Will this be the next Obama $billion boondoggle?

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
They touted this as a company which would bring "billions, and billions, and billions of dollars in good new jobs". Unfortunately, those jobs are in Finland.

Should the federal government be in the business of playing venture capitalist with taxpayer monies?

Enter the Fisker Karma, the administration's $97,000 green job maker.

SOURCE

Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland

By MATTHEW MOSK, BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and RONNIE GREENE
ABC NEWS and iWATCH NEWS
Oct. 20, 2011

With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department's $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company's manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland.

"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here."

Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive.

"We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," Fisker said. "That's why we went to Finland."

The loan to Fisker is part of a $1 billion bet the Energy Department has made in two politically connected California-based electric carmakers producing sporty -- and pricey -- cutting-edge autos. Fisker Automotive, backed by a powerhouse venture capital firm whose partners include former Vice President Al Gore, predicts it will eventually be churning out tens of thousands of electric sports sedans at the shuttered GM factory it bought in Delaware. And Tesla Motors, whose prime backers include PayPal mogul Elon Musk and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, says it will do the same in a massive facility tooling up in Silicon Valley.

An investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News that will air on "Good Morning America" found that the DOE's bet carries risks for taxpayers, has raised concern among industry observers and government auditors, and adds to questions about the way billions of dollars in loans for smart cars and green energy companies have been awarded. Fisker is more than a year behind rolling out its $97,000 luxury vehicle bankrolled in part with DOE money. While more are promised soon, just 40 of its Karma cars (below) have been manufactured and only two delivered to customers' driveways, including one to movie star Leonardo DiCaprio. Tesla's SEC filings reveal the start-up has lost money every quarter. And while its federal funding is intended to help it mass produce a new $57,400 Model S sedan, the company has no experience in a project so vast.

There is intense scrutiny of the decisions made by the Department of Energy as it invests billions of taxpayer dollars in alternative energy. The questions come in the wake of the administration's failed $535 million investment in solar panel maker Solyndra. The company's collapse, bankruptcy and raid by FBI agents generated a litany of questions about how the Energy Department doles out billions in highly sought after green energy seed money.

A key question, experts and investigators say, is whether another Solyndra is in the offing.

<MUCH, MUCH MORE>
Click to expand...
 
yeah that is pretty suck. cars are being made by valmet though. they make nice rifles, at least. in fact there's a few of 'em on sale at the pro shop of my range. i am tempted. not-even-arguably the best AK ever made.
 
The MPGe of the Karma sucks.

SOURCE

10/20/2011 @ 6:54PM |50,517 views
Update: Fisker Karma Electric Car Gets Worse Mileage Than an SUV

The Fisker Karma electric car, developed mainly with your tax money so that a bunch of rich VC’s wouldn’t have to risk any real money, has rolled out with an nominal EPA MPGe of 52.

Not bad? Unfortunately, it’s a sham. This figure is calculated using the grossly flawed EPA process that substantially underestimates the amount of fossil fuels required to power the electric car, as I showed in great depth in an earlier Forbes.com article. In short, the EPA methodology leaves out, among other things, the conversion efficiency in generating the electricity from fossil fuels in the first place.

In the Clinton administration, the Department of Energy (DOE) created a far superior well to wheels MPGe metric the honestly compares the typical fossil fuel use of an electric vs. gasoline car.

As I calculated in my earlier Forbes article, one needs to multiply the EPA MPGe by .365 to get a number that truly compares fossil fuel use of an electric car with a traditional gasoline engine car on an apples to apples basis. In the case of the Fisker Karma, we get a true MPGe of 19. This makes it worse than even the city rating of a Ford Explorer SUV.

Congrats to the Fisker Karma, which now joins corn ethanol in the ranks of heavily subsidized supposedly green technologies that are actually worse for the environment than current solutions.

Postscript: I will say, though, that the Fisker Karma does serve a social purpose — Hollywood celebrities and the ultra rich, who want to display their green credentials, no longer have to be stuck with a little econobox. They can now enjoy a little leg room and luxury.
Click to expand...
 
The article on EPA mileage estimate fraud mentioned in the above article.

