For the White House to declare someone a “champion of change,” they apparently have to be a champion of pork. The first person listed helped plan the California high-speed rail system, whose projected costs have more than doubled in since voters approved it in 2008. The original cost projections, made in the late 1990s, were only $15 billion, but the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority has managed to push those costs up to more than $100 billion.
The second champion of change is the CEO of a company that is making electric buses. Each bus is supposed to save transit agencies $100,000 a year in fuel costs (though they don’t say how much the electricity costs). Sounds good, except that three buses and two charging stations cost $5.6 million, which is more than $1.8 million a bus. Since an ordinary bus costs about $300,000, that means it will take more than 15 years to recover the extra cost. Guess the expected lifespan of a bus (hint: it is three years less than 15).
Not only that, “without government funding for research and development, Proterra wouldn’t be in its current position” to make these buses, according to the champion of change. So the buses required subsidies to develop, they require subsidies to buy, and the Antiplanner won’t be surprised if they require subsidies to operate.
Number of people in their everyday lives and helps them to give frankkrauseautomotive.com levitra 20mg price the determination about stimulated issues. One of the complications of diabetes is damage to the nerves in the body, viagra samples cheap including those in the penis. Just simply look at one of levitra online canada frankkrauseautomotive.com them internet sites and blogs. You need to be sexually aroused for the drugs to take & will allow you to turn the order a audition of up to 16 drugs or must try of 4 tablets at each of cialis 10 mg packets.
Another so-called champion of change is the general manager of Denver’s transit agency, RTD. Apparently, he is being recognized for putting together a public-private partnership to deal with the fact that the projected costs of some of RTD’s rail projects have more than doubled. Although voters gave RTD a virtual blank check to spend money on rail, they limited RTD’s ability to borrow money. The public-private partnership overcomes this: the private partner borrows the money, and RTD digs into taxpayer pockets to repay it.
These people aren’t champions of change. They are champions of getting other people to pay for their ideologies (not to mention their no-doubt very high salaries). A real champion would be someone who figured out how to improve mobility through new technologies that are so much better than what we have today that users themselves will pay for them.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Each bus is supposed to save transit agencies $100,000 a year in fuel costs (though they don’t say how much the electricity costs).”
That rather suggests that, even taking the cost of electricity into account, the saving is $100,000 a year.
Plus reductions in running costs if the engine partially brakes by recharging the batteries – saving a small fortune on brake components.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Not only that, “without government funding for research and development, Proterra wouldn’t be in its current position†to make these buses, according to the champion of change.”
According to Antiplanner’s second link:
“According to Hill, the lifetime cost of the Proterra’s electric buses is similar to that of diesel hybrid competitors. This is great news for investors like General Motors Ventures LLC, who has invested $6 million into the company thus far.”
Antiplanner wrote:
“So the buses required subsidies to develop, they require subsidies to buy, and the Antiplanner won’t be surprised if they require subsidies to operate.”
Why would they require subsidies to buy or operate? Electric buses are popular with the paying customers as they have a better ride quality than diesel buses. The level of pollution and in particular carcinogens produced by plain-Jane diesel buses is disgusting & if the mandate is there to reduce pollution levels, then it is a reasonable buy. The extra cost per seat mile will be cents, not dollars. “The lifetime cost of the Proterra’s electric buses is similar to that of diesel hybrid competitors.”
But electric buses are not new, and there may be better alternatives out there. There are electric buses with super-capacitors. These recharge at every bus stop, so they don’t have to keep going back to the depot to recharge – a big advantage. Or you can buy trolleybuses which don’t need to be refuelled at all. And diesel-electric hybrids aren’t so bad in pollution terms.
Antiplanner wrote:
“So the buses required subsidies to develop, they require subsidies to buy, and the Antiplanner won’t be surprised if they require subsidies to operate.â€
FrancisKing asks:
“Why would they require subsidies to buy or operate?”
If the buses are going to public transit agencies then subsidies are going to be used to buy and to operate the vehicles. That’s the name of the game. Many people look at public transit services as a public service (obvious???) therefor requiring some sort of subsidy. When antiplanners get bent out of shape because transit doesn’t pay for itself I’m always intrigued. Of course it doesn’t. It’s not intended to. I agree with Mr. O’Toole many times with the over-ambitious (i.e. wasteful) transit projects, but I will have to learn more about these buses before I can jump on board with him on this issue.
