Douglas Korthof

The Horns of a Dilemma: What Lies Ahead?

It's really simple: no dilemma at all.

RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH, and impose a $5/gallon gasoline tax.

The very rich don't spend their money on production, they ship it to offshore tax hideouts; and a rise in gas taxes would start to penalize Big Oil and also force production of Electric cars.

Big Oil has been getting a free ride for too long; we pay their military bill, subsidize refineries, pay for the health damages caused by burning oil (kids raised in proximity to car exhaust have more permanent lung damage the closer they are), oil wars, urban runoff and other problems cause by burning oil.

About time to stop pandering to big oil, and start clamping down on free rides for the very rich. Let them pay their share, instead of slacking.

Funds Hold General Motors to the Bitter End

I think the execs bailed out, like rats leaving the sinking ship, selling at $1.60 or so -- many funds dumped, also.

Don't forget the main reason GM failed, hiring Lutz and refusing to sell the EV1 electric car, arresting its own customers who tried to buy the EV1, crushing instead of selling their own product, and selling control of the battery needed for the Toyota Prius (which GM owned!) to Chevron Oil.

Boy, that were dumb, DUMB, D U M B. Only boneheads like Wagoner, Lutz and Fritz could screw the pooch that badly.

Chevy Volt Test Drive: GM's Future Shows Promise

The problem is, GM is using the WRONG BATTERY if it wants the volt to last more than 100,000 miles.

For a 40-mile-range EV (that's what the EV part of EREV means), you don't have to use expensive, short-lived Lithium, you could even use lead-acid. The 1999 and 1997 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead batteries had over 100 miles range on a charge.

Because GM pretends that it has to use Lithium, it's forced to buy 16 kWh of Lithium (to access 8 kWh); the 400 lb. battery pack is actually heavier than an equivalent NiMH pack. 400 lbs. of NiMH contain 12 kWh of energy, which would carry the VOLT up to 60 miles in EV-only mode.

Moreover, NiMH is the proven EV technology, with over 13,000,000 miles of proven success; there are many Toyota RAV4-EV with NiMH over 100,000 miles of driving.

So far, there's never been a Lithium EV that's gone more than 50,000 miles without significant battery degradation; also, the Lithium pack doesn't recycle (Lithium is just discarded, because it's too expensive to recycle unless it has Cobalt additives).

Nickel has a junk value; the Nickel "stored" in the EV fleet can be melted down and reused after the batteries wear out (perhaps over 200,000 miles, we don't know yet).

Most Ni is used in stainless steel and monel, so there's plenty of it; and most of it comes from recycled metal junk, so it can easily be reused, like Lead.

So why is GM trying to kid us, pretending that it has to use Lithium for what is essentially a 40-mile-range EV??

Shows that GM is a LIAR, and explains why Lutz is leaving this year, so that he doesn't have to be around when the hoax of the VOLT is exposed in 2011.

The Most Significant Green Shoot Starts to Wilt

100,000 jobs lost at dealers -- well, those are not value-added, are they?

GM's overhead, from incompetent, overpaid losers like Wagoner and Lutz to fat margins for bloated dealers, is their big problem; and it arose from a culture of neglect, arrogance and animosity toward the customer and their own workers.

100,000 jobs at dealers -- another way to look at this, all those guys lounging around in cowboy hats waiting for suckers to wander by and be conned into buying a gas guzzler -- means $10 BILLIION savings (at $100,000 total cost per person fired, including burden and allocation, etc.).

Lean car dealers do it with less persons, lower margins, and more cars sold per square foot of floor space. Because, unlike GM, they have cars that people want to buy, and because companies like Toyota pay attention to customer requests.

GM jailed its own customers for trying to buy the EV1 (and failure to disperse, blocking the sidewalk, and so on); think of that!! What company survives by jailing its cash customers and refusing to sell their product??

Now if they would only decrease the money wasted on big display ads, expensive real estate (someone pays the mortgage on all that prime real estate on which the GM gas-guzzlers and chrysler monster-mobiles sit!) and other waste, fraud or abuse.

Ford's Public Offering Is a Smart Move

"Dilution" is a loaded term, and inaccurate. Ford already has a lot of shares; it's not a "dilution" unless the new shares are sold below the current share price (informally), or below book value (technically).

A fair stock offering should not undercut current shareholders at all.

No doubt, Ford may decline a bit in the short run, due to hysteria and misinformation; I am short Ford Puts, so will expect that I will receive a number of shares. But IMO in the long run, the additional capital will make Ford a stronger company.