SOURCE

11/24/2010 @ 1:29PM |15,291 views
The EPA's Electric Vehicle Mileage Fraud

11/24/2010 @ 1:29PM |15,382 views
The EPA's Electric Vehicle Mileage Fraud

In a parking lot near Detroit, General Motors is accumulating Chevy Volts. They cannot yet be sold to the public because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet delivered the required mileage sticker for the window. We can, though, get a preview of how the EPA may complete this admittedly tricky task from the mileage numbers they recently assigned to the all-electric Nissan Leaf. The Leaf’s numbers make it clear that this Administration is willing to resort to accounting fraud to promote its automotive agenda.

The traditional metric for automobile efficiency is miles per gallon (MPG) of gasoline used. But what does MPG even mean for a vehicle that doesn’t burn liquid fuel? Most of us would agree that the Leaf certainly does use fuel — after all, something must create the electricity, and in the US that is generally some sort of fossil fuel. So theoretically we should be able to create an MPG equivalent, or MPGe for short, to measure the fossil fuel use of electric vehicles.

For more than a decade, within the EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), a number of different approaches to this problem have been discussed. With the release of the numbers for the Nissan Leaf, we now know what approach the EPA is taking, and results are depressing for those of us who would like to see transparency and adherence to science in the Administration. This Administration has a huge intellectual investment in electric vehicles and financial investment in the Chevy Volt. Like a shady company trying to pump up their stock by choosing a series of highly questionable accounting conventions, the EPA has chosen an approach that grossly overestimates the MPGe of electric vehicles.

The Nissan Leaf was rated at 99 MPGe. To reach this number, the EPA created a conversion factor between a quantity of electric energy, measured in kilowatt-hours (KwH) and a volume of gasoline, measured in gallons. They did this be dividing the potential energy or heating value of a gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTUs) by the energy in a KwH of electricity (3412 BTUs) to get a conversion factor of 33.7 gallons per KwH. Using this factor, they can convert miles per KwH of electricity in an electric vehicle to an MPGe that is supposedly comparable to more traditional vehicles.

The problem is that, using this methodology, the EPA is comparing apples to oranges. The single biggest energy loss in fossil fuel combustion is the step when we try to capture useful mechanical work (ie spinning a driveshaft in a car or a generator in a power plant) from the heat of the fuel’s combustion. Even the most efficient processes tend to capture only half of the potential energy of the fuel. There can be other losses in the conversion and distribution chain, but this is by far the largest.

The EPA is therefore giving the electric vehicle a huge break. When we measure mpg on a traditional car, the efficiency takes a big hit due to the conversion efficiencies and heat losses in combustion. The same thing happens when we generate electricity, but the electric car in this measurement is not being saddled with these losses, even though we know they still occur in the system.

Lets consider an analogy. We want to measure how efficiently two different workers can install a refrigerator in a customer’s apartment. In both cases the customer lives in a fourth floor walkup. The first installer finds the refrigerator has been left on the street. He has to spend much of his time struggling to haul the appliance up four flights of stairs. After that, relatively speaking, the installation is a breeze. The second installer finds his refrigerator has thoughtfully been delivered right to the customer’s door on the fourth floor. He quickly brings the unit inside and completes the installation.

So who is a better installer? If one only looks at the installer’s time, the second person looks orders of magnitude better. But we know that he is only faster because he offloaded much of the work on the delivery guys. If we were to look at the total time of the delivery person plus the installer, we’d probably find they were much closer in their productivity. The same is true of the mileage standards — by the EPA’s metric, the electric vehicle looks much better than the traditional vehicle, but that is only because someone else at the power plant had to do the really hard bit of work that the traditional auto must do itself. Having electricity rather than gasoline in the tank is the equivalent of starting with the refrigerator at the top rather than the bottom of the stairs.

An apples to apples comparison, then, would compare the traditional car’s MPG with the Leaf’s miles per gallon of gasoline (or gasoline equivalent) that would have to be burned to generate the electricity it uses. Incredibly, the DOE actually established and published such a standard in a rules-making process way back in Clinton Administration. The standard, called “well to wheels,” adds a couple new factors to the MPGe calculation we discussed above.

