So can you explain from where you get the notion that "THE" republican position on oil is that it's infinite, because it came from God?

Who told you that's the official Republican position?

JUST ONE TIME, can you dircetly answer a question?

Also, according to you, when Wright tells folks that the deds invented AIDS to kill blacks, you're saying he's "trying to get people to think"?? Think about what?

Spence, every rational person (and you are NOT in that group) knows that Wright is a smutty hate-peddler. Who doesn't even believe his own BS, because he bought a mansion in a neighborhood that's 99.9% white.

But all you can do is COMPLIMENT him by calling him "thought-provoking". I guess you think that peaceful white-supremacist grouos are merely thought-provoking too?

You are really, really pathetic.

My understanding is that RIJIMMY is correct. It's beyond a simple symbolic gesture, you're supposed to believe you're taking in Christ.

It's also why I'm (as a baptized Episcopalian) not invited to take communion at a Catholic service. The do offer hot cider in the basement though.

-spence

I say that your silly, biased article has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year, never mind what they will be for the model year. So you get "crappy" from some moron who says "crummy," but does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car? As far as the rest of the "crap", new technology always costs much more to produce initially. Over time, the actual cost associated with it drop as well as the total cost of the investments. I see the Hannity type simpletons use the same stupid math game to say each volt costs $250,000. Yeah, if they only sold them for one year and never again.

Why do you feel the need to make those judgements or spew them in public?

I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one. One thing that is always referenced when considering new technologies is the price of oil. Things like "This technology is projected to be of comparable costs when oil is at $120/barrel" is a frequent mantra.

I've read that if Iran were to close off the Strait of Hormuz, oil is projected to spike to around $145-160/barrel and then settle $130-150/barrel. If that happens, mark my words, bills about clean energy will be back in Congress and a major call for more clean energy will happen.

I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but Iran "initiating" war would be an ideal case for Obama. Just as was stated during Bush's run for a second term, no president has lost a reelection while the US is at war. Also, after being reelected, oil prices would be through the roof and Obama's clean energy initiatives would actually be more affordable than oil.

Granted, there's a lot of speculation and hearsay in the above, but crazier things have happened. Stay Tuned.

That's the position I've inferred after listening to years of Republican pundits ridicule the Left for concern over sustainable energy.

There is a pretty big population, especially within the black community, that subscribes to the conspiracy making it almost somewhat mainstream in those circles.

Considering that the US Government has done some pretty wicked things, The Tuskegee Syphilis Study for instance, or more recently reported...

Vets feel abandoned after secret drug experiments - CNN.com

So even though I don't believe the US Government invented AIDS, I can have some appreciation for, from Wright's perspective, why he might subscribe to such a theory.

If anything it's slightly less kooky than Jerry Falwell's contention AIDS was Gods answer to homosexuality...and Falwell was perhaps one of the most influential ministers in modern times.

I read an interesting article about black churches, it went into the fact that they can sound really angry or even racist at times...but the message really is meant to be positive reinforcement for the black parishioners. From an outsiders perspective that might appear dated, but the race issue in this country really isn't that old when you think about it...

-spence

JD, leave your wallet home. :hihi:

OK Spence, I did the math for you.
Obama's first 3+years in office gas has gone up 200%.

Gas was down-9% when Bush left the office.

When prices rose after Bush was elected he was blamed because it was said he
and Cheney were oilmen and profiting from it.
If so why would they want to bring down the price of oil 9% from the time
elected to the end of their terms?

TODAY...

GM laying off 1300 due to low Volt sales

byJoel Gehrke

General Motors Co. announced the temporary suspension of Chevrolet Volt production and the layoffs of 1300 employees, as the company is cutting Volt manufacturing to meet lower-than-expected demand for the electric cars.

"Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand," GM spokesman Chris Lee said. The car company had hoped to sell 45,000 Chevy Volts in America this year, according to the Detrot News, but has only sold about 1,626 over the first two months of 2012.

"GM blamed the lack of sales in January on “exaggerated” media reports and the federal government's investigation into Volt batteries catching fire, which officially began in November and ended Jan. 21," the Ann Arbor (Mich.) News reported.

The laid-off employees will be rehired April 23rd, when GM resumes production of the Volt.



