Seeking Alpha

Electric Vehicle Roundup: 1) Chevrolet Volt (GM) sales continue to fluctuate wildly, up 59%...

Electric Vehicle Roundup: 1) Chevrolet Volt (GM) sales continue to fluctuate wildly, up 59% Y/Y and 43% M/M in Feb. to easily beat sales on Toyota's (TM) Prius. 2) Look for Ford (F) to include sales numbers on the Fusion Energi as the model hits dealerships this month. 3) Nissan (NSANY.OB) sold 636 Leafs in the U.S., +36.6 Y/Y, flat M/M, just ahead of the unveiling of a new model. 4) In Scotland, politicians issue campaign promises to install an EV charging point every 50 miles. 5) Tesla Motors (TSLA) trades in the mid-$30s post-earnings. On tap: Will revenue cover payments on a DOE loan and production costs or will Elon Musk need to float more stock?
Comments (79)
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7620) | Send Message
     
    "Will revenue cover payments on a DOE loan and production costs or will Elon Musk need to float more stock? "

     

    More likely scenario is that the government "forgives" the loans; of course in return for a hefty contribution to the DNC.
    2 Mar 2013, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Cassina Tarsia
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    Let's see what the best electric car in the world can do ... the Model S for Tesla ... whether it will rise to the top this year and break through our dependence on oil.
    2 Mar 2013, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (235) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, at $52k a pop, it's gonna make a real difference.
    2 Mar 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • Cassina Tarsia
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    It's only the start - you have to make a splash with a high-end quality vehicle in order to survive in the beginning ... then you can come down in price later once you have the financial resources to be able to do that. Give Tesla a break! No new car company has survived during the last 100 or so years - much less one with such revolutionary shift in technology. Tesla may be the first. $52,000 is relatively cheap for a car that can go twice as far as any other electric at this time (and they cost close to $39,000) ... and the high-end model Tesla with the 85 kw batter will go 300 miles. It will be a true game-changer in time, especially as gas becomes scarce or too expensive to use. So what's your beef, Johann?
    3 Mar 2013, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (235) | Send Message
     
    The high end Tesla is over $100,000. So much for relatively cheap.
    4 Mar 2013, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • mfsjss
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Future increased sales with increasing margins make future fund raising activities probably unnecessary.
    2 Mar 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3955) | Send Message
     
    Hoping he has to float more stock so i can pick up some on the cheap
    2 Mar 2013, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Price
    , contributor
    Comments (1502) | Send Message
     
    Time to stop the $7,500 subsidies (from taxpayers) to people who buy $100,000+ vehicles as toys?
    2 Mar 2013, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3955) | Send Message
     
    Yeah we shouldn't subsidies "luxury" items in any form or fashion honestly...
    2 Mar 2013, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Surf Dog
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Time to stop the Billions in Oil Subsidies paid to oil companies when they are making record profits.

     

    That money would be enough to fix our crumbling transportation infrastructure. Instead it gets paid to corrupt oil executives and gets funneled back to bribe corrupt politicians.
    2 Mar 2013, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    Time to stop the billions of subsidies to some fat cats that make $100M toys like the F-35. We don't need the F-35 when we have already the F-22!
    2 Mar 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    What "oil subsidies" are you referring to that other companies don't also receive?
    2 Mar 2013, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • dacama1
    , contributor
    Comments (210) | Send Message
     
    List the subsidies...
    2 Mar 2013, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Anon12 - The F-22 Raptor cannot take off from or land on an Aircraft Carrier. It has no vertical or short takeoff and landing capability, so the Navy and Marines cannot use it in combat operations or any other useful situation. Without the F-35, the Navy and Marines will have no stealth-capable fighter/attack aircraft, and they will become vulnerable to enemy technologies designed to defeat their current F-14 and F-18 aircraft, which date back to the 1960s and 1970s.

     

    Frankly, they are already vulnerable. Only the Air Force has stealthy fighters and bombers.

     

    So ... just why do you hate the US Navy and US Marines? Are you an enemy of the United States? Or just ignorant?

     

    To design an alternative to the F-35 would take 10 years and billions more dollars. The F-35 is virtually ready to go into production - the billions to develop it have already been spent. Why would you want us to spend billions more? Do you like wasting taxpayer money? Or, again, just being ignorant?
    2 Mar 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Rich in Quebec
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Gee - I guess our Conservative government is literally missing the boat. They have gotten into the ground floor of the F-35 purchase deal. Now, all we need is an aircraft carrier. I can see it now. Canada leases the Truman which the U.S. can't afford, turns it into the world's first icebreaker/ aircraft carrier, uses it in the Arctic to foil those who would question Canadian sovereignty (oops, that's the U.S.). Stealth arctic based fighter bombers, That's a uniquely Canadian contribution in the fight to stop Al Qaeda.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Rich - way to spin and demonstrate an illogical and incorrect syllogism in a logically fallacious argument!

     

    A cat is an animal, a dog is an animal, but a cat is not a dog.