First, the DOE looked at the electrical generation efficiency, and determined that only 32.8% of the potential energy in the fossil fuel becomes electric energy in the average US power plant, which it further reduced to 30.3% to account for transmission losses. However, they realized it was unfair to charge electric vehicles for these losses without also charging gasoline-powered vehicles for the energy cost of refining and gasoline distribution. They calculated these as adding 20% to the energy it takes to run a gas-powered car, but rather than reducing existing MPG standards by this amount, they instead gave a credit back to electric vehicles. The 30.3% electric production and distribution factor was increased to a final adjustment factor of 36.5%. This means that the conversion factor discussed above of 33.7 gallons/KwH must be multiplied by 36.5% to get a true apples to apples MPGe figure.

The end result is startling. Using the DOE’s apples to apples methodology, the MPGe of the Nissan Leaf is not 99 but 36! Now, 36 is a good mileage number, but it is pretty pedestrian compared to the overblown expectations for electric vehicles, and is actually lower than the EPA calculated mileage of a number of hybrids and even a few traditional gasoline-powered vehicles like the Honda CR-Z.

Supporters of the inflated EPA standards have argued that they are appropriate because they measure cars on their efficiency of using energy in whatever form is put in their tank (or batteries). But this is disingenuous. The whole point of US fuel economy standards is not power train efficiency per se, but to support an energy policy aimed at reducing fossil fuel use. To this end, the more sophisticated DOE standard is a much better reflection of how well the Nissan Leaf affects US fossil fuel use. The only reason not to use this standard is because the EPA, and the Administration in general, has too many chips on the table behind electric vehicles, and simply can’t afford an honest accounting. In the private sector, this is called accounting fraud and a number of high profile executives are in jail for doing something similar.

Postscript: There is another interesting issue with the Nissan Leaf EPA sticker. The greenhouse gas rating, in the bottom right corner, shows that the car produces ZERO greenhouse gasses (with a note that it applies to tailpipe emissions only). While I suppose this is technically true, it is wildly misleading.

In almost every case, the production of the electricity to charge the car will create incremental greenhouse gasses. One might argue the answer is zero in the Pacific Northwest where most power is hydro-electric, but even in heavy hydro/nuclear areas, the incremental marginal demand is typically picked up by natural gas turbines. And in the Midwest, the Leaf will basically be coal powered, and studies have shown it to create potentially more CO2 in these areas than a car burning gasoline. I understand that this metric is difficult to calculate, because it depends on where and even what time of day the car is charged, but the EPA in all this complexity chose to use the one number – zero – that is least likely to be the correct answer.
Click to expand...
 
crony capitalism wears any shade. it just so happens that at the moment we have some greendicks in power.

a standard textbook example of crony capitalism is indonesia under suharto...
 
The Karma is being built in a foreign country using American tax dollars -- regardless of what they say to the contrary.

It gets shitty mileage -- regardless of what they say to the contrary.

It is only going to be affordable by the wealthy -- regardless of what they say to the contrary.

The first one went to a rabid Obama supporter and democratic donor as a perk -- regardless of what they say to the contrary.

The investors in Fisker automotive are Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Al Gore, and several other democratic donors -- regardless of what they say to the contrary.

The Vice President's home state has gotten special attention from Fisker -- regardless of what they say to the contrary.

This is crony capitalism at its best. Everyone involved is getting a piece of the pie. Just watch and see what happens to Fisker and your tax dollars after they do a Solyndra on all of us.

Now THAT'S bad karma.

An article you might be interested in.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/fisker_fiasco_in_the_making.html
 
Yep. I think its going to be a boondoggle.

SOURCE

December 30, 2011, 2:49 pm
Fisker Recalling 239 Karma Plug-In Hybrids for Fire Hazard
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN

Fisker Automotive is recalling all 239 of its 2012 Karma luxury plug-in hybrid cars because of a fire hazard, according to a report filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Prices on the 2012 model start at $103,000, including the destination charge.

¶In a report filed recently on the agency’s Web site, Fisker said some hose clamps were not properly positioned, which could allow a coolant leak. “If coolant enters the battery compartment an electrical short could possibly occur, causing a thermal event within the battery, including a possible fire in the worse case,” the company told the safety agency.

¶Fisker said the problem was discovered on Dec. 16, when workers at the Valmet Automotive assembly plant in Finland noticed coolant dripping. Fisker said it was not aware of any consumer complaints, warranty claims or “any other reports related to this condition.” It said fewer than 50 vehicles were in the hands of consumers.