And if profits ever come back, then Ford might return to its traditional price range in the 20's, Ford could easily make $1 per share profit.

Ford survived, despite the specter of GM's self-destruction, and thanks to good management. We appreciated Bill Ford's stopping the crushing of RangerEV.

GM was controlled by funds more highly invested in Big Oil, while Ford is controlled by the Ford family, which evidently wants Ford to survive and isn't as beholden to Big Oil.

Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

One correction:

'...There is mention of Bolivian reserves, which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” by believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types...'

s.b.

'...There is mention of Bolivian <b><i>reso... which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” <b><i>but&... believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types..."

"resources" are unproven so far as economically viable for extraction; "reserves" are bankable. For example, gold "resources" can be 10 million pounds, but if it's less than 1 gm per ton, it's not viable to mine it with current technology and at current prices, and can't be considered "reserves".

Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

Chevron's use of IP to suppress use of NiMH batteries and their use in plug-in cars violates laws against unfair trade practices IMO.

In addition, use of oil money to buy up EV battery patents goes against the very idea of patent rights, which are intended to promote the improvement of technology.

In this case, Toyota was penalized for improving the NiMH batteries, and their use was in practice suppressed until Chevron's rights are either stripped away by the Courts or until they expire.


On Apr 20 06:47 AM Douglas Korthof wrote:

> Very important article and true as far as it goes.
>
> FYI, the 1999 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead-acid batteries had a range of
> over 100 miles on a charge, and would work for the VOLT (the volt
> Lithium battery is 400 lbs., if that were PSB 1260 it would have
> 8 kWh, enouigh to go 40 miles in all-electric range).
>
> Nickel metal hydride batteries developed by Toyota-Panasonic's unit
> PEVE proved to actually last more than 10 years and more than 100,000
> miles, and are still running on the roads of California.
>
> Why is no one talking about lead or NIMH? Because GM is still lying,
> or painfully ignorant, about batteries.
>
> Lutz himself knows nothing about batteries; recall that he was CEO
> of EXIDE battery corp. when it filed for bankruptcy due to excessive
> debt and over-enthusiastic bombast about "Li Ion" batteries.
>
> Petersen is correct about lead-acid.
>
> General Motors bought up control of the NiMH patent rights in 1994,
> trying to suppress its use, claiming that it would not work in cars
> because of the heat problem. When Toyota improved NiMH so that it
> solved that problem, GM sold control of the patent rights to Texaco
> on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it was bringing
> the patents to Chevron (Standard Oil of California). The year after
> the merger was consummated, Chevron funded a lawsuit by its COBASYS
> unit against Toytota.
>
> In Dec., 2002, Toyota agreed to stop selling the Toyota RAV4-EV,
> which we are still driving to this day, and Toyota stopped making
> the EV-95 improved NiMH battery that GM had claimed could not be
> done. Toyota had to pay Chevron et al $30,000,000, and to this day,
> you are unable to buy the EV-95 NiMH battery.
>
> That's why we are all driving on pre-2002 battery packs, which are
> still running fine.
>
> NiMH or lead-acid are the solution; Lithium is a bogus distraction,
> a con-job (at least so far), and a source of many investoer losses.

Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

Very important article and true as far as it goes.

FYI, the 1999 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead-acid batteries had a range of over 100 miles on a charge, and would work for the VOLT (the volt Lithium battery is 400 lbs., if that were PSB 1260 it would have 8 kWh, enouigh to go 40 miles in all-electric range).

Nickel metal hydride batteries developed by Toyota-Panasonic's unit PEVE proved to actually last more than 10 years and more than 100,000 miles, and are still running on the roads of California.

Why is no one talking about lead or NIMH? Because GM is still lying, or painfully ignorant, about batteries.

Lutz himself knows nothing about batteries; recall that he was CEO of EXIDE battery corp. when it filed for bankruptcy due to excessive debt and over-enthusiastic bombast about "Li Ion" batteries.

Petersen is correct about lead-acid.

General Motors bought up control of the NiMH patent rights in 1994, trying to suppress its use, claiming that it would not work in cars because of the heat problem. When Toyota improved NiMH so that it solved that problem, GM sold control of the patent rights to Texaco on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it was bringing the patents to Chevron (Standard Oil of California). The year after the merger was consummated, Chevron funded a lawsuit by its COBASYS unit against Toytota.