     

    The F-35 is both a land based and a carrier based aircraft. It is not only a carrier-based aircraft: it does not require an Aircraft carrier to operate. However, an aircraft carrier requires an F-35 if the fleet requires a stealthy fighter-attack aircraft. There are no alternatives.

     

    The Royal Canadian Navy has no carriers, and does not need the F-35.

     

    However, the Royal Canadian Air Force may acquire a few dozen of the land-based version of the stealthy attack-fighters to replace their F-18s, but that is not yet a done deal.

     

    Good effort though.
    2 Mar 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • markwbrooks
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    No its not time. This may sound good , but we need new oil sources and the billions a year in tax breaks helps do this. Investment incentives from all levels of goverment make this happen. For instance the Alberta Goverment provides a 1 cent well head tax, until all cap cost are recovered, before the normal well head royality kicks in. Even with this help soaring productions costs means that even at $100 a barrel a lot of the new thermal Bitumen projects are not even breaking even... yet. Without goverment incentives these projects would not be happening and as the economy restarts we will be caught short.

     

    We need time for the shift to EV can happen, its just that simple.
    2 Mar 2013, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • markwbrooks
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    Subsidies is the wrong word, they are investment incentives and we need more of them, not less. The alberta well head tax credit is a good example of a well run incentive progam that has been varied to meet conditions and smoothing out economic growth by incenting investments when needed.
    For instance the Alberta Royalty Tax Credit saved the provincial industry only about $190 million in wellhead taxes during the government's 1993-94 fiscal year, but has been estimated to provide a savings of up to $2 billion a year before being adjusted again in 2007, as the oil boom once again heated up...

     

    This is just one local example ( I am Canadian). Energy is the life blood of our economy and should not be soley in the hands of some Saudi oilmans ability to flood out /buy out and then choke out our energy markets....
    2 Mar 2013, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (404) | Send Message
     
    Brother, have you seen what an EBT can buy?
    2 Mar 2013, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1990) | Send Message
     
    What about Solar Conversion subsidies? The real hottie is Dual Fuel gasoline with Nat Gas.
    3 Mar 2013, 06:26 AM Reply Like
  • arcesilas
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    The F-35 is a financial chasm. It is so long to end, so complicated, that when it will be finally ready, the radars of the enemy fighters will discern it without difficulty. Buy the french "Rafale", he flies well, he touch down on an aircraft carrier, his radars and his missiles are efficient and he is very cheaper... Arcesilas (Switzerland) (The "Grippen" is good too...)
    4 Mar 2013, 07:59 AM Reply Like
  • Tom in Texas
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    "...our crumbling transportation infrastructure..."

     

    Where are you from? Albania?
    2 Mar 2013, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (404) | Send Message
     
    In terms of infrastructure, I think Providence, Rhode Island is pretty similar.
    2 Mar 2013, 11:42 PM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1990) | Send Message
     
    Shovel Ready Promise didn't improve our Roads did they?
    3 Mar 2013, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • ff-american
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Thank you "fat cats" for buying these expensive toys. This is pioneering technology and as with all progress first customer support is important. Fat cats bought the first computers. The government gave a hand in rural electrification. Why wouldn't our government promote EVs? The USA needs to be there first for patents and knowledge.
    Wish I was a fat cat as I would love to have one.
    2 Mar 2013, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Momintn
    , contributor
    Comments (3818) | Send Message
     
    I just noticed EV charging stations in front of my public library. What a great idea! and I never would have believed it could happen in my 100% Republican district.
    2 Mar 2013, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Are they free? Or do is there an hourly fee?
    2 Mar 2013, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Public charging stations are doubling every few months, as plug-in electric vehicles are slowly reaching critical mass. Charging stations are showing up in the parking lots of schools, government buildings, restaurants and coffee shops, libraries, department stores, shopping and strip malls, drug stores, sports complexes, downtown parking lots, bookstores, churches, and so forth. Even employers are starting to provide free EV charging stations.

     

    There are now about 11,000 public charging stations for about 33,000 EV drivers, and they have had about 1.8 million charging sessions - some for free, some by subscription, some for a cash or credit fee like on a parking meter.

     

    Business owners are realizing they have a competitive advantage in offering "free charging" for customers - and they have a captive paying customer for a half-hour or more as they "top-off" the battery while visiting. A half-hour of charging can deliver 3-5 kW-hr - enough for 10-20 miles of range, for about 50 cents worth of electricity.

     

    Info - http://bit.ly/15pUSXK
    2 Mar 2013, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Some are free, some are by subscription, some have a credit card swipe - like the pump at a gas station. A few even take a quarter or two for a half-hour or hour charge, rather like a parking meter.

     

    The retail cost of electricity is about 10-12 cents per kW-hr and each kW-hr is good for maybe 3-5 miles of range.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    If businesses want to pay for them, that's OK..but if public funds are being used outside of a library, I think I'd have a problem with that.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Understood.

     

    Your gasoline car costs about 15 cents per mile in gasoline. The EV costs about 4 cents per mile in electricity.

