It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by neo96
 


You're deflecting Neo.

You can't actually pin this on Obama, you're just unhappy with Obama in general, so it suits your agenda, ( and anybody else who is anti-obama) to sling mud at ANYTHING you can put his name on.

I get it, it's classic left vs right politics.

Trust me I'm just as anti-Obama as you are, the difference is I won't jump on every " Obama is Bad" Bandwagon, just for the sake of smearing his name.

I'll await legitimate issues to arise before I cast judgement on his policies and actions in office.

~Tenth


You do kinda have to question the Obama Administration on the Return on investment on all of it's Green ideas. I guess we should be glad that carbon tax didn't really make it.

It seems we hear more about the strikeouts than the home runs. Give me an example of a home run with things the Obama administration has promoted in the Green field. Wind isn't really panning out, as repair and maintenance on them seem higher than predicted. Solar....not going anywhere barring a major breakthrough. Hybrid cars don't really get anymore MPG than some of the cars that were made decades before and Electric cars don't have the Battery Capacity to appeal to American Drivers and the Electric Car charging infrastructure is pretty non-existent. We still are using corn for ethanol when sugar cane is proven to be much better. Energy use continues to climb and we don't have any real sustainable green options to meet that increase, let alone replace traditional sources of energy.

Seems they threw a bunch of money against a wall, hoping to have most of it stick, without any real data behind that hope.

I guess what I am saying is I don't see the bang for the buck with what the Obama Administration has done with it's energy policies.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You can't seriously think that the President is solely responsible for the entire budget, can you?
Even if you don't think the President is responsible for the entire budget of the United States, can you seriously think Presidents are responsible for every grant and tax break?

Come on Neo...



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Green Energy/Products aren't expected to return on investment for quite some time yet, things don't magically change over night.

Do you think oil/gas/electricity just magically drove the economy one day? No. It took billions of dollars (and a long time) of government investing to build the infrastructure necessary to support them. It still takes billions of dollars of government money to help maintain the infrastructure.
edit on 8-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96
 


You can't seriously think that the President is solely responsible for the entire budget, can you?
Even if you don't think the President is responsible for the entire budget of the United States, can you seriously think Presidents are responsible for every grant and tax break?

Come on Neo...


No clearly Obama is not responsible for anything he's done in the past 4 years.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by pavil
 


Green Energy/Products aren't expected to return on investment for quite some time yet, things don't magically change over night.

Do you think oil/gas/electricity just magically drove the economy one day? No. It took billions of dollars (and a long time) of government investing to build the infrastructure necessary to support them. It still takes billions of dollars of government money to help maintain the infrastructure.
edit on 8-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Quite honestly yes, Coal, Oil and Gas did magically drive the economy. The payoff was rather quick and profitable all the way around. Green tech just can't generate the amount of power for $$ spent, it would be great if they did, but they aren't even close. The only source that can is nuclear and we still are not going that direction. The amount of money that the President has put into Green technologies aren't sustainable levels, kinda ironic in a way.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I breifly read over the stuff.

Here's a clue:

If they only make and sell 50 Volts a day and they can make 500 batteries a day(15,000 a year +/-)...guess what? Your gonna stock up on batteries waaaay too fast. So you have 10,000 batteries waiting for cars to go in...they also have s shelf life.


This is stupid crap. There was a guy that invented a battery with twice the "mileage" capacity of normal batteries. They bought his patent and shelved it. Do not be so hate filled to be ignorant...it's not politicians jamming it up your butt...it's the Mega corporations and their cronies. Can't blame the guy for selling his patent but...it would have been nice to see new technology come to market.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
is anyone really surprised that a car like the volt isn't selling well? selling a SMALL car for the same price as a LARGE vehicle certainly does not help sell it. heck even with a $10,000 rebate it is still to way overpriced for a car of it's size.

i really don't see the advantage of these hybrid vehicles, other than the fact they are more efficient fuel wise. the fact is that in every other way they are less efficient. first they cost a lot more to purchase, then also cost a lot more to maintain them. those batteries don't last forever and they a expensive to replace. thereby negating ANY savings for the consumer. so why buy one?

also what happens to the old batteries? that is an awful lot of toxic junk to be thrown away every few years. so can we really even consider them to be a "green" car? or are we just trading off one source of pollution for another type of pollution?


i have a relative who purchased a hybrid car, she had the money available so she bought one. she now owns a small car that barely sits 4 people, and barely held the light luggage for 2 people (2 standard suitcases, and two standard carry on's), picking us up at the airport. while another relative bought a nice FULLY LOADED MINIVAN that seats 6 comfortably. and was able to hold the major luggage of three people ( that time it was 6 standard suitcases and 7 or 8 standard carry on bags), as well as 6 people. both are about the same price wise. which would you rather own? keep in mind that there will be NO real savings in operating the two in the end.

now if Obama really wanted to push such a "green" car. wouldn't he have been better off paying the price difference between a hybrid and a standard car to the BUYER, not throwing the money down the drain with this apparently failed start up? that money STILL would end up in the automotive sector. in fact A LOT MORE MONEY would have as many people would have taken the hybrid for the same out of pocket price, as a standard car of the same class size. in that way the automotive hybrid sector would have gotten that money. but instead of being thrown down a drain, it would have added stimulus to the auto industry, especially hybrids, which would have possibly been used to start up the same plant, not only that but that plant would also have been producing the batteries for all the orders for hybrids. that such a move would have created.

just more short sighted thinking from the government as per norm :shk:



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by xuenchen
 


You're kidding right?

You are blaiming OBAMA, because CITIZENS refuse to support the Volt as a vehicle?

I know we all wanna find something our hated politician of the year has done wrong, but aren't you grasping at straws with this one?



~Tenth


I agree with you for the most part. However, Obama chose to inject himself, he appeared at the groundbreaking, he took credit for the jobs gained. So what you suggest is he should throw himself in, take credit while the going is good and stand for photo ops, and then receive no backlash? I disagree. The backlash the OP tossed his way is misguided, but there does need to be backlash since Obama personally used this as an example of his Presidency. He can't pick and choose when it reflects him, this is a problem of Obama's own making.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Again, someone point out a home run with the money President Obama spent on Green initiatives. The tax breaks people got for installing energy efficient stuff in the home was a great boon to many........To bad they have canceled it.

The L-Prize for designing the light bulb of the future sounded promising. Phillips (a Dutch company btw) won with a 60W LED bulb..... only problem is that is costs $20-30$ a BULB! Not many people are going to pay that.

I'm not saying that Green technology is bad..... it's just a LONG way off still, technologically and economically. Trying to make it sound like it's just around the corner, is doing everyone a disservice.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join