Economic Package- Car Industry

 So what does everyone think about the bailout to the car industry, especially to GM.

At first some years ago I thought the government should have thought about subsidizing the car industry to help move the hybrid/alternative industry foreward. That never happened.

The cars and the oil market are in a marriage made in heaven and why would these companies use foresite and think for the future.

There were two points of view that made sense to me. 

Obama last night mentioned that banks are no longer lending money to big businesses even those that are doing well, so that resource is gone for them. GM needs a loan.

And with that are conditions from the gov.

The second POV is...it would be good for the industry to see a failing company like GM. We could see great things come from this. They didnt look into the future, selfish and now we have to bail them out because they were ignorant.

If these companies want our money, they need to work for it.  I agree, there have to be regulations put in place :a fully electric car under $20,000 that goes x miles in full production by 2010:: or something like that.  This is our chance to step up and put some parameters in place for future cars in our country.

I understand that millions of people will lose their jobs, but at the same time I feel that GM has made some big mistakes and they should not get away with them.  In fact, the jobs are pretty much my only concern here.  This seems like a good time to analyze the possibility of redeveloping something similar to the WPA to care for the former employees and then let GM be an example. 

If we do give the money, there will have to be some serious parameters that have pre-existing consequences.  Nothing should be left open.  That is the only way I would feel comfortable with this bailout.

When will the point arrive that we realize we are throwing good money after bad?  I like economic stimulus if it comes in the form of incentives for electric car purchases and job creation.  Use a carrot, not a stick.

It's a tough call.  On the one hand, the American car companies have been flat-out stupid.  They focused almost entirely on large gas-guzzling vehicles, failing to anticipate that inevitably gas prices would have to go up and people would demand fuel efficient cars.  They could have kept researching and developing electric cars, and they could have continued with the agreement they had with the Clinton Administration to develop hybrids.

They resisted fuel efficiency as long as possible, and in the process other companies (particularly Japanese like Toyota and Honda) developed hybrid technology and other fuel effiicent vehicles.  The Big 3 are in their current economic state primarily due to their own utter lack of foresight and frankly, stupidity.

That being said, they do employ a huge number of Americans.  And they do seem to be finally adapting to the changing world demand (i.e. Chevy Volt).  It would really be a shame for the Volt to die because of a GM collapse.

One other issue that really irritates me is that Republican politicians are the ones opposing the bailout, saying things like "the automakers failed to adapt to the changing market so they need to pay the price."  These are the same people who blocked increased fuel efficiency standards and kept the price of oil and gas as low as possible.  It's like a drug dealer testifying against a drug addict.

In the end, I support a bailout as long as it comes with a lot of strings attached, requiring that the automakers develop a serious line of fuel efficient cars, and that they pay the loans back over time.  I think it would hurt our already ailing economy too much for one or more of the Big 3 to go under, plus they are finally starting to develop some good cars.

But the little devil on my other shoulder is telling me that it would serve GM right to go bankrupt.

 There isn't even (officially) an auto-industry bailout yet, and already new folks are getting in on the act. Tesla said they want $400MM today.... amazing. 

There should be no bailout . A " Loan " could be considered under the condition that the applicant files for bankrupcy protection first . Preferred shares should be posted as colateral and probably representation on the Board of Directors ? .

EVs are a not a good alternative . The electricity to recharge the batteries come mostly from fossil fuels . The batteries present many problems .

Hydrogen is the most abundent energy source in the galaxy . There are modification kits available for $1,095 that will produce hydrogen on demand and double gasoline MPG . That will reduce consumption " NOW " and buy the time for hybrid hydrogen technologies to be developed .

a) For starters, you're neglecting the efficiency of EVs in your fossil fuels comment.

b) Just because the majority of our energy currently comes from fossil fuels doesn't mean that will always be the case (i.e. see the Obama energy plan).

c) What "many problems" do you propose the batteries present?

d) Hydrogen may be abundant, but it's not easy to collect.  In fact, since you're talking about fossil fuels, 96% of our hydrogen currently comes from fossil fuels.  So you basically just contradicted yourself.

I recommend the Electric Cars Wiki and Hydrogen Cars Wiki.

 Well you always can purchase green power from your power company if possible.

As long as the bailout or infusion of cash for the Detroit 3 comes with conditions such as requiring that they move rapidly to improve the energy efficiency of their product offerings, it is in the best interests of the country to keep the domestic auto industry alive.

There will be a worldwide push for energy efficient vehicles.  It would be a disaster for the U.S. to be left out of the transportation "green revolution".

The U.S. needs to fight a War for Endependence = energy independence that ends dependence on polluting fuels. 

Want to join us?  Sign the Declaration of Endependence at http://endependence.info/declaration .

a ) Where's the efficiency if you have to utilize electricity made 50% from coal and 30% from oil to recharge the batteries ? Phase #1 which is already on the market reduces consumption of gasoline by 50% or more and phase #2 will reduce it by nearly 90% with " ZERO " pollution . Without limitations to one's driving range or speed .

b ) Obama plan ? So much pollitical B.S.

Why wait ten years to reduce the consumption when it's available to do so " NOW " ?????

c ) Problems with batteries ? For starters , where do you think the material for the components comes from and how much energy and destruction in the process ? How about disposal ? How about the cost for replacement ?

d ) Hydrogen not easy to collect ? This technology produces hydrogen " ON DEMAND " from water utilizing some energy , 12 to 15 amps , from the car battery . I haven't contradicted myself , you've confused this technology with that which is still in research and development and will be some time before it's fully developed . Why wait ? Besides , why not modify the 257 million vehicles now on the road thereby reducing the consumption of fossil fuels for transportation by 88% " NOW " ?????