O’Toole’s a fraud. He isn’t getting bent out of shape, because roads don’t make money.
“…it will take more than 15 years to recover the extra cost.”
…and most transit agencies have a vehicle replacement plan that replaces vehicles every 5-10 years. However I recently saw on the boob tube that electric vehicles will require less maintenance and last longer that traditional internal combustion vehicles. Perhaps the additional savings coupled with a vehicle that has the potential to last longer make the electric vehicles more attractive.
I also “assume” that electric vehicles will become more and more viable in the future taking into account economies of scale and the inevitable problems associated with petroleum.
The Antiplanner spaketh so:
Yes, the award for the way California is botching high speed rail is egregious, on the simple basis that the CHSRA is ignoring how HSR has been successfully implemented overseas. Classic case of “not invented here” syndrome, as well as not serving the desire for “cronyism at any speed.”
As for the bulk of the post:
…Sounds good, except that three buses and two charging stations cost $5.6 million, which is more than $1.8 million a bus. Since an ordinary bus costs about $300,000, that means it will take more than 15 years to recover the extra cost.
Methinks The Antiplanner is getting crankier in his old age. The price quoted is for PROTOTYPE vehicles. One should reserve judgement on the capital cost and ongoing economics of these vehicles until we know what production vehicles will cost.
On the other hand, perhaps the $100k annual savings claimed was for three vehicles rather than one. But The Antiplanner didn’t source that claim and I can’t find it in the links he did provide.
Finally, what in the world is wrong with the government funding basic research and development, particularly things like Proterra that could result in major benefits to society?? The inevitable result of R & D – whether government funded or not – is that some efforts succeed but many others fail.
Without government research spending, particularly through the Pentagon, we wouldn’t have things like (1) jet engines; (2) microchips; (3) the Internet; and many other things. SO WHAT IF SOLYNDRA FAILED???!!! If only a small percentage of overall government research into renewable energy succeeds, it may be a game-changer with benefits to society and the economy for centuries to come. But the small-mined anti-government anti-intellectuals cannot stand for ANY government efforts to succeed. So spare us the false outrage, please.
I was just about to post the same thing but you beat me to it. Are we willing to give back all of the modern marvels that government R&D $$$ is responsible for just to hang on to our free-market at all costs ideology (i.e will you put your money where your mouth is)? Can we really afford an ideology that purports this type of societal regression?
“Finally, what in the world is wrong with the government funding basic research and development, particularly things like Proterra that could result in major benefits to society??”
Well, given that such technology already exists, it does look like the government paying to reinvent the wheel.
Francis, you hit the nail on the head.
Well, given that such technology already exists, it does look like the government paying to reinvent the wheel.
Trolleybuses (yes, those need overhead wires, but are loads cheaper than light rail) have been around for decades (and are very common in many parts of the former Soviet empire for reasons not entirely clear to me).
Even buses with stored batteries are not exactly new technology.
Francis King spaketh so:
Well, given that such technology [electric buses] already exists, it does look like the government paying to reinvent the wheel.
My understanding is that Proterra’s quick charge technology is new in the world of electric buses, so it may be worthwhile to develop the technology. But again as I said, the key is the capital cost and lifecycle cost of production vehicles.
If the government is going to pick winners and losers in the economy, then campaign contributions and political connections will become more and more valuable in a CEO, and efficiency and customer satisfaction will become less and less valuable.
These award “winners” were selected because they could get government grants, not being more efficient in the economy.
…Which is why we have (or had) campaign finance reform. But I agree that in essence we are codifying a set of values to influence the process and change the outcome.
I’m not convinced that just because we can’t get total consensus on what exactly the set of values is, we should abandon the process for completely unfettered free markets.
Roads win, because they don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.
Sandy Teal, how does funding research translate into government “picking winners and losers”????????????????