     

    You can certainly decide for yourself if there is any net benefit to reducing gasoline and diesel consumption in the US, and going further into debt to the Arabs in the Middle East in buying their oil for $100 a barrel, as opposed to using local coal reserves, ethanol, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal sources for vehicle propulsion. You local politicians would be the people to see, to discuss your views on the matter if they are not to your liking.

     

    That said, the maintenance of roadways, used by both gasoline and electric vehicles, is largely paid by state gasoline taxes, and some states are noticing the "loss of revenues", and are contemplating charging by the mile driven, rather than by the fuel delivered.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    When they can put a windmill on my car and overcome the small issue of violating the second law of thermodynamics, I'll be the first in line.

     

    Or when I can have someone else pay my electric bill, sign me up.

     

    In the meantime, if my tax dollars are funding anyone else's ride, I want to know why I'm forced to do so.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    Tdot,

     

    "Your gasoline car costs about 15 cents per mile in gasoline. The EV costs about 4 cents per mile in electricity."

     

    Not even remotely true. You have to add the cost of the battery to your number to give it an apples to apples comparison. A leaf adds about $15k to the price of a similar car, so 100k battery life gives total cost per mile to 19 cents. And we just substitute a foreign battery for foreign oil.

     

    "That said, the maintenance of roadways, used by both gasoline and electric vehicles, is largely paid by state gasoline taxes, and some states are noticing the "loss of revenues", and are contemplating charging by the mile driven, rather than by the fuel delivered."

     

    I hope you're not implying that the drop in revenues has anything to do with EV miles driven, as it's not even a minor factor. Doug Short has an excellent piece on this subject:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    2 Mar 2013, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Second Law violations? Now you are just being silly.

     

    Nobody wants to pay taxes for anyone else's toys; we get that from the Tea Party. But at the same time, everyone seems to want someone else to pay for the stuff they use - and we get that from the staff and supporters of The Obama Regime and His Party and Constituents.

     

    So - did you personally pay to pave the roadway from the trailer court to the place where you work? Or did the other taxpayers do that for you? Or is it still dirt and gravel?

     

    Like it or not, society is set up for folks to share the daily expenses of living and breathing and eating and sleeping and getting about their business. No man is an island, even if he is a jerk.

     

    That said, one supposes that EV operators should be contributing equally their share in maintaining the roads that they drive on - that is certainly fair; and they should be contributing to the national cost of energy and power, even if they are using only about a quarter to a third of what others do. It certainly makes sense to charge them for the electricity, one way or another.
    2 Mar 2013, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Alex "Not even remotely true." Really? Let us go through the numbers shall we?

     

    First of all, the electric battery and motor is like any other premium powertrain. Yes it has more fixed cost, but that has nothing to do with the variable cost of fuel / energy. You can spend $250,000 for a Ferrari. Do you suppose it therefore goes 5 times as fast and far as a $50,000 Corvette? Well why not? That certainly seems to be your argument.

     

    So let us take the Focus Electric as an example. The Focus Electric is easy because there is a comparable Gas version to compare costs with. The Electric version lists at $40,000, and is equipped like a fully loaded gas Focus Titanium at $30,000. So the Electric motor and battery systems cost $10,000 more than the gasoline engine and fuel systems. But the Federal Government / Taxpayers are giving $7,500 back, and many states are adding another $2,500. So the net price in the end can be the same - no extra cost for the Electric Drive over the Gas!

     

    Now, the Focus Titanium gets about 33 mpg combined at $4 a gallon. To keep it simple, suppose you have a 33 mile round trip daily commute; then you are in it for a gallon (thus $4) a day, or $20 a week, or $1000 a year or $6000 over 6 years of ownership.

     

    The Focus Electric gets about 75 miles out of the 25 kWhr battery, or about 3 miles per kW-hr, at 12 cents per kW-hr off the grid. The 33 mile commute would require 11 kW-hr per day, or $1.32 per day, or $6.60 per week, or $330 per year, or $1980 over 6 years of ownership. That is a savings of some $3000 and change.

     

    To be fair, setting up a 6.6 kW charger in your garage, to allow for 3-4 hour charges from "empty" might cost you $1500 at Best Buy, and you will need an electrician to install it, if your house has a 240V service capability. Most do.

     

    Anyway the Focus Electric costs about a third in variable (fuel/energy) costs, and is a wash on the fixed costs, aside from the fast charger; and the savings in fuel costs more than pays for that charger. Twice. So maybe you can buy a second one for your work, and still end up ahead.

     

    But also consider that there are no spark plugs, air and oil filters and oil changes, or other routine maintenance things associated with the internal combustion engine, at, say, $200 per year. Yes, you will still need to do the brakes and wipers and tires. The motor coolant never gets much hotter than 50 degC, so there is no danger of boiling and spoiling like in an ICE at 100+ degC. Incidently, the saved maintenance costs of the gasoline engine would more than pay for the electrician to install your chargers at home and work.