I think Solyndra did the same thing just before they went belly up:)

The point Jeffy was making, was that, yes, Bush was blamed, but all his defenders were saying it was beyond his control. Now the same defenders (or at least their idealogs) are blaming Obama....

the difference is that while the causes may not be under the control of the president, some solutions are, Bush was willing to take action and I believe Clinton actually tapped into the strategic reserves...which was controversial...this administration is perfectly content with high energy prices..they promised them if you recall

"has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year"

That's interesting. All of a sudden you sound like a data expert. If that's true, I can only imagine why you compared 3 years of Obama debt to 8 years of Bush debt. Now that's a real head-scratcher...

Let me ask you this, Zimmy. Is NBC biased against green energy? Because here's an article from MSNBC, an affiliate of NBC, which is very liberal...

News Headlines

Some key quotes...

"With sales lagging and inventories building, GM has decided to idle production of the Chevy Volt for five weeks. During that time, about 1,300 workers will temporarily be laid off."

"so far, Volt demand has fallen well short of original expectations. "

"when GM launched the Volt, it boldly targeted sales of 10,000 in 2011 and 60,000 in 2012. Last year, GM sold 7,671 "

OK. so even with a federal rebate of $7500, they still missed sales numbers by almost 25%, and now they need to lay production workers off. I'm sure Warren Buffet is dying to get a piece of this action.

Zimmy, when they make an electric car for $20,000 that performs the way a family needs it to perform, I'll be first in line. When massive federal subsidies can't convince people to buy this thing, that's called a flop. I'm not saying I like that. I'm just saying what it is.

"does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car?"

You keep talking about the performance of the car. This article, like the last one I posted, mentioned the as-yet unexplained battery fires, here's a quote...

"Then the controversy and investigation into Volt battery fires left a cloud hanging over the electric car. "

Zimmy, from where are you getting your info that this car has awesome performance? If i'm plunking down $40,000 for a car, I don't want to have to stop every 10 miles to plug it in for 12 hours, and on top of that, during those brief drives between re-charging, I have to remember to wrap my newborn in a fire blanket so he doesn't get burned to death? yeah, I'll go down and get mine tomorrow.

People don't want the car, Zimmy. If the car performed well, why don't people want it? Does everyone in America work for big oil, and that's why they won't buy it? For $40,000, you can get a big, comfy sedan, that actually has the high performance you're referring to.

I guess NBC gets its talking points from Shell Oil?

I can get a really nice used car for less than 10 grand and have more than 30 grand left to spend on gas :uhuh:

Which, by the time Obama is through, might just be enough for a full tank of gas.

The Volt has unexplained battery fires, but Zimmy is ready to give it 2 thumbs up for performance.

$40K for a car that may spontaneously combust around your family.

You make some very compelling points. But I expect gas to hit at least $5 this summer, and that's right when folks will be thinking about the election. $5 gas will not play well for Democrats. If this wasn't an election year for Obama, $5 gas would indeed be good or his green energy agenda (even though it would be bad for all of us).

I never thought about a conflict increasing his chances...

Good luck in AC, don't chase any inside straights.

Jim, please understand I am done responding to you for now. I previously ignored your posts for awhile because I felt any discussion was just a waste of time. I am done again. You can call checkmate if you want, but please understand it is not an issue of me thinking that you are too good at making your points and I can't keep up. I am just bored. Your comments like having to stop every 12 miles to plug it in demonstrate that in this case, and some others you really have no idea what you are talking about. It is a plug in hybrid that goes between 25 and 50 miles on electric only, then runs on gas. More hyperbole or clueless? Hyperbole gets old... Here is some links for you...

2012 Chevrolet Volt Reviews, Pictures and Prices | U.S. News Best Cars

2012 Chevrolet Volt Consumer Reviews

oh also...

your article said 3200 volts sold. 7671 sold for the year as of Decmeber 31, 2011. You really need me to do the math for you?

you are pretty funny...here's the best attempt at a positive article that I can find...of course sales are so strong that they are scaling back production and laying of 1300:uhuh:

Chevy Volt Sales up in February

GM's Plug-In Bounces Back from 'Political Punching Bag' Status

March 1, 2012

Sales of General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet Volt rallied back in February from early year lows, as the company sold more than 1,000 of its hybrid electric plug-in vehicle last month.

