No Volt Batteries from a Plant that got $150 million tax dollars

[Pony Boy]

Plant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers

The facility, which was opened in July 2010 with a groundbreaking attended by Obama, has yet to produce a single battery for the Chevrolet Volt, the troubled electric car from General Motors. The plant's batteries also were intended to be used in Ford's electric

The 650,000-square-foot, $300 million facility was slated to produce 15,000 batteries per year, while creating hundreds of new jobs. But to date, only 200 workers are employed at the plant by by the South Korean company. Batteries for the Chevy Volts that have been produced have been made by an LG plant in South Korea.

The factory was partly funded by a $150 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. LG also received sizeable tax breaks from the local government, saving nearly $50 million in property taxes over 15 years and another $2.5 million annually in business taxes. Landing the factory was hailed as a coup when shovels first hit the ground.

“You are leading the way in showing how manufacturing jobs are coming right back here to the United States of America,” Obama told workers at the ground-breaking ceremony. “Our goal has never been to create a government program, but rather to unleash private-sector growth. And we're seeing results.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08...ts-workers-on/

[Pony Boy]

Oh but don't worry plant workers who have never produced a battery and are on furloughs one week a month are eligible to collect unemployment for that week, and the company will cover the contributions to their individual benefits during the period.

[DBruleU]

...he really does just pick the losers.

[Rohirrim]

That's okay. Oil companies don't use their massive subsidies to do any extra drilling either.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That's okay. Oil companies don't use their massive subsidies to do any extra drilling either.

I don't think the idea was to pay the battery company not to make batteries

Oil companies will dill anything anywhere any time (kind of like Bill Clinton).

[The Lone Bolt]

A) The vast majority of DOE loan recipients have been successful. Tesla for instance will be paying back their loans ahead of schedule. Mitt's claim that the Obama administration "only picks losers" is false by a long shot.

B) Mitt wants to pour another 2 TRILLION into a military that doesn't need it and isn't asking for it. Who would waste our taxpayer money more?

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

A) The vast majority of DOE loan recipients have been successful. Tesla for instance will be paying back their loans ahead of schedule. Mitt's claim that the Obama administration "only picks losers" is false by a long shot.

Tesla has never been profitable.

Please do some research before you spew out falsehoods.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Tesla has never been profitable.

Please do some research before you spew out falsehoods.

I have. You're the one who needs to research:

Tesla is actually on the verge of becoming cash flow positive and will not have to spend any of the money raised, at least until we embark upon a major new vehicle program. In the public call with investors, I tried to make this point, but perhaps should have emphasized it more: we expect Tesla to become cash flow positive at the end of next month.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/update-elon-musk

Independent Report Review Confirms Energy Loan Portfolio is Expected to Perform Well

On October 28, 2011, the White House Chief of Staff directed an independent review of the current state of the Department of Energy (DOE) loan portfolio, focusing on future loan monitoring and management. The review was conducted by Herb Allison, who has wide-ranging experience in the finance, business, and government sectors during a career in public and private service that spans four decades and both Republican and Democratic Administrations.

This independent report on the DOE Loan Guarantee programs confirms that the loan portfolio as a whole is expected to perform well and holds less than the amount of risk envisioned by Congress when it created and funded the program. The report also includes a number of recommendations on how to improve the management of the Department’s loan program and ongoing monitoring of the loan portfolio. The Department of Energy is reviewing the recommendations to determine the best way to use them to further strengthen the program.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...d-perform-well

But that's OK. You just keep believing Slick Willard's con job.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

A) The vast majority of DOE loan recipients have been successful. Tesla for instance will be paying back their loans ahead of schedule. Mitt's claim that the Obama administration "only picks losers" is false by a long shot.

B) Mitt wants to pour another 2 TRILLION into a military that doesn't need it and isn't asking for it. Who would waste our taxpayer money more?

Yes we do need to invest in Tesla who's top car the the Model S, which carries a sticker price of $50,000 to $100,000, and is not exactly a ride for the 47% but does seem to be a nice little toy for the Hollywood elite and the 1%.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Yes we do need to invest in Tesla who's top car the the Model S, which carries a sticker price of $50,000 to $100,000, and is not exactly a ride for the 47% but does seem to be a nice little toy for the Hollywood elite and the 1%.

Tesla's business model is to start with the luxury car segment and work their way down. So far it's been successful -- the Model S is sold out for the first production year and is gathering universally rave reviews. Next up is the Model X crossover, and then the Model E economy car for the average-income consumer.