     

    So, yeah, we've heard that argument before. Next.
    2 Mar 2013, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Please list all the states that are offering a $2500 tax credit.
    2 Mar 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Also the batteries are made in Michigan. But yes - some folks consider Michigan to be a third world country, so there you go.

     

    And it is the state politicians that are making proposals to tax all vehicles by miles driven, in order to regain revenues not only from the electric vehicles, but from all the new vehicles that get 20-30% more mpg than the older ones. If you have not noticed, gasoline fuel consumption in the US is down from prior years. Some of that is due to people driving less, and some is due to more fuel efficient vehicles on the road. EVs are just one of many contributors to the states' "loss of revenues" from reduced gasoline taxes.
    2 Mar 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    "Alex "Not even remotely true." Really? Let us go through the numbers shall we?"

     

    Tdot, that's a lot of words and numbers to not prove your point. My numbers on battery costs are accurate, as well as the expected life. Not really in dispute. Using subsidies in your argument doesn't take a way from the fact that you are advocating the substitution of foreign batteries for foreign oil, and all paid for upfront. The money leaves the country, adding to our trade deficit, regardless if the buyer pays for it or we all collectively pay through a subsidy.

     

    As far as your cost of maintenance concern, modern cars cost very little to maintain. Your example of a Ford Focus is oil change every 7,500-10,000 miles, air filter every 30,000, plugs and coolant at 100,000, and transmission fluid and filter at 150,000 miles. That's well under $1,000 for the first 100,000 miles, or the life of the battery.

     

    And don't get me started on the range issues. This car usable only for local trips and commutes. If you ski, fish, hike, raft, i.e. have an active lifestyle, you would need another car. EV's are not economically efficient, not ready for prime time. This will most likely change in the next 10-20 years, but currently are really relegated to toy status.
    2 Mar 2013, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    "Also the batteries are made in Michigan. But yes - some folks consider Michigan to be a third world country, so there you go."

     

    Prove the cells are made in Michigan. They are made in Asia. Link me up, pls.

     

    As far as your gas consumption "facts" go, read this, then come back to me:

     

    http://bit.ly/XOGva4

     

    And when you post "facts", please back them up with links. or something. anything that's not just your opinion...
    2 Mar 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Since tdot was unable (or unwilling) to post them, here is the complete list of all the states that offer a $2500 rebate:

     

    California
    3 Mar 2013, 08:13 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Here ya go.

     

    http://on.freep.com/HH...

     

    http://bit.ly/XPrIvS

     

    http://bit.ly/WB243a

     

    http://fxn.ws/XPrJjm
    3 Mar 2013, 09:13 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Sorry - I missed your uncivil, snarky, and covert-aggressive requests for additional info and sources. Here you go...

     

    1. Correction - I should have said "and many states are adding up to another $2,500", or else "and most buyers are getting up to another $2,500 from their state".

     

    2. Californians, who get the full $2500, buy one third of all new plug-in electric vehicles, and a quarter of all hybrids in the US. In terms of numbers of buyers, many are indeed getting the $2500 from their state, for a total of $10,000 off the list price.

     

    But please, feel free to continue to split hairs, if it makes you feel better about your position.

     

    http://edmu.in/WB3xGO
    3 Mar 2013, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • bbor55
    , contributor
    Comments (152) | Send Message
     
    You are right, California is the only state with exactly $2,500 rebate (unless Tennessee has not yet sold 1,000 vehicles) but guess what, others actually have better, or at least similar deals:

     

    Colorado up to $6,000 rebate (75% of cost premium)
    California $2,500 rebate
    Tennessee $2,500 on first 1,000 cars purchased, not sure where this currently stands
    South Carolina $1,500
    West Virginia up to $7,500
    Pennsylvania $1,000
    Utah $750 (or $2500 for conversions which is interesting)
    Oklahoma if I understand correctly offers ~$5,000
    Washington State, Maryland, Rhode Island, sales tax exemption, which would be ~$2,500 depending.
    Hawaii $4,500

     

    And other benefits here and there..

     

    http://bit.ly/Ne2l6O
    3 Mar 2013, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    No, you should have said "and California is adding $2500 to the incentive." Not "many other states."

     

    And all your links show the failure of battery makers in the US, not their success. Was that intentional?
    3 Mar 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    OK, so please produce your own figures and share them, so we can point out the flaws and omissions. Just don't try to compare a loaded Focus Electric at $40k with a base Focus at $16k, of course those numbers don't work. It would be like comparing the $30k Titanium model with the base car - it is not going to go twice as far, or twice the speed, or last twice as long. You are paying for options and features. Same with the Electric.

     

    If you set aside the hatred and bias and misconceptions, you will see the numbers can work for a Focus Electric, and comparable EVs, if you open your mind a little. Nobody said you would be rolling in cash if you bought an EV instead of a gas. There is however a very good chance of breaking even in terms of total costs over the term of ownership, or the life of the vehicle, and the satisfaction of driving an EV on short commutes some would consider to be priceless.

     

    The range issue for EVs is an irrelevant diversion from the discussion. We are talking about commuting range. Most EVs can manage the average commute, with overnight charging, so the arbitrary short range claim is irrelevant and moot.