That marks the Chevy Volt's third-best selling month ever, and the numbers serve as the first sign that GM's foray into the electric vehicle market has weathered a storm of criticism and negative publicity late last year and early this year. GM sold just 623 Volts in January, and it sold 281 last February


it's third best month ever was 1000 vehicals? WOW...only need to more than triple that for the next ten months to meet expectations

Toyota Beats U.S. Sales Estimates as Rising Gas Prices Stoke Prius Demand

By Alan Ohnsman - Mar 1, 2012

Toyota Motor Corp. seeking record U.S. Prius sales in 2012, said increased supply of the hybrid helped the automaker beat analysts’ estimates for February sales and will buoy gains in March amid rising fuel prices.

Asia’s largest carmaker reported yesterday that sales of Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles rose 12 percent last month, more than the 8.2 percent average of seven estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Prius sales, including the v wagon, were up 52 percent to 20,589, the highest in almost four years. The total for all Toyota and Lexus hybrids climbed 60 percent.

.“They’re targeting 220,000 Prius sales,” said Alan Baum, principal of Baum & Associates, a provider of auto-industry analysis in West Bloomfield, Michigan. “Given the assumption we’ll have high gas prices into the summer, this looks like a reasonably good bet.”

I'd blame it on the Obama Reverse Midas Touch

maybe more Obama money is required:

New proposals....Two separate initiatives are being pursued in 2011 to transform the tax credit into an instant cash rebate. The objective of both initiatives is to make new qualifying plug-in electric cars more accessible to buyers by making the incentive more effective. The rebate will be available at the point of sale allowing consumers to avoid a wait of up to a year to apply the tax credit against income tax returns.[64][65] The first initiative is from Senator Debbie Stabenow who reintroduced the "Charging America Forward Act." This bill was originally introduced in August 2010 but was not voted by the full Senate.[64] The bill will turn the tax credit into a rebate worth up to $7500 for plug-in electric vehicles and also provide businesses with a tax credit for purchasing medium or heavy duty plug-in hybrid trucks.[66] The other initiative is from the Obama Administration that was included in the submitted FY 2012 Budget as a provision to transform the existing credit into a rebate that will be claimable by dealers and passed along to the consumers.[65][67]

Another change to the law governing the plug-in tax credit was introduced by Senator Carl Levin and Representative Sander Levin who are proposing to raise the existing cap on the number of plug-in vehicles eligible for the tax credit. The proposal raises that limit from the existing 200,000 PEVs per manufacturer to 500,000 units.



they should just offer Volt buyers $15,000 instant cash in the spot for buying a Volt and get the sales up to like...half of what their goals is and claim victory...still won't need to worry about hitting that sales cap so I guess there's no rush to run right out and buy one

You might try my link :) It is based on 28 reviews and test drives. You can also see the other "crappy cars" it is compared to on this link from the same site.
Best Upscale Midsize Cars Rankings | U.S. News Best Cars

By the way, a pile of pintos sold back in the day. we had two growing up. They weren't such great cars, but sold like crazy. Funny thing is they might explode if hit in the right spot. On a related note, the Volt battery was found to cause no more chance of fire than in any other combustible engine with a battery. Not sure the most accurate way to judge the quality of a car is based on first year sales or to disregard it because it had kinks during the first year..

I never said it was a crappy car....but noone is buying it even with Obama throwing money at them to try to get them to buy it:uhuh:

there's a lesson there:)

I didn't mean for it to imply you said that. It was said in the initial post about the Volt. My instinct is Chevy made an enormous blunder in the fact that it only seats four. It is the only reason I wouldn't buy one and I am sure it is a problem for almost anyone with kids. Honda Element is finished and it had the same problem.

you could always tie one to the roof...wait...that didn't work out so well for....


this sums it up nicely.....

"At the same time, GM has boosted the appeal of its gasoline-engine compact cars. Its 2012 Chevrolet Cruze, for instance, gets up to 42 miles on a gallon of gasoline in some versions, yet costs about half the price of a Volt.

Jack Domaldson of Davis, Calif., said he and his wife considered buying a Volt but found it impractical and bought a Toyota Prius instead. Why did the Volt lack appeal? "Short range, expensive, no infrastructure support, and the element of uncertainty with performance," he said.

Word of the production halt comes only days after President Barack Obama praised the car in a recent campaign speech in Washington, D.C., saying he planned to buy one "in five years when I'm out of office." might be the funniest thing he's ever said

GM's move signals, "consumer demand is just not that strong for these vehicles," said Lacey Plache, chief economist for auto-research firm Edmunds.com. "The price premium on the Volt just doesn't make economic sense for the average consumer when there are so many fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars available, typically for thousands of dollars less."