[Kaylore]

The problem is this "all of the above" energy idea. The idea that you should invest in everything to improve everything is ridiculous. They need to invest in better energy, but this is taxpayer money and you can't just "do it all" and hope some of it sticks. That's an irresposible way to invest money - especially public money and ESPECIALLY during a recession. Another Obama failure.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Tesla's business model is to start with the luxury car segment and work their way down. So far it's been successful -- the Model S is sold out for the first production year and is gathering universally rave reviews. Next up is the Model X crossover, and then the Model E economy car for the average-income consumer.

Huh. Borrow from the grandkids to subsidize non-economically viable cars to prop up the eco-egos of the 1%ers.... Brilliant!

But don't worry. They're working hard to make those non-economically viable cars economically viable. One of these days. Details coming soon.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

The problem is this "all of the above" energy idea. The idea that you should invest in everything to improve everything is ridiculous. They need to invest in better energy, but this is taxpayer money and you can't just "do it all" and hope some of it sticks. That's an irresponsible way to invest money - especially public money and ESPECIALLY during a recession. Another Obama failure.

well there you go thinking again.. I wonder if the uber liberals will ever try it..

If this had all been a Conservative idea the dumos would be crawling all over their crap about wasting a measly $150,000,000.00..

But since it is a "GREEN" dumo idea is has to be great..

these morons are worried about cutting the budget but a $150,000,00.. is to little to worry about..

Go figure..

[Rohirrim]

Rather than invest in companies, I'd like to see government money go into pure research. Find an alternative power source for cars. One that doesn't pollute. Replace our coal powered stations with natural gas while we research alternative energies. Then, when we find something promising, let companies use it in the ways they see as best.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Huh. Borrow from the grandkids to subsidize non-economically viable cars to prop up the eco-egos of the 1%ers.... Brilliant!

But don't worry. They're working hard to make those non-economically viable cars economically viable. One of these days. Details coming soon.

Huh? Do you really believe that the technology will never get better or cheaper? Or that Elon Musk has no intention of pursuing a more affordable model for the broader market? Is that what you're suggesting?

[elsid13]

Statistics

The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.




When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.



http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-...215500548.html

[elsid13]

Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy, and their research supports the view that over the years new transitional energy sources have spurred U.S. economic growth and innovation. But their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.



In comparing current support for renewable energy with past aid for today’s traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.



The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.



Federal support during the first 15 years works out to $3.3 billion annually for nuclear energy and $1.8 billion annually for oil and gas, but an average of only $400 million a year in inflation-adjusted dollars for ­renewables.


http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/L...Subsidies.html

[lonestar]

see lots of deflection.. going on ..

[barryr]

The government needs more money because Obama keeps throwing money at failures and wants to do even more if re-elected. He is a stubborn liberal/socialist who lives in what he feels the world should be like instead of reality.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Huh? Do you really believe that the technology will never get better or cheaper? Or that Elon Musk has no intention of pursuing a more affordable model for the broader market? Is that what you're suggesting?

No, I'm suggesting that trial lawyers and law professors have no business guessing which technologies are going to be the ones that someday lead us to the promised land. When there's money to be made in more efficient transportation, the market will naturally move there.

Batteries are born losers. They're not efficient. They don't solve anything. The only thing they enable is off-siting the production of energy so the environmental costs are placed out-of-site, out-of-mind.

Coal-powered electric cars are good for a clean (ignorant) conscience. Not so much for a clean environment.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Yes we do need to invest in Tesla who's top car the the Model S, which carries a sticker price of $50,000 to $100,000, and is not exactly a ride for the 47% but does seem to be a nice little toy for the Hollywood elite and the 1%.

I've seen these things on the road out here and they are damn nice cars, but they definitely aren't for your grandparents.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No, I'm suggesting that trial lawyers and law professors have no business guessing which technologies are going to be the ones that someday lead us to the promised land. When there's money to be made in more efficient transportation, the market will naturally move there.

The market is moving towards plug-in vehicles. Pay attention.

Batteries are born losers. They're not efficient. They don't solve anything. The only thing they enable is off-siting the production of energy so the environmental costs are placed out-of-site, out-of-mind.

Coal-powered electric cars are good for a clean (ignorant) conscience. Not so much for a clean environment.

Bull. It's your own ignorance that's on display here.

