Gov buying Volts, Leafs

[Tempest]

Quote:
The federal government handed over the keys to a handful of electric vehicles it purchased Tuesday. The 116 cars -- a mixture of Chevrolet Volts, Nissan Leafs and Think Cities -- are the first electric vehicles to be purchased by the U.S. government for the federal fleet. They will be distributed to 20 agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense, in five cities across the country.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/05/us-government-electric-vehicles-.html

Quote:
The 116 electric vehicles the GSA purchased will save 29,000 gallons of gas, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 260 tons and save taxpayers more than $109,000 every year, Johnson added. To complement the EVs, the GSA is also installing electric vehicle charging stations at federal buildings in five cities.


Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....

 

[Steve S]

Our tax dollars at work. There is no hope.

 

[bluestream]

Our (municipal) government has bought a ton of Escape Hybrids. I expect them to trade them in for Volts as soon as they can get their hands on some...

 

[bluestream]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....


Ronald Reagan must be turning over... he would sell them all and buy Gas-Guzzlers. I think he ripped out Jimmy Cartier's solar system from the White House...

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....


Ronald Reagan must be turning over... he would sell them all and buy Gas-Guzzlers. I think he ripped out Jimmy Cartier's solar system from the White House...


Yes he indeed did get rid of the solar panels.

I'm not sure what they mean by it being the first to be used by "the federal fleet" not sure what they are concerning the federal fleet, on military bases they've been using Gem2 all electric vehicles for a couple of years now and Escape Hybrids for the last two years or so.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....


Rough and overly simplistic analysis is usually the tool to prove a simplistic argument.

Never seen a Govt yet pay retail. They also don't pay sales taxes and transfer taxes. Savings of 30-40% result on initial purchase.

Then when the vehicles are sold, they are sold into a public pool on which those taxes were paid, and the used car price is reflective of the RRP of the model when sold to the public.

Utilities usually make money, or at least break even on their vehicles...on niche vehicles, it can be quite lucrative.

And your "rough" analysis also is based on the fact that these vehicles are going to be on top of the existing fleet, as opposed to a part of the existing fleet...if they are replacement vehicles, then your calculation assumes that those that they were replacing are free.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure Govt buys trucks and SUVs too to satiate your need for consumption.

 

[Billy_D]

+1

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....


Rough and overly simplistic analysis is usually the tool to prove a simplistic argument.

Never seen a Govt yet pay retail. They also don't pay sales taxes and transfer taxes. Savings of 30-40% result on initial purchase.

Then when the vehicles are sold, they are sold into a public pool on which those taxes were paid, and the used car price is reflective of the RRP of the model when sold to the public.

Utilities usually make money, or at least break even on their vehicles...on niche vehicles, it can be quite lucrative.

And your "rough" analysis also is based on the fact that these vehicles are going to be on top of the existing fleet, as opposed to a part of the existing fleet...if they are replacement vehicles, then your calculation assumes that those that they were replacing are free.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure Govt buys trucks and SUVs too to satiate your need for consumption.


I think Tempest would prefer Government workers just WALK.

 

[tomcat27]

my brother is involved with the fleet purchases for his department's cars - they cannot make the numbers work for hyrids or electrics. He also works with the MI state police in their vehical evaluations. same story. I'm not sure that anyone can make the numbers work yet without a large subsidy. maybe in time. I hope that we have an effective recycling plan for all of those heavy metals used in the batteries...

 

[Cutehumor]

since the Fed government owns government motors, shouldn't those chevy volts be free to the taxpayers? gosh, if we are paying, we getting sold down the river

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Rough and overly simplistic analysis is usually the tool to prove a simplistic argument.

Never seen a Govt yet pay retail. They also don't pay sales taxes and transfer taxes. Savings of 30-40% result on initial purchase.

Then when the vehicles are sold, they are sold into a public pool on which those taxes were paid, and the used car price is reflective of the RRP of the model when sold to the public.

Utilities usually make money, or at least break even on their vehicles...on niche vehicles, it can be quite lucrative.

And your "rough" analysis also is based on the fact that these vehicles are going to be on top of the existing fleet, as opposed to a part of the existing fleet...if they are replacement vehicles, then your calculation assumes that those that they were replacing are free.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure Govt buys trucks and SUVs too to satiate your need for consumption.

I expected a post like this. The thing is, they could buy Chevy Cruze's and get all of the advantages that you list....for less than half the price.

$2+ million extra to go "green". They would have to keep those cars for ~ 20 years to make the payoff work.

 

[addyguy]

Quote:
In a way, the government is forced to buy these vehicles. They are the ones that come up with mandates that result in electric vehicle production. They can't very well say that electric cars are good for the masses but not practical for government employees. They have to to lead by example.

Very true. It would look bad if govts. encouraged the development of EV/Hybrid vehicles, and then not use them themselves.

Shannow is also right, the numbers work different than what we figure out.