GM appears to take the Obama approach to sales numbers as well, they pad the sales with fleet sales numbers apparently,

General Motors reported Chevy Volt sales of 1,529 for the month of December. The still unimpressive number is an improvement over previous months, but the gains were mostly driven by fleet sales. According to GM, 992 of the Volts sold were to retail customers while 537 went to fleet purchasers.

GM says the fleet sales were to corporate buyers and not to rental companies. The number of Volts sold to townships receiving federal grants remains unknown. The corporate sales claim makes sense as crony company, General Electric, starts to make good on its promise to buy thousands of Volts. Of course, GE benefits by selling charging stations for the vehicles.

Another interesting statistic on Volt sales can be derived from the inventory figures and number of Chevy dealerships with available Volts. GM now claims that 2,600 dealerships across the nation have Volts for sale. Given the 992 figure for Volts sold to retail customers, we come up with an average of approximately one third of a vehicle sold by each dealership per month. It is ludicrous for GM to continue to tout Volt sales figures as a success given the fact that about two thirds of dealerships offering Volts were unable to sell even one during the month.

and in Dec they touted a big month but I noticed often referred to "vehicals shipped", I imagine to boost their year end sales number over some imaginary acceptable mark (7000/7500)...in subsequent months they refer to vehicals sold....there are a number of stories that dealers were refusing January deliveries of the Volt because they didn't want them, For example, "according to Automotive News, GM set aside 104 Volt models for 14 dealerships across the greater New York City market. Of those vehicles, dealers took just 31. The problem isn't just out East, either. The report claims one California dealer turned down all six Volt models allocated to him despite the fact that his franchise sold 10 of the vehicles last year."

probably had too many leftover from those December deliveries, you'd think they'd need them after a "record month" in December???...I guess we'll get a "revision" at some point..............


sales will probably really improve after the US taxpayers stop subsidizing them to the tune of 7500 bucks...right??? :)better keep an eye on that GM stock price as well...BIG year for that:uhuh:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ss-taxpayers/1
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ares-cars.html

"More hyperbole or clueless?"

Hyperbole/sarcasm.

"your article said 3200 volts sold. 7671 sold for the year as of Decmeber 31, 2011."

Zimmy, my article made it clear that the figure of 3200 wasn't for the full year. If, at the time,3200 Volts were sold, what should they have reported? Something else?

Scott and I both posted articles (that just came out yesterday) saying 7600 were sold, which was far short of initial expectations, despite govt rebates of 20% of the sticker price. As a result, there were massive layoffs.

Zimmy, when you fall 25% short of sales forecasts (despite a 20% rebate from the feds) and you need to lay off staff and stop production, do you know what we call that in business? Failure. I'm not glad the Volt was a flop, I take no pleasure from that. But it's still a flop.

They expected to sell SIxTY THOUSAND Volts in 2012, but they've sold less than 2,00 through February.

People don't like the car. When the price comes down and gas prices go up, that will change.

And I didn't see you respond, again, to the annoying little detail of the batteries catching fire.

In case anybody missed this buried way back a few posts on this page. :jump1:

right, like the Pinto....

In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[6] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[22][23]

According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.

sort of....

of course the Pinto wasn't staggeringly overpriced......


also, GM has it's profits shielded from US tax laws for up to 20 years....

according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.

The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM's case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy.


the still have unfunded pension liabilities of over 12 Billion dollars

According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, GM will need to add $12.3 billion into its pension fund by 2014. To make matters worse, if GM terminates their pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation – funded by taxpayers - would then become responsible for as much as $14.5 billion in unfunded liabilities.

got a waiver from Obamacare mandates AND MORE

The Obama Administration continues to find ways to funnel taxpayer funds to General Motors and the UAW. A hidden bailout was recently uncovered buried within the Obamacare bill. This latest giveaway goes by the name of "Early Retiree Reinsurance Program" or ERRP for short. Washingtonexaminer.com reported last week that the program was discovered by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

ERRP's price tag to taxpayers is $5 billion. The goal of the program is to provide subsidies to unions, states (for public employees) and corporations for health care coverage for retirees aged between 55 and 64. To date, over $2 billion has been given away. And who's the biggest recipient? The UAW cashes in at number one receiving about $207 million of political payback. That was more than the states of New York, California and Texas, combined, received. Bailed out GM also gets a piece of the pie, having received more than $19 million from the program. GM currently benefits from having transferred health care liability to the UAW in a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) agreement from 2007. Funding for this same VEBA account came from taxpayers and GM bondholders who sacrificed in order to benefit the UAW in the GM bankruptcy process.

they have their product subsidized with taxpayer money to the tune of $7500....nope..... noooooooooo.....
wait for it...............