FACT: Electric Vehicles Cause Substantially Fewer CO2 Emissions
Electric Vehicles Emit Less CO2 Even If Coal Supplies The Power. This chart from the Department of Energy shows that, even though coal is the source of nearly half the nation's electricity, all-electric vehicles (EV) like the Nissan Leaf, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) like the Chevy Volt cause on average substantially less carbon dioxide emissions than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles:



In states like Indiana that are heavily reliant on coal-fired power, hybrid cars cause fewer emissions than plug-in EVs, but EVs still cause fewer emissions than conventional gasoline powered cars. In areas where electric car sales are high, EVs are significantly more environmentally friendly than the national average. For example, the Los Angeles area is projected by Pike Research to have the second highest electric car sales in the nation over the next 5 years, and carbon emissions for all-electric cars there are nearly half that of the national average:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ic-cars/185798

In addition, EVs are run on 100% American-produced electricity, not foreign oil. And EVs are far more efficient in converting energy to motion than ICE cars:

Electric vehicle 'tank-to-wheels' efficiency is about a factor of 3 higher than internal combustion engine vehicles.[47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

And EVs require no tune-ups, oil changes, filter changes, etc. Much lower maintenance.

So yes, EVs solve a lot.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

The market is moving towards plug-in vehicles. Pay attention.



Bull. It's your own ignorance that's on display here.




http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ic-cars/185798

In addition, EVs are run on 100% American-produced electricity, not foreign oil. And EVs are far more efficient in converting energy to motion than ICE cars:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

And EVs require no tune-ups, oil changes, filter changes, etc. Much lower maintenance.

So yes, EVs solve a lot.

Sorry, but you can't just flat compare the average electric vehicle to the average gasoline-powered vehicle. How does that study account for passenger/cargo capacity? Doesn't look like it does.

Sure a glorified golf cart may emit less than the old family SUV or minivan. But if you have to drive three of them to fit everything you need, it more than defeats the purpose. Not even getting into the environmental costs of all that battery and vehicle manufacturing.

When you start to look at similar vehicle types, the picture changes somewhat.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs...e-58c894b22e27

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Plant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers

The facility, which was opened in July 2010 with a groundbreaking attended by Obama, has yet to produce a single battery for the Chevrolet Volt, the troubled electric car from General Motors. The plant's batteries also were intended to be used in Ford's electric

The 650,000-square-foot, $300 million facility was slated to produce 15,000 batteries per year, while creating hundreds of new jobs. But to date, only 200 workers are employed at the plant by by the South Korean company. Batteries for the Chevy Volts that have been produced have been made by an LG plant in South Korea.

The factory was partly funded by a $150 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. LG also received sizeable tax breaks from the local government, saving nearly $50 million in property taxes over 15 years and another $2.5 million annually in business taxes. Landing the factory was hailed as a coup when shovels first hit the ground.

“You are leading the way in showing how manufacturing jobs are coming right back here to the United States of America,” Obama told workers at the ground-breaking ceremony. “Our goal has never been to create a government program, but rather to unleash private-sector growth. And we're seeing results.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08...ts-workers-on/

Free market and free country.

Every one of Bain capital deals under Romney created jobs as well....right only in your stupid bubble.

This is low life BS.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Sorry, but you can't just flat compare the average electric vehicle to the average gasoline-powered vehicle. How does that study account for passenger/cargo capacity? Doesn't look like it does.

Sure a glorified golf cart may emit less than the old family SUV or minivan. But if you have to drive three of them to fit everything you need, it more than defeats the purpose. Not even getting into the environmental costs of all that battery and vehicle manufacturing.

When you start to look at similar vehicle types, the picture changes somewhat.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs...e-58c894b22e27

Jeez your link supports my argument and not yours.

The good news is that electric vehicles do minimize emissions in most of the country. On the coasts, where grid energy is cleanest, charging an electric vehicle produces emissions equivalent to a gasoline-burning vehicle that gets as much as 50 miles per gallon. In Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Florida and parts of the South and Midwest, that number drops to 41 to 50 miles per gallon -- similar to what hybrids achieve. In most of the Midwest, the average is 31 to 40 miles per gallon.

That editorial only points out that in only the most extremely coal-reliant areas of the country will an EV produce emissions equivalent to a 33 MPG ICE car.

I also wonder if the study cited takes into account the emissions produced to explore for oil, drill for and extract oil, transport oil to refineries, convert it to gasoline, and then transport the gasoline to gas stations. At the very least the last two steps should be counted towards the emissions of ICE cars if you are counting emissions produced by coal plants for EVs.

Edit: I found the report and they do take that into account.