In Dec., 2002, Toyota agreed to stop selling the Toyota RAV4-EV, which we are still driving to this day, and Toyota stopped making the EV-95 improved NiMH battery that GM had claimed could not be done. Toyota had to pay Chevron et al $30,000,000, and to this day, you are unable to buy the EV-95 NiMH battery.

That's why we are all driving on pre-2002 battery packs, which are still running fine.

NiMH or lead-acid are the solution; Lithium is a bogus distraction, a con-job (at least so far), and a source of many investoer losses.

Why Obama Was Right to Demand Wagoner's Head

Getting rid of Wagoner is IMPORTANT and VITAL.

Wagoner did not have the gumption to fire White Collar execs who made critical mistakes, such as the "Fiat Fiasco", the crushing of the EV1, GM arresting its own customers, and betting on the wrong cars.

It's not the line workers fault, even the engineers are innocent: Wagoner (and his corps of yes-men, bimbos and buddies) was the problem. Good riddance; now perhaps GM can be forced to produce an Electric car, which we drive every day -- the Toyota RAV4-EV.

Surely, GM can make this EV using proven Nickel Metal Hydride batteries, it has a 120 mile range as an EV (add a small genset, it's an instant super-VOLT).

We don't need research, we need PRODUCTION.

More Bad News for GM

Nothing will work for GM until and unless they get rid of failed GM management!

Starting with dumping Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz.

If keeping the workers working is the only reason for the use of Taxpayer money, then the Taxpayer should require that GM build the cars that Wagoner and Klutz have refused to build: ELECTRIC PLUG-IN CARS.

Don't subsidize gas-guzzlers and failed, bonehead execs!!!

How to Deal with the Automakers' Crisis in Confidence

GM is on its way to DESTRUCTION, not "profitability"
GM profit has nothing to do with union wages, which are only 4.5% of gross revenues. That is, if UAW came to work for 10 cents an hour, GM would still be losing money!

<b>WHAT I'D DO:</B> FIRE FAILED GM MANAGERS, AND PUT IN COMPETENT EXEC WHO WOULD DEMAND DESIGN OF CARS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY!

It's no mistake why people are not buying their junker: they are boring, not exciting, no reason to buy yet another junky gas-guzzler.

People want exciting cars, ELECTRIC drive cars, and many have pledged not to buy a new car until it plugs in.

On Mar 01 09:56 AM lazaris wrote:

> General Motors was well on its way to becoming one of the "most profitable"
> car companies in the world as a result of the 2007 agreement with
> the U.A.W. Seeking Alpha finally has someone on there staff that
> gets it. That this mess has been beyond EVERY carmakers control.
> My only question to you is: What would you do?
> Just take away the retirees pensions?

How to Deal with the Automakers' Crisis in Confidence

About Ford, you are WRONG. Ford has more debt because FMCC is still viable, whereas GM was forced to disgorge GMAC, and its debt is no longer carried on GM's books.

FMCC is still healthy, so its DEBT is matched with ASSETS.

Guddam, does no one know how to think, anymore??


On Mar 01 10:40 AM Miken wrote:

> Please consider the following re: Ford
>
> 1. Ford total debt is $156B vs $97B for GM
> 2. Ford has $13.4B cash plus credit lines of $10.6B. They burned
> thru $21.2B in 2008.
> 3. Ford total liabilities are $234B vs $169B at GM
> 4. Of Fords total debt, $63B is due in 2009.
> 5. Ford's pension funds are underfunded by $11.9B. They contributed
> $1.7B in 2008.
>
> If I were Ford, items 2&amp;4 would greatly concern me. Based on

How to Deal with the Automakers' Crisis in Confidence

Any money given to GM must be on condition that ALL current management be FIRED and replaced with competent execs.

It's not the union that brought GM down, it's stupid management that thinks it needs to shrink.

Incompetent bozos like Wagoner and Lutz.

How to Deal with the Automakers' Crisis in Confidence

Premise is WRONG. It's not unions that are the problem, it's management failures.

Instead of shrinking workforce, they should make the cars that people want to buy, and hire more people.

GM Finds an Unlikely Leadership Opportunity

PS, the VOLT, while carring 16 kWh, can only use 8 kWh. With lead-acid or NiMH, it would only have to pay for, and only carry, 8 kWh for the stated 40 mile range.

You're thinking (wrongly) that 16 kWh is needed to go 40 miles!! Whereas, the real number is 8 kWh to go 40 miles.

The cost of the electric is NEGLIGIBLE.

And if you could buy a plug-in car, the money you saved NOT buying gasoline would pay for a rooftop solar system powerful enough to provide ALL the energy you need.