     

    Using your argument, logically nobody should ever buy any sort of fuel efficient, compact or sporty car, because, in your words, "If you ski, fish, hike, raft, i.e. have an active lifestyle, you would need another car". Wow.

     

    But as a counter-argument to your off-topic and illogical diversion, just exactly why would you want to use that big heavy gas-guzzling trailer-hauling SUV, which you would need to take into the wilderness on a fishing and rafting trip, on your daily commute to work? Would it not make better sense to use a fuel efficient or electric car for that, and save the SUV for what it was designed? Of course, if your work commute involves hauling a ton of tools and sacks of concrete, then you are correct - an EV would be inappropriate for that commute.

     

    Most families have more than one car, ideally a commuter or two for getting to work and/or school, and a larger something else for hauling the stuff, including the family to church, and on vacations, and for hunting trips with the boys.
    3 Mar 2013, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    I think you are directing your remarks to two different people, but that's OK.

     

    Hey if you can afford a $40,000 vehicle to putter around town, go for it.

     

    Just don't make me help pay for it, OK?
    3 Mar 2013, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Oh I see. And what about the other states mentioned by bbor55? Did you miss that? Ready to concede yet?

     

    ripper, if you want to disagree with the concept of state subsidies on EVs, fine, we get it, and feel free stick with it on principle. Just don't come on here and deflect and divert and make up canards and illogical and fallacious arguments and myths, and ignore the facts just because you dislike the possible conclusions.

     

    Have a nice day.
    3 Mar 2013, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    ripper - What about the other states mentioned by bbor55?

     

    Still making stuff up?

     

    You denied that batteries were being made in Michigan and elsewhere in the States, and claimed that they are only made in Asia. You asked for proof that batteries were being made in Michigan. I provided that. Just because the battery makers in Michigan and elsewhere in the States are struggling to earn profits, and are in debt, does not mean they are not making batteries.

     

    Again, way to try to divert and deflect again. Is that your main skill? Smoke and mirrors? Attempting to change the subject when you are losing the argument? Well, you aren't very good at it, since you are getting caught.

     

    You are now proven to be incorrect, and therefore either ignorant, or a liar. Which is it? We need to know, for future discussions on the matter.
    3 Mar 2013, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Here is probably a better listing of incentives:
    http://bit.ly/SLteNj
    3 Mar 2013, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    For the record, I never said anything about batteries not being made in the US (that was Alex_G).
    3 Mar 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • vallies
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    So, then the reason for the miles driven is the loss at the pumps. Now at least I know why, and some of the article hype in some of either way papers can be debunked. " Let's do this" Thank You. At least I have a starting argument for those arm waving I can't believe they are doing this to us individuals.I still love Natgas for the Ferts and Industrial space for now, and I would still like to see the Keystone built. Rome wasn't built in a day and this should help with the transition. There is a lot of byproducts from oil and companies would love the lower input costs. Are we every going to re patriot the foreign taxes? Hopefully someday we can stop taxing our exports so much.
    3 Mar 2013, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    “Considering the lack of demand for electric vehicles, despite billions of dollars from the Obama administration that were supposed to stimulate it, it’s not surprising what has happened with LG Chem. Just because a ton of money is poured into a product does not mean that people will buy it,” Paul Chesser, an associate fellow with the National Legal and Policy Center

     

    Yep, that about covers it...
    3 Mar 2013, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    "Using your argument, logically nobody should ever buy any sort of fuel efficient, compact or sporty car, because, in your words, "If you ski, fish, hike, raft, i.e. have an active lifestyle, you would need another car". Wow."

     

    My point, apparently lost on you, is that you need a car that has a range greater than 70 miles...Having 2 cars when you only need one is a blatant waste of resources. And you don't need " that big heavy gas-guzzling trailer-hauling SUV" to go to the wilderness, you generally need something that has a range over 70 miles.

     

    You're an EV guy, I get it, but in many ways the economics just don't make sense yet. Period. I have no hatred or bias, i just look at the numbers, and right now, they just don't make sense.

     

    I'm guessing you work for Ford and/or live in Michigan...
    3 Mar 2013, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Or works for Al Gore.
    3 Mar 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    No, we simply disagree on the economics of EVs and Hybrids. I showed my numbers, you showed yours (sort of) along with a lot of myths and argumentative diversions.

     

    So, now your arguments have finally degenerated into Argumentum Ad Hominem attacks (against the person, or the person's life), rather than sticking to the issue and the numbers. Well played! That certainly puts me in my place ... except you are wrong on all counts.

