2012 Coda Sedan Production Starts; 88-Mile...
Coda Woes Deepen: More Layoffs, Electric-Car...
We breathed a sigh of relief when Coda announced it had started production of its electric Sedan earlier this month.
Then, we positively jumped for joy when little over a week later, the first customers started taking delivery of their new 2012 Coda Sedans. It had certainly been a long time coming.
However, good news rarely lasts, and now the Columbus Dispatch reports (via Green Car Congress) that Coda Automotive has dropped its plans to build a lithium-ion battery fabrication plant in Columbus, Ohio.
The abandoned plans are due to the delay Coda has experienced in receiving definitive responses from the U.S. Department of Energy on its application for a $500 million low-interest loan guarantee under the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program.
That program previously granted loan guarantees to Ford, Nissan, and Tesla in June 2009, and then Fisker later that year, but has issued virtually no loan commitments since then.
The DoE has come under criticism for its losses on solar panel builder Solyndra, which had previously received half a billion dollars under a different DoE loan program.
Solyndra's bankruptcy has subsequently made it very difficult for any applicants to get commitments from the DoE on their applications, some of which were submitted two years ago or more.
Coda Automotive says its business plan doesn't rely on the Ohio plant. In the short term at least, the company is concentrating on delivering more 2012 Sedan electric cars to its first wave of buyers.
The change in plans means Ohio will lose out on 1,000 potential manufacturing jobs.
Coda told the Dispatch, "“Coda remains committed to job creation and is grateful for the leadership of the elected officials and public/private sectors of Ohio that supported us in the (loan) application process.”
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Have an opinion?
why cant the facility be built by the city/govt/feds and leased to coda ?
if coda goes under, surely some other business could come in and take over.
it is not as if we are gonna lose the need for the batteries.
they gave the money to solyndra when they went bankrupt, which is why coda cant get the money.
if the govt owned the building, they would have something for their trouble.
should coda or its successor prove to be successful, they could always purchase the building.
i am not real familiar on just how much buildings cost, but it does not seem unreasonable to me that a large part of the 500 million would be spend on infrastructure - stuff that we the taxpayers could own, until it is purchased.
The auto battery business is extremely high risk. This is not a commodity product, there is a lot of research going on and new developments will make an existing battery manufacturing plant obsolete very quickly. The only battery companies that are going to survive are those with major research efforts and success at keeping up with (or leading with) the latest advances.
plant obsolete ? - doubtful.
i have always thought that the battery end of coda's business is its strongest. they have big ties with big companies.
i dont think this hurts coda - they will just go off to china to manufacture. but it hurts the usa.
if the govt owned the building, they would be protected.
and they could lease it out, thereby encouraging evs and renewable energy.
i dont see why you think that coda looks like it is gonna fail ?
from my perspective, they have went thru the worst of their times - now, at least they have a car to sell, and can start making some income.
i suspect coda will use their same business model, but simply do it overseas (say in china, where they already have connections).
it would be nice to have those 1000 jobs, here, if possible.
If you truly don't like taxpayers giving money to businesses, you should be demanding an end to all subsidies, oil, mining, agriculture, you name it. Ethanol finally went, lets get rid of oil next...
A better policy is to pay for the production of wind based electricity. In that way, the turbines need to work to get the money. Unfortunately, the US government still does not do this. Europe does.
Anyway, apparently South Korea is the place to be for cheap batteries:
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/09/02/japan-south-korea-lithium-ion/#aol-comments
I really prefer to see government money reward success rather than fund speculative ventures. So it seems to me that the $7500 tax rebate, and the installation of charging stations is a way to support EVs that have proven success.
I wonder what other policies might be possible. Can we pay people 5 cents/mile driven in an EV? maybe 10 cent/mile if it is a truck. The EV obviously need to work in order to collect the money. So everyone will work toward successful operation.
Let the 99% decide, not the 1%.
Keep in mind, China can afford to do things we can't because they have a massive trade surplus while we have a massive trade deficit. If we had a surplus then yeah, we could subsidize whatever we wanted: solar panels, wind turbines, EVs... anything. But when we're tossing hundreds of billions out of the country every year, it makes it much more difficult to afford the luxury of subsidies.
If our trade imbalance ever improves, then stuff the Chinese with subsidies. But until then, dumping tons of taxpayer money into a non-existant market will just hurt us.
In 2010, the U.S. imported $252 billion in petroleum-related products, out of a total trade deficit of $497.9 billion.
The U.S. government's interest in encouraging plug-in cars is largely about energy security, since electricity can be generated in any number of ways, including domestic natural gas and renewables, as well as domestic coal (with emissions properly scrubbed, we hope).
Your point of view is certainly a justifiable one, but if you're going to raise the trade deficit, it's important to realize that half of it is for oil--of which by far the largest part is for our vehicles.
1) we are not going to war over plasma tv sets
2) plasma tv sets do not pollute our environment
we need to get off fossil fuel, and the control that the haves can dictate.
and as chris stated above, we need to support the endeavors to some degree - or too many of the endeavors will crumble.
i still think my thought makes sense - coda could be "supported" while the taxpayer keeps ownership.
coda could be given some breaks as time goes along.
but ultimately if they fail, we taxpayers would get another company to do the manufacturing.
I love when the "free market" works, or can be gently persuaded by simple voluntary programs like EnergyStar. However, some more direct form of government action does seem to be needed to fix the issues with oil.
And I certainly wouldn't co-sign a $500 million loan based on the progress they've made to date. Where is the compelling idea or technology they are bringing to market that isn't already amply represented? Where is the demonstration of competence or vision?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1523264754001/
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149231674/making-the-shift-to-electric-vehicles
http://whatdrives.us/podcast/episode-103-meet-coda-automotive
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!