I would agree cronyism can be a problem, but THAT is solved by much tighter technical requirements and the awards process being above-board, public, and awarded on obvious technical merit presented in a manner that any reasonable person (certainly not including typical right wingers) can understand. Let’s not “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Obviously the failure of Solyndra is proof that government can do nothing of the sort. However, by “placing bets on several horses” the ‘gummit is betting on potential breakthroughs where the private sector cannot be relied on to invest in because the promise of profit is so uncertain.
If we had relied on the private sector to develop jet engines, for example, it probably would have taken until the 1970’s or 1980’s to occur, rather than what really happened.
This sort of comment is increasingly tiresome and illustrates the short-sightedness and intellectual deficiencies of right wingers. Give the ignorant anti-government rhetoric a rest.
msetty – I don’t know what you are replying to, but it certainly was not my message. The private sector is very capable of investing and developing potential products that have a small chance at a large profit. The entire internet industry was grown on private venture capital with far more failures than successes.
Government funding of basic research is a good idea, though it is done for the benefit of all mankind more than it is for US citizens.
Solyndra was not anything like basic research. Private equity wouldn’t fund it because it did not have any break through potential — it was just a factory trying to beat the Chinese in manufacturing.
“SO WHAT IF SOLYNDRA FAILED???!!!”
Wow. Such anger.
So what 1100 people lost their jobs because government provided the moral hazard to develop an expensive technology that couldn’t economically compete with silicon?
It’s unnecessary for government to research “breakthrough technology.” While in the grand scheme of things (the debt, bloated MIC, pending MC/SS insolvency) it’s small change, taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for poor “investment” decisions.
Solyndra’s was a flat-roof technology, fostered by the Murrican idea that technological whiz-bang will win the day, and could take advantage of not needing to be racked and stepped back, this more efficient. When China started flooding the market with cheap subsidized PV panels, the whiz kids couldn’t move fast enough. China’s subsidy broke our loan guarantees for whiz-bang. If that technology had been allowed to develop, all the flat roofs you see all over the place would have been well-placed to take advantage. Now we have Crossroads and Koch and the others spreading FUD for political advantage and their profit advantage for a few more years.
It’s unnecessary for government to research “breakthrough technology.â€
Earth to Frank! Hello, Frank! This is earth! in the 21st Century!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DS
Ah, the histrionic personality disorder resurfaces. Great weather in Portland, right?
Yes, an average 3% subsidy took down Solyndra. Right. Had nothing to do with falling commodity prices (particularly solar-grade silicon) coinciding with the 2008-2009 correction. Right.
Thank you for mischaracterizing to try and gain advantage. Glad to see the template is still intact.
I’m glad that you failed to mention China dumping subsidized product. Thanks for that.
And we should mention again the concerted campaign by oil-funded SuperPACs to disinform further.
DS
Ah, the typical brush off from Dan who just throws out words like mischaracterizing without any explanation/analysis/evidence of how I supposedly mischaracterized. Glad to see the template is still intact.
Ah, the dumping theory. If China is intentionally dumping, American consumers should purchase their dumped product to improve our standard of living, and prepare our relatively strong manufacturing sector and vast idle labor force ready to fire up when China raises prices.
We can’t lose. If China increases price, we ramp up domestic production or look elsewhere. The Chinese know we’ll do this, so increasing prices (and ending those 3% subsidies in the case of silicon) would damage their economy. Americans benefit by purchasing goods slightly below their production costs.
“Dumping” to kill competition might seem compelling. The narrative provides a perpetrator and a victim, and it feels good to tell the story. However, from the dumper’s perspective, the entire enterprise must seem dubious at best and a net loss in most cases.
Please son. Histrionics? It goes without saying that you are making it up.
And if you need to…oh, I don’t know…brush off China is dumping, then you can’t speak to the issue.
And AFP and Crossroads is dumping well into 10 figures to muddy the issue.
Well done. Compelling throughout from beginning to end.
DS
Is there a bright line that divides research from development?
I ask because 100% of the research upon which the biotechnology industry was funded by governments throughout the world. Watson & Crick’s explication of DNA’s structure and function was 100% government funded. My dad’s and Matt Meselson’s “most beautiful experiment in biology,” confirming semi-conservative replication was 100% government funded. These and the other secrets of life discoveries are the foundation of almost everything our economy produces related to medicine and agriculture.
