout to the largest environmental disaster in US history because the Feds sat on their a$$es and wrung their hands watching helpful folks pour water on the rig until the “ship” sunk, shearing off the subsea riser.

THEN you had a disater.

But it’s all BP’s and Halliburton’s (oh and Bush’s ) fault.

Tenwheeler on June 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

What the he!! kind of business plan is this?

They PLANNED for 10 Billion in losses?????

WTF?

Tenwheeler on June 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Progressive “logic” at work;

“If we have $10B losses, we’re covered in advance. If we don’t, the money’s already budgeted, it has to be spent before the end of the fiscal year, so we can do whatever we want with it- fund our other projects, pay off our supporters, whatever. Either way, we win.

Progressives, especially those in government, have an entirely different definition of how a “business” should be run, compared to actual business people in the private sector. Keep this in mind.

And remember that what they consider Standard Operating Procedure would be viewed very dimly by the SEC, if anyone actually in the private sector were to try it with stockholders’ money, as opposed to the taxpayers’.

clear ether

eon

eon on June 10, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Your claim is as stupid as someone in 1989 claiming that mobile phones will never be viable because they already would have been viable long ago.

blink on June 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

The electric vehicle predates the automobile by decades; yet, it is still not commercially viable.

Now, if you think Americans are going to invest in putt-putt cars that need to be charged constantly (good luck with that should the Greenies put coal out of business), then invest your own money in the companies that manufacture them. Leave taxpayer funds out of it.

BTW, blink, don’t call me stupid.

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

You no what else is at a 52 week high:

The national debt.
The number of people on food stamps.
The number of people on disability.
The number of people not in the labour pool.
The number of people that don’t trust government.
The number of people that think the country is on the wrong track.

Thats just a start.

can_con on June 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

..maybe this clown should paint his bald pate white to reflect the sun from his fevered brow.

The War Planner on June 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

If Stephen Chu had any brains, he would STFU about his record. Like his boss did about his “success” running the Annenberg Foundation.

On second thought, Stephen Chu is giving all of us a compliment. If we haven’t lost $2 billion, we’re more successful than Wall Street!

Steve Z on June 10, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Only the federal government can create “products” and “services” for “needs” that don’t exist… and then legislate and/or strong-arm into existence “needs” for those “products” and “services”.

And they do it so “well”, too.

Marcola on June 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I am afraid I will take what my 401k is worth right now rather than what Chu’s investments are worth. This pinhead is hopeless.

logicman_1998 on June 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Chu is still an idiot.

GarandFan on June 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

So, with such dismal records, can Chu and the government (DoE) go out of business (run out by the PEOPLE) like ‘normal’ Wall Street banks?

Sir Napsalot on June 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

What Chu talkin’ about? As matter of fact, Chu don’t know what Chu talkin’ about.

ghostwalker1 on June 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Chu always looks like he’s high on shitake mushrooms or something.

John the Libertarian on June 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Chu exemplifies this entire administration – absolute liars and/or completely out of touch with reality.

sadatoni on June 10, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Chu is a typical academition. He looks at overall movement (positive or negative) and sees a delta of billions.

Unfortunately, that scenario only makes sense when you’re in an ivory tower because that big movement is from a lot of something to nothing, i.e., an investment going bankrupt.

EdmundBurke247 on June 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I suppose we’re meant to overlook the fact that losses could (and likely will) emerge over several more years this isn’t the government’s job, but let’s get real here.

It is not the business of the U.S. government to “invest” taxpayers’ dollars in start-up ventures of any kind.

Ahhh, there you go. :) That is the crux of the matter.

GWB on June 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

People, people, people … there IS a simple explanation.
Obowmao is at best a ‘B’ and as we know B’s hire C’s who have their staff’s populated by D’s.
Chu much like King Putt is a Nobel laureate and therefore one of the ‘some animals are better than other animals’ group thinkers. They have Krugman as their epitome of economists and when their ideas fail, they fully expect other fools to follow.
I give you the Bernie Madeoff (of the ‘made off with other folks money’ infamy) method.
When you get in total charge (circa 2006 to 2010 … that’s 4 YEARS) you reach into the federal ‘bag-o-money’ and gift to ALL your friends and providers. Who gave lots of campaign cash to Dear Liar. Pay-Back is sometimes VERY rewarding.
Bernie did the same ‘Ponzi Scheme’ but he didn’t have the power of Congress behind him. President Present DID, and therefore you can write legislation for Green Jobs & ObamaCare, etc. WE are coming up on the Summer of Recovery (rev. 5) after all. So let us have some diversions (F&F, Benghazi, IRS, MetaDataGate and counting) so that they can have another crack at the Treasury … let them spread a little sugar around between now and the 2014 elections. That’ll keep the LoInfoVoters in line for the last and final fleecing.
Pay attention Trools this will affect you also.

Missilengr on June 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Our green-energy loans were “more successful than Wall Street”

Yup, and PRISM was quicker in response time than say, Google search….What’s yer point?

Don L on June 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Oh and ‘blink’ what percentage of commuters in this country only drive THREE MILES to and from work? I’ll bet even in Uberbia it is a single digit % of commuters that live within 15K of their place of employment.

Missilengr on June 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Missilengr on June 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM

blink on June 10, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I get the impression you’re all kind talking past each other – but more or less still on the same side.
I agree with blink that you can never say never with regard to technology, and for some people with very short commutes, it may already be good enough.
But I also agree with RWM and Missilengr that economic feasibility is just not likely to be good enough for most people any time soon – but I think blink is also agreeing with that.

The reality is, for a lot of us who have longer commutes (mine is 25 miles each way), especially in cold/bad weather areas and driving at night (like me in the Colorado front range and prairie), a fully electric car just won’t cut it with current or even foreseeable future electric storage technologies. The car companies talk about ranges from 50 to 150 miles – but that’s NOT while using electric windshield wipers, heater/defroster or A/C, headlights, and radio/stereo. Hybrids – maybe – but in my view, from my analysis (as an engineer) – I don’t believe even they are economically-speaking a smart investment.

dentarthurdent on June 10, 2013 at 5:55 PM

blink on June 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Ya – I get what you’re saying – and agree.
The vehicle market has always been, and always will be dependent on individual needs to fill individual requirements. Just like some people need/want trucks, some vans, some small cars, across the full spectrum of vehicles – there is no one size or shape fits all functions.
It’s all about engineering and economics trade-offs – the same with power options. Some people may be able use all electric, some hybrids, some diesel or gas powered, etc.
But the government should never try to mandate one solution – or spend our money on trying to steer everyone toward a single solution, or even to make any solution economically viable – let the market take care of that.

dentarthurdent on June 10, 2013 at 6:25 PM

HotAirLib on June 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Blind squirrel… nuts… get it?

Fisker offsets Tesla

Solyndra negates First Solar

Abound Solar cancels out SunPower

Not to mention the failures of Evergreen, SpectraWatt, Beacon, A123, Willard & Kelsey, Ener1, Brightsource, Compact Power, Mascoma… shall I go on?

Hill60 on June 10, 2013 at 7:41 PM

blink

For everyone that has a 3 mile commute there is 2 people that would have to give an electric car a nearly full recharge at work as well as at home. Learn the concept of an average.

If the electric car does not fill all the rolls a person uses his car for that means that he will have to have 2 cars. No matter how much less the electric car costs to to drive the insurance on it will cost more than the savings on gas will save. This is also true of a ICE econobox. Buying a second car to save on gas costs more than it saves.

I will not buy a car that I cant make an emergency coast to coast road trip in.

Slowburn on June 10, 2013 at 8:04 PM