Obama Budget to Subsidize $10-K For Each Electric Car Sold
By Eric Scheiner
February 17, 2012

President Barack Obama wants to use more taxpayer funds to encourage the purchase of green vehicles.

The government currently offers up to a $7,500 tax credit for those that purchase natural gas or electric vehicles, but the president’s latest budget proposal wants to increase the amount to $10,000 and allow for consumers to receive the tax incentive at the dealership when they purchase a qualifying vehicle.





and the government will sell off their shares of GM stock sometime in the near future leaving the US taxpayers with a loss in the billions...likely more than 10 Billion

also:
The new “big success” automaker is spending millions hiring lobbyists to squeeze more millions out of state legislatures. As Justin Owen notes, GM has “turned to another, smaller government teat” by putting its hand out to the states. GM, Owen says, “has received another $1.7 billion in taxpayer-funded grants and tax abatements.”




but Obama will tell you that this is an American success story and he's happy to claim credit...:uhuh:

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker: “Virtually Every Claim By The President Regarding The Auto Industry Needs An Asterisk, Just Like The Fine Print In That Too-Good-To-Be-True Car Loan.” (Glenn Kessler, “President Obama’s Phony Accounting On The Auto Industry Bailout,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 6/7/11)

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Gave President Obama’s Claims On The Chrysler Bailout THREE Pinocchios. (Glenn Kessler, “President Obama’s Phony Accounting On The Auto Industry Bailout,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 6/7/11)

FactCheck.org: The President Is “Sounding Very Much Like A Used Car Salesman” When He Describes The Success Of The Auto Bailouts. “Notice the president — sounding very much like a used-car salesman — used the phrases ‘during my watch’ and ‘under my watch’ when describing the TARP loans as being ‘completely repaid.’” (Eugene Kelly, “Chrysler Paid In Full?” FactCheck.org, 6/6/11)

FactCheck.org: “Read The Fine Print” The Obama Administration Is Not Getting Back $1.3 Billion It Gave To Chrysler.

I think Iran and Obama's push to eliminate the oil and gas welfare give him an "out." I hope no one is surprised of the timing of Obama coming out in the last week or so and saying that we need to stop this welfare to the oil companies.

He will be able to displace blame for high gas prices by leveraging the record-breaking profits by oil companies and a continual push-back by the Republicans on his clean energy initiatives.

I can hear it now: "While there is no short-term solution to high gas and oil prices (my note: which there really isn't), my clean energy initiatives would help prevent these kinds of spikes in the future. But the Republicans are continually preventing progress towards getting us away from foreign oil."

And you know what, he'll be arguably right. Our economy hinges on a region that is less civilized than the Flinstones. Conflict in the Middle East immediately results in higher oil prices which then translated into higher fuel costs... thus raising prices on groceries, consumer goods and anything else that requires shipment.


Appreciate the well wishes. Fortunately, I'm not much of a gambler. I was in Vegas for 9 days in early-February and I lost about $40 playing slots. Played mostly because I was out socializing with a client - cheaper than a meal out there.

This trip will be more of the same. Maybe a couple trips to the craps table, but that's about it.

you nailed it....except his clean energy initiatives keep going bankrupt and that's not the repubs fault...maybe they're just underfunded?...yep....that will worK

I was curious as to which Obama clean energy initiatives the Republicans could be blamed for thwarting since it seems as he's gotten most of what he wanted and it just hasn't turned out so well...this was the best I could find...


Here’s some of the renewable energy tax provisions, that congress could have had a chance to vote up or down, if the GOP had not filibustered the entire bill, rather than let the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire.

Baucus Amendment 4727: To change the end date from 2010, by extending till December 2011:

1. Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – cash in lieu of tax credit for businesses not making a profit and unable to take the 30% tax credit

2. Tax credits for heavy hybrid and natural gas vehicles and a 30% investment tax credit for alternative fuel refueling stations.

3. Tax breaks for ethanol, 36 cents a gallon for blenders, and 8 cents a gallon for small producers. A 54 cents per gallon tariff on ethanol imports.