¶Under federal regulations dealers may not sell the remaining new models until the recall is completed.
Click to expand...
 
a thermal event?

245lcmw.jpg
 
Yep. About that billion -- half way there and taking a dive.

Here we go again. Fire up the Queen music.

SOURCE

Yet Another Gov’t-Sponsored Clean Energy Project Results in Layoffs

Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:38am

by Becket Adams Becket Adams

“In another setback for President Obama’s clean energy loan programs, the recipient of more than a half-billion dollars in federal loans is laying off workers at their Delaware and California operations [emphasis added],” Bryan Tau of Politico reports.

Fisker Automotive, a California-based electric car company, is laying off an “undisclosed number” of staff to try to reserve enough capital in order to qualify for more federal help from the Department of Energy, according to a Delaware state development official.

Wait a minute. The Fisker Automotive?

That’s right, that Fisker Automotive: a company backed by an Al Gore-associated venture capital firm that was awarded a $529 million federal loan guarantee in April, 2010.

This is the same government-assisted automaker that outsourced manufacturing jobs to Finland because, “There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” the car company’s founder and namesake told ABC News. ”They don’t exist here.”

Now they are laying off workers in both Delaware and California.

“They’re trying to preserve the cash that they have,” said Alan Levin told the News Journal. “And unfortunately, until they meet the milestone that DOE continues to set … they’re not able to access the additional capital that they need.”

Before announcing the layoffs, the company was working on reopening a closed General Motors plant in Wilmington to produce vehicles — an effort the Obama administration was quick to praise.

“While some wanted to write off America’s auto industry, we said no. We knew that we needed to do something different – in Delaware and all across the nation,” Vice President Joe Biden said about Fisker in Delaware in 2009.

“We understood a new chapter had to be written, a new chapter in which we strengthen American manufacturing by investing in innovation. Thanks to a real commitment by this Administration, loans from the Department of Energy, the creativity of U.S. companies and the tenacity of great state partners like Delaware – we’re on our way to helping America’s auto industry reclaim its top position in the global market.”

“This is proof positive that our efforts to create new jobs, invest in a clean energy economy and reduce carbon pollution are working,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “We are putting Americans back to work and reigniting a new Industrial Revolution that is paramount for the economic success of this country.”

To date, the company has received $193 million of the total $529 DOE loan to produce two lines of plug-in hybrid cars.

“Our loan guarantees have strict conditions in place to protect taxpayers. The Department only allows the loan to be disbursed as the company meets certain milestones and demonstrates results,” DOE spokesman Damien LaVera said in a statement.

“As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule — which is common for start-ups. As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the Department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America.”

So, let’s see if we got this straight:

  1. Fisker Automotive is given $193 million of a $529 million DOE loan to produce two lines of plug-in hybrid cars and, presumably, create jobs
  2. The company is unable to find a contract manufacturer in the United States, so it outsources manufacturing jobs to Finland (the company vehemently denies charges that it has used any part of the federal loan to fund manufacturing operations in Finland)
  3. The automaker falls behind its production schedule and experiences“delays” in its sales (i.e. poor sales), depleting its capital
  4. But to qualify for the rest of the $529 million loan guarantee, the company has to maintain a certain amount of capital
  5. Therefore, in order to meet this DOE benchmark, Fisker Automotive decides it will save money by laying off an “undisclosed number” of employees

Considering that this is yet another government-sponsored clean energy investment that has experienced layoffs, and contrary to what Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s says, Fisker Automotive hardly seems like “proof positive” that the White House’s efforts to create new jobs are working.
Click to expand...
 
who is the fucking idiot who thought that 500some million is enough for such an endeavor? sounds undercapitalized to me.

fiskar's been in the shitter for a while though.
 
If President Obama shows up at your shop, in order to talk up your product, get your resume ready. He's a compnay killer.
 
2minkey said:
um, i think your reference is lost of most of us... emily?
Click to expand...

HAR!!!!

Wrong thread.

Wrong forum.

Wrong board.

Wrong website.

Posting at two sites at once and got the wrong one.

Go HERE to see the thread to which I was supposed to be posting. Not like you haven't been there before. :evilgrin:
 
Yep! I think this one is well on its way to boondoggledom.

No karma Karma.

VIDEO LINK

Karma, karma, karma, karma, karma, chameleon,
You just don't go, you just don't go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top