     

    Perhaps next you want to invoke the Argumentum ad Hitlorum, aka Reductio ad Hitlerum, or Argumentum ad Nazium, essentially claiming that anyone who disagrees with your views or politics are either neo-Nazis or Hitler lovers? Or maybe Argumentum ad Collectivism - for Socialist Marxist-Leninist Communists?
    3 Mar 2013, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Tschurin
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    For the record: Volt beat sales of the Prius plug-in hybrid. The regular Prius hybrid is one of the top-20 selling automobiles and sold more than ten times the number of Volts in February.
    2 Mar 2013, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas Azzara
    , contributor
    Comments (458) | Send Message
     
    Tschurin.. Thanks for mentioning the GM Volt only beat the Prius plug in sales - not TMs entire Prius line. I knew the Volt could not possibly out sell TM's Prius hybrids. This was a poorly drafted SA report. Prius is cleaning house in California sales (and the rest of the USA) with their hybrids, and it's a totally amazing story to see how their hybrids are dominating and selling to US consumers.
    No other auto maker has an answer to match TM's hybrids.
    I'm renting a Prius for the first time on March 20th on a trip to Miami. I expect it to be a little "sluggish" at the gas pedal, but 105 mph and 103 mpg (plug in version) is impressive - especially when matched against all the competition has to offer, including Honda, who I believe is the second best builder of automobiles for consumers in the world today.

     

    Nobody is building EVs that can sell like ICE mobiles. The EV looks like it is here to stay nevertheless, as charging stations are going up everywhere, not just TSLA sponsored chargers.

     

    I think TSLA will fail. It's a one model a year venture into uncharted waters, and the other "big time" auto makers will someday put Tesla motors in your memory bank.

     

    You have to be able to make money to survive in the business world and TSLA can't do this today and never will tomorrow.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Thomas - Ford's C-Max Hybrid and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid are right up there in terms of performance with the Prius V and Prius Plug-In models, and they cost less. You might want to give them a test drive and compare performance specifications.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/13xAtBS
    2 Mar 2013, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • berylrb
    , contributor
    Comments (2179) | Send Message
     
    Prius plugin is more economical than the Ford offering for Long commutes
    2 Mar 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Beryl - According to the EPA, the C-Max Energi has longer electric range (21 miles) than the Prius Plug-in (11 miles), getting 100 mpge versus 95 respectively. Nobody really knows how to deal with those crazy "mpge" numbers, but it is not really important.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/13xAtBS

     

    If your commute one-way is 21 miles or less, the fully charged C-Max Energi wins, having burned no gasoline, while the Prius Plug-In exhausts the battery at 11 miles, starts the engine, and burns an even fifth of a gallon or so, for the last 10 miles.

     

    With the Prius getting 50 mpg combined, and the C-Max Energi getting 43 mpg, plus 10 bonus miles of EV range, you would have to have at least an 82.5 mile commute before the Prius catches up with the Energi in efficiency. Do the math.

     

    Yes, once the gas engines are running, the smaller, lighter, 4-passenger subcompact Prius Plug-In does get better mpg than the larger 5-passenger compact C-Max Energi. That's the physics in play. But the C-Max still wins overall for under 80-some miles of commuting on a full charge.

     

    So, just how long is you commute?
    3 Mar 2013, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • berylrb
    , contributor
    Comments (2179) | Send Message
     
    I'm one of the million or so that commute from the upper peninsula (San Francisco) to the South Bay (Mountain View or San Jose) every day.

     

    My roundtrip is 112 miles, hence I said "long" commute!

     

    The Prius plug-in would accomplish this trip at about 72mpge, the C-Max would be in the high 50's.

     

    Your mileage may vary! Check out PriusChat.com to learn how to drive a hybrid with regenerative braking. Check out the reviews, it's pretty common in reviews pitting the top PHEV's head to head for long commutes Prius wins. Between 11-50 miles I would pick the C-Max over the Volt, but only based upon headroom.
    18 May 2013, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Tom in Texas
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    "No other auto maker has an answer to match TM's hybrids."

     

    Check out Ford's new C-Max. In their competition with Prius, they claim more mpg and more hp.
    2 Mar 2013, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • berylrb
    , contributor
    Comments (2179) | Send Message
     
    Yep, that's what they claim! Check out above for real world commutes and which is on top.
    18 May 2013, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • Charliepetit
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Re Mr. Price's comment on ending tax credit subsidy for Tesla S sedans, the program cuts off after, I believe, 200,000 model sales. That's a lot of Tesla S models (disclosure: one is in our garage). It does seem sensible to end the tax break sooner ( than now planned) for high-end cars but not this soon, just a few months after full production begins. Tesla, by the way, seems a good bet to pay off the full loan on the newly negotiated sked. It would take an epic collapse of the market or the company (Solyndra had a good product, only so-so mgt, and got torpedoed by a solar panel price collapse) for Tesla to default. It could happen, that's why the stock remains speculative, but so far things look mildly positive with an immense potential upside. And yes, our car has been dead reliable long distance traveler. The electronic interface glitches have been a temporary annoyance, quickly fixed remotely, and the performance is indeed electrifying.
    2 Mar 2013, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • markwbrooks
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    These comments are fun to read! But on a Serious note, what these sales figures show is that the average new car consumer is just beginning to struggle up the learning curve around understanding and trusting plug-in vehicles. Only a tiny fraction of new vehicles being purchased today can plug into a wall socket for some or all of its fuel needs. Intense lobbying efforts by a vast array of vested interests also appear to be dampening the quick adoption of the new technology. This will ensure that the tipping point for the mass adoption of plug-in vehicles is still years away.