What private sector market model would finance these inquiries? At what point does “basic research” become “applied” and deemed more appropriate for the private sector?
Andy, excellent questions.
What private sector market model would finance these inquiries?
Don’t tell that to some folks here. They need to pretend magic fairy dust will fall on private markets to make it unnecessary for government to research “breakthrough technology.â€
DS
Your typical appeals to ridicule aside (Really? “fairy dust”? You’re better than that, Dan), the private sector spent 550 billion in 2010 on R&D.
And here’s a juicy morsel:
Let me break this down for those with low reading comprehension and/or ideological blinders.
1. There is little or no evidence documenting a direct contribution of government R&D. (If you have some, perhaps you can provide that. If not, you’re the one snorting the fairy dust.)
2. In manufacturing (such as manufacturing solar panels), privately funded R&D has a higher rate of return than R&D performed with government funding.
Also, spending more on R&D won’t drive results.
Now, you can either keep spewing your unsupported, ideological garbage and insults, or you can respond levelly with evidence and reasoning. I’m no longer going to respond to the former. It and you are a waste of keystrokes.
It’s soooooo cute that you can state that R&D in the private sector changed (as did soooooo many things under St Ronnie) to privelege private sector R&D. Wow.
But the best part is that you didn’t show the shift to private has better outcomes (hint: your last link disparages R&D pssst…reading comprehension), and your David, Hall and Toole ref doesn’t support your implict assertion.
That is: you didn’t show an increase in welfare or returns to investment :: GDP or cost savings or or or just because the government hasn’t increased R&D expenditure at the rate of private.
Thaaaanks! Brilliant again!
DS
Biotech is a great example. Government funded a lot of the basic research, but industry has pored tens of billions of dollars into more applied research before a dime of profit was made. Remember the “biotech stock bubble” that occurred before the “internet stock bubble”?
I suppose it is hard to exactly define the line between basic research and applied research, but Solyndra was obviously way on the applied research end, to the extent there was any research at all.
Clarification:
Biotech is a great example. YAXPAYERS funded a lot of the basic research, but industry has pored tens of billions of dollars into more applied research before a dime of profit was made. Remember the “biotech stock bubble†that occurred before the “internet stock bubble�
Fixed it for you:
I ask because 100% of the research upon which the biotechnology industry was funded by TAXPAYERS throughout the world. Watson & Crick’s explication of DNA’s structure and function was 100% TAXPAYER funded. My dad’s and Matt Meselson’s “most beautiful experiment in biology,†confirming semi-conservative replication was 100% TAXPAYER funded. These and the other secrets of life discoveries are the foundation of almost everything our economy produces related to medicine and agriculture.
Yes, you did build that…
So I see Frank the Troll(tm) is at it again.
If I have any “anger” its because some of the posters here are so dense and never seem to understand the points being made, like Frank.
Mr. Stahl, they DON’T have any private sector model for doing basic research. Just hot air.
Cute. And this is the first time I’ve ever been called a troll! A momentous occasion, to be sure, especially considering I’m not the one posting inflammatory material IN ALL CAPS USING MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!! But in honor of the newly bestowed title by the pontificating msetty, I give you my best attempt at trolling:
Why’d ya put anger in quotes? You used 16 question marks in a row, indicating you slammed down your widdle fingerwinger on the keyboard in a temper tantrum. (How’s this for trolling language? I enjoy getting feedback and improving my performance.)
Well, aside from the grammatical gaffes (including a dangling modifier–I am a point being made?), that make this sentence a head-scratcher) you’ve just admitted the source of your anger, completely negating your previous qualifier and sarcastic use of quotations marks.
You’re just stomping your foot in a fit because people here disagree with you and challenge you. It’s not that I don’t understand your “points” (note use of sarcastic quotation marks). I just don’t agree with them. And my disagreement is no reason for you to call me names. Di©k.
Mr. Setty, I don’t think Frank is worthy of being called a troll, and you do yourself a disservice by using that label.
More on the DOE (which should be abolished due to waste and inefficiency) for those who pound their chests and scream “SO WHAT!!!”:
Report Calls for Changes in the Energy Department
A private business this wasteful would go bankrupt.