4. A $1-per-gallon production tax credit for biodiesel and biomass diesel and the small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per gallon extended through 2011.

5. A 50-cent-per-gallon tax credit for biomass and other alternative fuels.

6. Tax credits for energy-efficient appliances and homes.

8. Adding $2.5 billion in funding for Section 48C the advanced energy manufacturing 30% tax credit for companies manufacturing advanced clean energy products and materials.

9. Reinstating the Research and Development tax credit.

Source: Clean Technica (Republicans Kill Section 1603 Renewable Energy Cash Grants - CleanTechnica)



isn't this CORPORATE WELFARE??? cash handouts and special treatment through the tax code...hmmmmm?

my favorite is CASH for businesses not making a profit:rotf2: that's great!

THe Obama Lightbulb
 

guess it was just a matter of time:rotf2:



Gov‘t Backed ’Green’ Light Bulb Meant to be Affordable Costs $50
March 9, 2012

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award (the “L Prize”) for any manufacturer who could create a “green” but affordable LED light bulb, The Washington Post reports.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would encourage companies to find a way to make the expensive LED lights more “affordable for American families.” The administration was also careful to inject a “buy American” element into the prize deal – potions of the light had to be manufactured in the U.S.

The prize was awarded to Phillips, the bulb was developed and built, and it’s ready for market. It costs $50.

Wait. $50 dollars for a light bulb? affordable?

Unsurprisingly, several analysts say the Philips-manufactured bulb is way too expensive to appeal to a broad audience. Think about it: similar LEDs sell for half that price, as the Post points out.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” :rotf2: Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs, told the Post, “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

But wasn’t the entire purpose of the “L Prize” to encourage and incentivize manufactures to build an affordable LED light? How does this make any sense?

“A Philips spokesman declined to talk in detail about the bulb or its price because the product has yet to be formally launched,” the Post reports, “It is expected to hit stores within weeks and is available online. But the spokesman said the L Prize bulb costs more because, as the contest required, it is even more energy-efficient, running on 10 watts instead of 12.5 watts. It is also brighter, renders colors better and lasts longer.”

But still, doesn’t that undo the point of the “affordability” guidelines set by the “L Prize”?

Manufacturers were “strong#^&ly encouraged to offer products at prices that prove cost-effective and attractive to buyers, and therefore more successful in the market.” The target retail price, including rebates from utilities, was to be $22 in the first year, $15 in the second year and $8 in the third year, the Post reports.

To put it plainly, Phillips comes nowhere near these numbers.

“This bulb is pretty amazing,” says VP of Merchandising Chris Weber, according to Market Watch. “It is really hard to believe that you can get the equivalent of 940 lumens of warm, ambient light from a bulb that only uses 10 watts.”

“Philips has done it and we can’t wait to get this bulb into the hands of our customers,” he adds.good luck

the administration will probably offer a $45 cash incentive courtesy of the taxpayers to help "market" this VOLT BULB

Sounds like it could be a breakthrough product innovation.

LED's are tricky to manufacture, they're almost like making semi-conductors. To get the performance they're after I'll bet an entirely new process had to be invented. A lot of materials science.

Suggesting a new 50 dollar bulb to their product portfolio would likely get met with resistance in the board room. With short-term shareholder value driving most companies they're very careful on how R&D budgets are allocated.

But an R&D investment to capture a prize is a great marketing opportunity....

Cost will come down as volume manufacturing improves and fast followers produce competing products.

The strategic benefit from new technology like this is huge considering the present energy demand on a weak infrastructure. A 10 million dollar incentive is a drop in the bucket, and virtually all the value created long-term will be in the private sector.

Congratulations Philips, I raise my glass to thee.

-spence

right, I hear they also have a $500 energy efficient toaster that is supposed to be in Home Depot next week...should sell like hotcakes....raise two glasses Spence :uhuh:

Toasters consume a lot of watts but are only used for small increments of time. Same goes for coffee makers and hair dryers It wouldn't make sense to invest a lot of R&D for a more efficient toaster, coffee maker or hair dryer.

Now if super efficient coils could be created for just in time delivery of hot water or commercial steam production...you might have something worthy of government incentive.

Over time, this technology might of course trickle down into consumer electronics. That 100 watt toaster, coffee maker or hair dryer will come, just don't get impatient.

-spence