Our View: It’s been said on hpe.com

Jul. 02, 2013 @ 10:39 PM

Check the Enterprise’s website, hpe.com, and comment on this and other opinions expressed.

In a guest column in June headlined “Electric cars aren’t ready for prime time,” Regis Kline wrote:
The future for more fuel efficient cars will be hybrids, diesels, propane or hydrogen powered cars, not electric cars. Americans have to remember that electricity for electric car charging has to be produced somewhere. Last year, my wife did our part protecting the environment by purchasing an American made hybrid car and cut our gasoline bill in half.
The Obama administration reminds me of a group of bureaucrats playing the game Monopoly with American taxpayer’s money and handing it out to groups and green companies that have no chance to make it or turn a profit, leaving the taxpayers taking the loss. Recently, it was reported that $26 billion was given to green companies that created a total of 2,298 permanent jobs. That works out to $11 million per job. This is job creation at its worst.
In response:
• JP White: Load of politics in this article. Let’s be real. If you are saying that EVs are not ready for prime time and by that mean that the early majority are not ready to buy EVs. I agree wholeheartedly. We are in the innovator stage of the technology adoption curve, which is defined as the first 2.5 percent of market penetration. We haven’t even reached 1 percent market penetration. After 2.5 percent market penetration we enter the early adopter phase. At around 12.5 percent the early majority is served. We are a long way from the early majority. They are not defined by politics, Republican, Democrat whatever. The technology has just begun its roll-out.
All those broken promises and projections? Made by those with a political agenda such as yourself. Just the opposite political viewpoint. EVs will be adopted en masse when the technology, price and market conditions afford the growth in market penetration. It’ll come, but much slower than say adoption of cell phones. Cars have a longer “shelf life” than cell phones, so replacement of technology will clearly take decades. In our instant gratification society we expect new things to take off and be adopted overnight. Kindles maybe, cars, no.
• Detfan1 to JP White: You know, the Chevy Volt has consistently been selling more per month than either the Chevy Corvette or the Lincoln MKS, so which car is not selling well, again? How many $27,000 42” Pioneer Plasma TVs were sold in 1993?
• mrmike to Detfan1: Whatever the sales numbers were in 1993, they would have been higher if the government was paying people thousands of dollars to buy plasma TVs.
• mrmike to JP White: The technology has just begun its roll-out? From Wikipedia: “The history of the electric vehicle began in the mid-19th century. An electrical vehicle held the vehicular land speed record until around 1900. The high cost, low top speed and short range of electric vehicles, compared to later internal combustion vehicles, led to a worldwide decline in their use.” High cost, short range ... sound familiar? I don’t think anyone here is against EVs. We’re against throwing tax dollars down yet another rat hole (where a lot of the rats have political connections to the people throwing the money around — coincidence, I’m sure).
• TaxpayerOne: Electric cars aren’t viable. They do not reduce our dependence on oil nor reduce emissions (you have to generate electricity to recharge the batteries). Creature comforts such as heat, quickly discharge the battery. Time to recharge is hours, not minutes. The internal combustion engine still has life and still makes sense, provided it is fueled by bio-diesel, a renewable, lower emission and non-oil relying solution to our vehicle requirements.