It’s a dinosaur.
Stimulus that promised renewable energy and six million jobs. Both were just a hope and change pipe dream. Now the taxpayers have to foot the bill.
Even the agency sees the problems with its loan guarantee program, although I’m not sure what a “watch list” will accomplish, if anything.
Government should not be guaranteeing loans of any type. Socializing loss results in waste and corruption.
The Antiplanner wrote:
The first person listed helped plan the California high-speed rail system, which has more than doubled in projected costs since voters approved it. The original cost projections, made in the late 1990s, were only $15 billion, but the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority has managed to push those costs up to more than $100 billion.
Excellent point. I don’t think that the California High Speed Rail project is close to being done (in terms of cost overruns), if it does get built.
Frank spaketh forth:
Government should not be guaranteeing loans of any type. Socializing loss results in waste and corruption.
Depends on whether the purpose serves the public good or not. Seems like Obama’s loans to GM worked out, saving millions of jobs that otherwise would have disappeared. The reasoning for guaranteeing home loans through FHA also served its social purpose, in spades, e.g., the belief that home ownership was key to developing a stable middle class in this country.
And every so often, I think such programs need to be reviewed and reformed, and outfits like the DOE need to be reformed to meet every day’s needs. I also add the Pentagon to this list. But unlike Frank I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As for the trolling that goes on here, I continue to find it tiresome that some people continue to shill for intellectually and morally bankrupt ideologies and for vulture capitalism such as that practiced by Romney. Correctly identifying and labeling such ideologies and their supporters for what they are is one of the first steps in effectively fighting them.
Mr. Z, you seem to have a problem with accurately labeling something––such as the intellectually and morally bankrupt right wing ideologies I oppose here– what they are. If this offends you, well, OK…
I don’t see any reason to back down; conservatism and libertarianism, in the end, are nothing but ideologies designed to bestow undeserved legitimacy to the entrenched oligarchies that have oppressed mankind for thousands of years since the first civilization was established by men with swords and spears. This ongoing battle is also part and parcel with the need to constantly oppose the knee jerk opposition that The Antiplanner and similar pundits have against rail transit in any form.
meet every day’s needs.
that is, current day needs.
Unlike some people, I don’t try to hang someone on what is obviously a typo.
Just watch your dangling participles, Kamerad.
Blah blah blah. In one sentence you callously dismiss 1100 lost jobs caused by government misapplication of resources. Then you claim that the jobs at GM would have simply “disappeared”. In capitalism, when a venture fails, the capital is reallocated, and labor is still required. Who’s to say Toyota or Hyundai or some upstart or a combination thereof wouldn’t have bought GM’s capital and employed their labor force and produced a wider variety of superior products? We can’t know because the government had to intervene to preserve a dinosaur.
And you, sir, are a birdist. The Accipitriformes order includes several beautiful birds, such as the magnificent California Condor, that play a vital role in maintaining the health of the ecosystem. Likewise, firms with liquid assets that can purchase capital from bankrupt firms provide a vital service in maintaining the health of the economy. Ironic how both words start with eco.
You call me a troll, but you’re the one on here screaming, yelling, and appealing to ridicule with your King-James-version-language.
Here’s a reason to back down: You’re not going to convince me to change my ideology. Already have. I was once a pseudo-Marxist. Then I took the red pill.
Mr. Z, you seem to have a problem with accurately labeling something––such as the intellectually and morally bankrupt right wing ideologies I oppose here– what they are. If this offends you, well, OK…
Challenging the ideas (and ideologies) of posts (and the persons that post the posts) is fine. Calling Frank names – not so fine.
I don’t see any reason to back down; conservatism and libertarianism, in the end, are nothing but ideologies designed to bestow undeserved legitimacy to the entrenched oligarchies that have oppressed mankind for thousands of years since the first civilization was established by men with swords and spears. This ongoing battle is also part and parcel with the need to constantly oppose the knee jerk opposition that The Antiplanner and similar pundits have against rail transit in any form.