Phase #1 modification cost is $1,095 plus installation labor ( 3 to 5 hours ) , phase #2 modification cost $2,500 ( est ) plus installation labor . Total cost of both phases , about $5,000 but will allow any SUV , V-8 engine or light truck to exceed 100 MPG . A 4 or 6 cylinder automobile even better and could drive from coast to coast on a single tank of gasoline .If a consumer doesn't drive that much they may elect not to advance to phase #2 . Engine life will tripple and engine lubricants will not be contaminated by the unburnt hydrocarbons . The only exhaust is air and water vapor .

The consumer doesn't have to purchase a new car to enjoy better economy . Besides , what would you suggest doing with the existing fleet ?

No need to build the infrastructure for refueling , storage , etc .

Millions of U.S. jobs created that won't be outsourced . The product is manufactured " HERE " . The installations are performed " HERE " . The money stays " HERE " . No more collusion between the automobile manufacturers and oil companies .

a) You're confusing efficiency with source.

b) Obama's plan does not wait 10 years.  You should try reading it.

c) Depends what type of battery you're talking about, they're fully recyclable, and replacing the battery is practically the only maintenance cost for EVs.

d) I'm not going to argue this whole "Brown's gas" baloney with you.  I don't buy it.

Latest news on GM is that they may be shutting down Pontiac, Saab, and Hummer as brands.

What a novel idea - actually closing down business units that continue to hemorrhage cash?!?

I agree with some earlier comments that GM may be irreparably damaged, but I'm pumped to see steps in the right direction so that the Volt at least gets to see the light of day.

That would be a great idea.  Hummer needs to die, and nobody buys Saabs or Pontiacs anymore.  Apparently the problem is that GM would need to buy out these brands (can't just kill them off for free), and doing so with Buick cost them $2 billion in 2001.  Ouch.

Seems like GM built a factory in Russia, just like Ford did some years ago.

GM putting 300 million in it. hmmmmmm

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-buys-russian-factory/

I like the idea of converting the current fleet over idea to alternatives.

I noticed a lot of the alternative fuels in California and the south, but rarely up here in New England. Im not sure what the hold up is.

It will save people a bundle for those who dont want to and cant buy a new car. 

I'm going to throw in some numbers here:

Based on Arkansas energy production, we use coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and maybe some other stuff thrown in there, I don't remember.  Anyways, there is a site that you can go to that will tell you the carbon emissions of an area.  My electricity provider produces 1.1 lbs of carbon per kilowatt hour.  (I think the average for the US is 1.5 lbs.) So let's do some math (sorry, I did this actually a couple of months ago, so it may not be perfect from my memory).

An electric Xebra with upgraded deep cycle glass matte lead-acid batteries will go 40 miles on about 7.3 kw hours.  So lets round that to being 8 lbs. of CO2 released to drive 40 miles.

Okay, car number two uses gasoline and gets 20 mpg.  I believe that adds up to about 39 lbs. of CO2 to go 40 miles.

-- I believe these numbers come from the EPA, so I assume they are correct.

That's 1/5 the CO2 emissions to go the same distance on electricity than gasoline.  I'd say that is a significant improvement, so I think the government should be putting some of this investment/bond/bailout/loan/$$$$ into Electric Vehicle manufacturers.  The money would be well spent in that arena, it is cost efficient and more eco-friendly than gas.  It is more likely to be affordable to the average American.  Plus, almost everyone has a place to plug in a car, so the infrastructure at least has a head start!  (well maybe not if you count people living in huge cities like New York, but they can take public transportation :) )

I hear Obama talking about using hybrids in his government fleet, but what is wrong with BEVs?  Several of our state and city fleets are buying up electric carts, trucks, buses, etc. and they are perfect.  Most fleet vehicles drive short distances (landscaping carts, parking lot transports, security patrols, groundskeepers, and the list goes on...)

Tell Obama, Congress to Support Electric Car Entrepreneurs

1) You want at least a small percent of the automaker loan bailout money and DOE grants to go to small manufacturers of electric vehicles.
2) You want to be assured that vehicles from small EV automakers qualify for the Federal Tax Credit, and not to limit them to conventional cars and trucks.
3)That all-electric vehicles be considered for Federal and White House fleet purchases in 2009.
4)We should directly contract people to build electric vehicles to create jobs.

Write here:
Write Obama: http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision
Write Congress: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

I want to know what everyone thinks about this article.  It is about an alternative to the auto industry bridge-loan.  I thought it was quite interesting.  I know it is long, but you should at least skim it.  I did a huge research paper in college on the differences between privatized industries and goverment regulated ones, I find this to be a pretty good idea and I think that it would be a much better outcome than the plans that have been proposed so far.

Sounds good to me, although phase 3 is a bit on the ambitious and expensive side.  However, the plan wouldn't fly in the US because there are too many people scared witless of 'socialism'.

 Most puzzling to me is that Honda, Toyota, BMW, Hyundai, and VW are building in the US, maybe Kia, Mercedes and many others are imported; yet I have not heard a peep about their needing bailouts/loans.  I was correct about their first attempt failing, and am unsure about the outcomes, but just continuing with the same boxy gas hogs is almost all that people seemed to want.  When Japan and Europe caught the big 3 off-guard the US was really unprepared.  Electric vehicles are a fabulous partial solution, but may not solve all problems overnight.  Time will tell!  I prefer the German City-el 36 or 48 volt electric 3-wheel one person vehicle myself, but I do not hear of new ones being imported.

The one point is the big 3 all make and sell high mpg cars overseas GM=Vauxall and Opel Ford ha KA and Fiesta and and Dodge makes there cars here high mpg diesels and ships them overseas (can't buy them here).

You can't buy them here because diesels don't pass US emissions tests (except for new ones with clean diesel technology, which increases price and decreases fuel efficiency).