     

    So you boys dont have to worry, your oil stock options are safe... for a bit longer.
    2 Mar 2013, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Fitzsimmons
    , contributor
    Comments (8085) | Send Message
     
    EVs are a joke and a distraction, supported by the big oil and coal lobbies, to keep us addicted to gasoline and coal instead of doing what will actually work:

     

    ***** NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION AND NGVs *****
    2 Mar 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    MF - and just who is promoting the Natural Gas and NGV agenda?
    3 Mar 2013, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1990) | Send Message
     
    I'll Second Mr. Fitzsimmons on Nat Gas as a vehicle fuel and the NEED for our Car Makers to turn out MORE Nat Gas Vehicles!!!

     

    Come on FORD, be the Leader in this Area?
    3 Mar 2013, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Ford has many vehicles that can be converted to Natural Gas. Just check with your nearby Ford dealerships, they would be happy to set you up with a vehicle for conversion.

     

    Unfortunately nobody seems to want them, outside of a few taxi, shuttle, and city bus fleets, and natural gas companies using them for testing and advertising.

     

    Create some demand for NGVs, and the automakers will happily supply plenty of them. They already build as many as they can sell now.

     

    http://bit.ly/XPID1o
    3 Mar 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    The Department of Energy has an online calculator where you can compare vehicles. I compared three models of a Ford Focus; an all gas, a hybrid and an electric. The electric model was cheaper by $1,000/year, but the gas models were $10,000 less.

     

    Annual CO2 emissions were the same across the board (roughly) as it calculates for emissions used in electric generation. So no advantage there.
    http://1.usa.gov/13xNjjD

     

    A fully electric car may be right for you if you can answer yes to some or all of the following:

     

    *You have easy access to a power socket overnight or a local high performance charge point
    *You have access to a second vehicle for very long journeys, or:
    *Your journeys are typically short and would not normally approach the range of the car your considering. On average people do tend to make short journeys (less than 40 miles per day).

     

    Insurance rates are a bit higher, and repairs can be expensive if the batteries are damaged.
    2 Mar 2013, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • mburklow
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    I own a Volt, and none of your numbers can I find or do I experience. I live on the west cost with hydro generated electricity. helping the grid by charging at night. Very low CO2. I used to spend $400 a month on fuel, now I spend about $20. That equals a lot more savings than your numbers would imply. Maybe you guys should leave the truthful writing to the guys who own them. My insurance is actually cheaper than my other two older vehicles with progressive so I don't know where you get your insurance numbers either.
    4 Mar 2013, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    If you have three vehicles on one policy, the third is going to be cheaper. I don't know what your other vehicles are: are they 2010 Suburbans or 2010 Corolla?

     

    If your $400/month vehicle was/is a Chevy Tahoe, and you're now using a Volt, sure that makes sense - but did you get rid of the Tahoe?
    4 Mar 2013, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • vallies
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    The Volt did decently, it will take time. More money in the pocket for the consumer. What do you think of re-patrioting foreign taxes, cutting the loop holes. Do you think that would help offset some of the taxes placed on our exporters? I still like the idea of building the pipeline, selling off a percentage of that oil. That should generate revenue and cut down on the imports, making the trade deficit better. That might also help with generating a surplus. We once had a deficit with tourism from China in 2006. It is now about a 4.4 billion dollar surplus. I am always looking for ways to help with Consumer Purchasing Power. Keeping a solid stable dollar for me is important. What do you think? Keep an eye on Donna Harman's comments in regards to Gina McCarthy.
    4 Mar 2013, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    The Keystone XL won't help US producers, just Canadian ones. It might actually raise gasoline prices for some Americans, but reduce it for others, so that economic value is likely a wash. I have mixed feelings about it (the pipeline.)

     

    I'm not sure what you mean by "re-patrioting foreign taxes" unless you mean re-patrioting foreign profits. I think there should be some sort of accommodation made for corporations, but I doubt anything will happen with the current deadlock in Congress.

     

    And I don't know what you mean by "the Volt did decently - more money in the pocket for the consumer." How can an auto that costs $89,000 to produce, sell for $45,000 and obtain up to $15000 in tax credits be good for the average American?
    4 Mar 2013, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Where batteries come from:

     

    In August 2009, President Obama announced a $2.4 billion grant program designed to create an electric vehicle battery industry in the United States. Three years on, the factories funded by those grants are sitting idle or operating well below their originally intended capacity.

     

    The problem is simple. People aren’t buying enough electric cars, and most of those that are being sold contain batteries made by established battery makers in Asia.

     

    It’s still early days for electric vehicles, but the idle factories point to the difficulty of starting a new high-tech industry from scratch.

     

    Some grant recipients have had to scramble to find customers. Dow Kokam, for example, which was awarded a grant of $161 million, has lined up a few customers, but no major automakers yet. Last week, it announced it would supply batteries for a small electric vehicle made by the French automaker Lumeneo. The batteries are less than a third of the size of those in full-size electric vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf.