I am not especially a fan of the 1% in this country, including specifically members of the 1% club like the Koch boys, Rupert Murdoch and Sheldon Adelson. I usually vote for Democrats, and will almost certainly cast my vote for President Obama in November, not because I approve of his transportation policies (I don’t), his environmental policies (I don’t), or his efforts to promote the latest “urban renewal” schemes (I don’t), but because I dislike the other party so much more for reasons beyond the scope of this blog.
I do not worship mass transit and efforts to force people to live in higher residential densities (frequently because it fits someone’s egalitarian view of what our urban and suburban areas are supposed to look like). Far too often, I have seen such efforts result in what The Antiplanner calls planning disasters. Even worse, these schemes are often loudly and enthusiastically promoted by persons (sometimes including elected officials) living in large-lot single-family detached housing located far from any form of transit.
No one is asking you to worship mass transit, so why do you want people to worship automobiles?
Oh, and I should probably mention that I don’t think I have ever met Frank in person.
My late grandfather owned a place on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay for many years, and had a cat named Frank, who got that name because this cat always had a very frank expression on his face.
I certainly have met some other people here personally (including The Antiplanner and Jim).
“Champion of change” sounds so much nicer than “rent-seeker”.
I know what “rent-seeker” means, but economists need to come up with a better term for it if they can hope to communicate the idea to the general public.
Excellent comment!
No matter how wasteful & inefficient gov spending is (esp. crony capitalism w/only some on R&D) it leads to immense value & many benefits. Yeah right!
Could be seen as off-topic, but analyzing huge underlying principles:
Consumers have greatly benefited from the larger private R&D.
Don’t forget that it takes the private sector to expand, develop, improve & market gov research, & gov gets its funds from the private sector.
How important is gov?
The amount of gov is often presented as a false, binary choice fallacy (big or none).
No major voices for anarchy. Instead of all gov spending being ~40% of GDP, a limited government at 20-30% of GDP leads to more prosperity for all.
Gov intrusion into the marketplace is usually what causes downturns. The housing bubble crash, which started at the end of 2006, took 2 1/2 years for its full impact, mostly in the housing/construction fields.
The Dem policies have been holding back a real recovery. Look at the 2.6 million additional jobs in the last 3 years, while population increased about 10 million; that’s not enough jobs to break even or maintain. During that time, 3.1 million went on disability. Additional taxes, regulations, & uncertainty are major factors in curtailing growth; the [Un]Affordable Care Act has a big role in all of those.
Few are still unaware of the causes of the recession. It’s often flatly blamed on Republican policies or their economic plan — there really is no such thing in legislation. Also, often blamed on deregulation, which did not take place in the Bush Admin (ie see Sarbanes-Oxley).
The high # of mortgage defaults & the resulting slowdown in home-buying caused the recession. Right, agree? What lead to that?
1. Reduced lending standards, pushed by Congress — started in the 1977 CRA, strengthened by Clinton & maintained through the Bush Admin. Bush should have vetoed many items, but some in his admin did give several warnings. The mortgage standard was 20% down & proof of ability to pay.
2. The over-priced homes (only in <20% of the markets, mainly E & W coasts), caused by supply restrictions, mainly zoning.
Will huge expenses on public transit really help?
NYC (26,000 density) has no real comparative value in applicability to other parts of the country. Consider that 1/3 of all US transit commuters are in the NYC area, and that its MTA has been in the red for a while & even relies heavily on taxes. Even the most cost-efficient & widely used transit networks (Japan & Hong Kong), have relied on taxes.
“Will huge expenses on public transit really help?”
Help with what? Solving the economic crisis? No. But you’re right, public services rely heavily on taxes. I guess that doesn’t bother me as much as some.
More news along the “SO WHAT IF SOLYNDRA FAILED???!!!” lines.
What’s funny is that Democrats oppose Republican pork but embrace liberal pork. Obama chose to make taxpayers pay more so he could try to avoid embarrassment. This goes beyond pork to malfeasance.
THAT’S WHY PEOPLE SHOULD CARE THAT SOLYNDRA FAILED!!!
When it comes to pork democrats & republicans are pots & kettles. But I’ve always said the only thing worse than a tax and spend democrat is a no-tax and spend republican.
Agreed.