 

[Spyder7]

Quote:
In a way, the government is forced to buy these vehicles. They are the ones that come up with mandates that result in electric vehicle production. They can't very well say that electric cars are good for the masses but not practical for government employees. They have to to lead by example.


Additionally, the burden is largely going to fall on them to provide the necessary infrastructure by way of required charging stations. In buying the cars, they provide justification for the money spent on those charging stations that is harder to do otherwise.

-Spyder

 

[kb01]

Originally Posted By: tomcat27
my brother is involved with the fleet purchases for his department's cars - they cannot make the numbers work for hyrids or electrics. He also works with the MI state police in their vehical evaluations. same story. I'm not sure that anyone can make the numbers work yet without a large subsidy. maybe in time. I hope that we have an effective recycling plan for all of those heavy metals used in the batteries...


My corporate office is converting all of our non-4WD fleet to hybrids. At least from the numbers I saw, the savings are pretty significant. That was actually a secondary argument, the primary reason for the conversion is that many times, when we put together a proposal for an RFP, we might not start a project for 2 or 3 years. With fuel prices being so volatile, a major change in cost per gallon can have significant budget implications and force a tightly budgeted project into the red.

Paying more for a hybrid, is simply a hedge against inflation in fuel prices. I imagine we'll be switching over to electric in the next 10 years, simply because the price of electricity is typically more stable than gasoline.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

Additionally, the burden is largely going to fall on them to provide the necessary infrastructure by way of required charging stations. In buying the cars, they provide justification for the money spent on those charging stations that is harder to do otherwise.

-Spyder

Exactly. Propaganda works pretty well, eh?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
It would look bad if govts. encouraged the development of EV/Hybrid vehicles, and then not use them themselves.


Quote:
The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons (1.7×1010 L) (4.6 billion gallons) of fuel annually, an average of 12,600,000 US gallons (48,000,000 L) (12.6 million gallons) of fuel per day. A large Army division may use about 6,000 US gallons (23,000 L) per day. According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden.[28]

In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD's electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes. In electricity consumption, the DoD would rank 58th in the world, using slightly less than Denmark and slightly more than Syria (CIA World Factbook, 2006).[29]

The DoD uses 93% of all US government fuel consumption (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%)

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

Yeah, I'm sure those Volts will make all the difference.

 

[antonmnster]

Originally Posted By: Tempest


Just some rough numbers: 116 x $41,000 (Volt cost) = $4,756,000 to save $109,000 every year. Not including the cost of recharging stations. Investing for the future....


Typically bogus right wing numbers and "logic".

Here's some elementary school accounting: the first number is a capital cost amount. And it's a total guess on the part of the OP. The second number is an operational cost savings. This represents a savings over what would have been spent on a different fleet.

Conflating the two would result in an "F" in any high school English or debate class, but seems perfectly acceptable with the Fox "News" set for some reason.

Only if you expect the government to completely shed its fleet of automobiles over time would this fly.

This is also why I generally avoid debates with those who have challenged intellectual honesty. If you hate the government so much, move to Somalia. You'd love it.

 

[Duffman77]

I DO buy vehicles as the primary function of my job and I can tell you from someone who has done the analysis that there is a break even point for hybrids vs non hybrids and past that they do indeed provide an actual return on investment. I cant speak for the specifics of the Volt but there seems no shortage of people who like to come on here and bash on environmentally friendly projects who have absolutely no knowledge of how to do a proper economic analysis.

 

[daves87rs]

And keep in mind, for actual change to happen, somebody has to lead. To have more eco friendly cars, they actually need to get out there...

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Spyder7

Additionally, the burden is largely going to fall on them to provide the necessary infrastructure by way of required charging stations. In buying the cars, they provide justification for the money spent on those charging stations that is harder to do otherwise.

-Spyder

Exactly. Propaganda works pretty well, eh?


Nope. Simply a phenomena I've tried explaining to you many other times and which you repeatedly refuse to accept: government, as is the case here, is the body to whom it generally falls to implement capital intensive, and not immediately or directly profitable, cost of installing the necessary infrastructure that both the private enterprise and the public will eventually depend on.

In the case of private enterprise, there may be no immediate profit in installing these charging stations so the government has to step up to bat to do it; later, once a critical mass is reached, its the private sector that reaps the dividends. Given the increasing cost of fossil fuels, this is also a win for the consumer.

As it takes an initial capital intensive investment with no direct or immediate gains able to rationalized on paper for company X or company Y, neither is going to do it even if its in their own long term best interests and may yield profit over the same long term. There are several reasons why its not a palatable project for them that can be rationalized on paper or sold to their share holders. And its for this reason that it falls to government to step up to provide this needed infrastructure so that both groups - long term - are winners.

The propaganda here involves that which has created your ideological blinders that dictate this is always a bad thing despite the mounds of historical evidence on government infrastructure projects that clearly illustrate the opposite.

-Spyder