     

    Even grant recipients that do have agreements to supply major manufacturers are struggling. LG Chem, for example, supplies battery cells for Chevrolet’s Volt. It built a factory in Holland, Michigan, with the help of an award of $151.4 million. But the plant isn’t producing any batteries yet. Volt sales have been lower than originally anticipated, and the battery cells for the Volt so far come from Korea, where LG Chem is based; even there, it’s still operating at only 20 to 30 percent of capacity, Anderman says. Companies in Asia had a head start on U.S. batteries companies because of their existing capacity for producing batteries for portable electronics or hybrid cars.

     

    Hybrids, which sell in the millions, provide a much larger market for batteries. But the vast majority of hybrids use nickel-metal-hydride batteries, not the newer lithium-ion batteries these factories were built to make.

     

    So far only a few automakers make electric vehicles, so electric vehicle sales could still increase as more automakers bring them to market. Grant recipient A123 Systems will supply the upcoming Chevrolet Spark. But GM has said it expects production of that vehicle to remain small.

     

    Other automakers, including Toyota, are backing away from their original electric vehicle plans. Renault and Nissan are standing behind plans to push forward with electric vehicles, but they already get their batteries from suppliers in Asia.

     

    Electric vehicles can cost twice as much as a conventional gas-powered vehicle. Yet battery costs will stay high until they can be made at high volumes. Even then, it could take breakthroughs in battery technology (solid state batteries) or years of incremental advances, as was the case with the Toyota Prius, to make electric vehicles widely competitive.

     

    A Holland, Mich., factory owned by LG Chem Ltd.,was half-funded by a $142 million government grant and estimated to add some 440 jobs building battery cells for General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet Volt and other vehicles.

     

    When demand for the plant's batteries didn't meet expectations, the company filled orders with cells made at a factory in South Korea, leaving the Michigan plant largely idle, according to the report by the Department of Energy's Inspector General, Gregory Friedman.

     

    LG Chem said in a statement that production delays at the Michigan facility were "market-driven," adding that it is "developing specific plans for the start of production." The company said it regretted that it applied for reimbursement for "employment costs that were not allowed" under its U.S. grant.

     

    The inspector general said that to avoid layoffs at the factory LG Chem paid idle workers $1.6 million in the third quarter of last year, about half of which was covered by its U.S. grant, even though there was nothing for them to do. The workers played board games, watched movies, and volunteered at local animal shelters during regular work hours, Mr. Friedman said. LG Chem has since paid back the government's share of those charges.

     

    The facility has produced test battery cells, but none have equipped Chevrolet Volts. LG Chem officials told Mr. Friedman's office that shifting production to Michigan now would "result in financial losses on battery cells produced in the U.S.," according to the report.

     

    ***

     

    Last fall, financially troubled battery maker A123 Systems, which operates plants in Livonia and Romulus, filed for bankruptcy and sold its automotive assets to Wanxiang Group Corp. of China for $256.6 million.

     

    This after Michigan and the federal government invested nearly $400 million in grants and tax credits in A123 Systems. A123 made batteries for Fisker, which may also be forced into bankruptcy soon.

     

    I can find no other electric car battery makers in the US.
    3 Mar 2013, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Oregon government officials continue to consider a per-mileage tax for plug-in and highly fuel efficient vehicles. The reason? To boost road-improvement funds in one of the country's most progressive states, the Register-Guard from Eugene, OR, reports.

     

    Earlier this week, state officials held the first public hearing for House Bill 2453, which would institute a per-mile fee for model year 2015 (and later) vehicles that get at least 55 miles per gallon. The fee may be about a cent and a half per mile, which would equal about $230 annually for a plug-in vehicle owner who drives 15,000 miles.

     

    The bill is being considered because gas taxes fund about 60 percent of Oregon's road improvements, and the state is one of the more advanced when it comes to the adoption of plug-in vehicles. Oregon, which accounts for about 1.3 percent of the US population, is home to almost six percent of the country's publicly accessible EV charging stations, according to US Department of Energy figures.

     

    Earlier this year, Oregon proposing a per-mile tax measure on 55 mpg-plus vehicles. The state had previously considered applying a 1.2-cent-per-mile tax, but that proposal was rejected in 2011. Meanwhile, Washington State started adding $100 to annual registration fees for electric vehicle owners. Texas is among other states considering extra registration fees for plug-in vehicle drivers.
    3 Mar 2013, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1990) | Send Message
     
    A recent quote from David Fish; "we're from the government and we're here to help". Whoa, NO MORE HELP President Obama!!
    4 Mar 2013, 02:48 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

     

    For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

     

    A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

     

    While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

     

    So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

     

    To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

     

    If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

     

    Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

     

    Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

     

    Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors. This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

     

    The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.
    11 Mar 2013, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    Thx rlp, nice to get relevant numbers when looking at the big picture...
    11 Mar 2013, 09:49 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|