idrankwhat 0 #26 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuotewhen I die that I don't want my kids and their friends looking at me and asking "what the hell was that selfish, greedy bastard thinking? Thanks a lot asshole". The only time this is ever said is when those friends and those kids don't take anything from your will. I disagree. Some people have priorities that extend further than their own immediate families. What good would it do me to have tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to hand down to my heirs if the food that they ate had to be synthesized because my business profited off of pollution, unsustainability and human suffering? Case in point. http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #27 April 22, 2008 QuoteJason: Doesn't that just change from gasoline to coal, which releases just as much if not more CO2 than gasoline? (I mention coal because I believe that you are in WV). "Electric cars" seem to be "Coal powered cars" in actuality. It's not a dollar for dollar shift, although I don't have time right now to look up the figure. Also, nuclear and solar would be better alternatives to the 50% of the supply that we get from coal. And I'm not likely to wait for the Chevy Volt. Last night I started looking in earnest to see what I need to do to convert our Camry to 100% electric. I wouldn't have had to make the conversion however if they hadn't shredded so many electric cars over the past decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 April 22, 2008 Indeed! It's nice to be able to leave yourself a few billion dollar cushion to live off of. I don't have a problem with what Buffett is doing. I applaud it! Good on him. QuoteWhat good would it do me to have tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to hand down to my heirs if the food that they ate had to be synthesized because my business profited off of pollution, unsustainability and human suffering? Wouldn't you think that plnety of good could be done with that money? Isn't there also the distinct possibility that said money could have been made honestly without human suffering? There are middle grounds, sir. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #29 April 22, 2008 Quote Isn't there also the distinct possibility that said money could have been made honestly without human suffering? There are middle grounds, sir. That certainly does not describe the business practices of the Bush Family now does itTheir wealth has come at the hands of many other humans suffering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #30 April 22, 2008 I'm simply using hyperbole to make a point. I've been asked, usually when talking about things like executive pay, "well wouldn't you accept it if you were in their position"? And my answer is "No". My philosophy towards business is to grow the business and provide a secure environment for the employees. If I was offered a two million dollar pay package I'd say "why not give me one million and use the rest to give a pay raise to my employees and/or buy some new equipment to make things run more smoothly. I'd be sitting pretty in the big house at the end of the street. My employees would be happier and probably more loyal and dedicated. I'd have less employee turn over and overall, I'd probably have a more efficient and profitable business which benefits my investors. And if my business doesn't do well, then I take an even bigger pay cut while I do everything I can to keep the business afloat and my employees employed. I wouldn't take the multi million dollar escape package and let the company fail. Company leaders, and world leaders for that matter, are supposed to be stewards for their employees and constituents, not the economic equivalent of destructive parasites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 April 22, 2008 Quote Doesn't that just change from gasoline to coal, which releases just as much if not more CO2 than gasoline? (I mention coal because I believe that you are in WV). "Electric cars" seem to be "Coal powered cars" in actuality. Even if true, it's much easier to control one power plant than 50,000 cars. Cars have to move, power plants do not. And electric motors are much more efficient than gas ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 April 22, 2008 Quote And more info is here: http://gm-volt.com My early calculations for the cost to drive 1 mile in the following vehicles (using West Virginia's electricity rates and gas at $3.69/gallon): 2011 Chevy Volt: 1.5 cents 2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid: 9.5 cents 2002 Chevy Express Van: 25 cents Forget biofuels and Exxon boycotts. Get a Chevy Volt in late 2010 that'll go 40 miles on a charge and 650 miles total range using the onboard generator (gas engine). You probably drive less than 40 miles a day anyway, which means you'd use NO gas. Until it shows up for sale and delivers the claims, it's too early to declare victory. I'm interested in the SoCal offering that's a 3 wheel hybrid claiming 300mpg. $30k. But it's still really in the trial phase. The encouraging bit is that there are much greater leaps to be made than just to the prius level, though if everyone got just to that level, the country would be so much better off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #33 April 22, 2008 Quote Until it shows up for sale and delivers the claims, it's too early to declare victory. I'm interested in the SoCal offering that's a 3 wheel hybrid claiming 300mpg. $30k. But it's still really in the trial phase. The encouraging bit is that there are much greater leaps to be made than just to the prius level, though if everyone got just to that level, the country would be so much better off. I'd be happy if we could go back 10 years and drive what was available then. A Rav4 EV would work nicely for starters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 April 22, 2008 What was available bakc then? Yeah. I remember test driving a GM EV1. Too bad nobody wanted to actually pay for them. The car failed because there was not enough of an interest in them to make a profit. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #35 April 22, 2008 31 Imperial or US? There is almost a 20% difference between the two so it is important to not. 32 MP US G is 38.5 MP I G.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 April 22, 2008 QuoteWhat was available bakc then? Yeah. I remember test driving a GM EV1. Too bad nobody wanted to actually pay for them. The car failed because there was not enough of an interest in them to make a profit. No, it failed because California eliminated the ZEV requirement and GM ran for the hills. The electric RAV4 increased in value after Toyota stopped offering them. Some people did want them. If it were available now, lots of people would want them. It got 100-120 miles on a charge. With the improvements in the last 10 years, that might be better now. The Volt mentioned here would only get 40 without engaging the engine. These aren't good options for people who want to drive to the DZs around the Bay Area or LA (would be great for San Diegans), but for city drivers, a great option finally coming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #37 April 22, 2008 > Good one and there lies the problem, some people may think that you're serious. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #38 April 22, 2008 QuoteWhat was available bakc then? From Wiki: "....California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated electric car sales by major automakers. In response, makers developed EVs including the Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV pickup truck, GM EV1 and S10 EV pickup, Honda EV Plus sedan, Nissan lithium-battery Altra EV miniwagon and Toyota RAV4 EV. Automakers refused to properly promote or sell their EVs, allowed consumers to drive them only by closed-end lease and, along with oil groups, fought the mandate. Chrysler, GM and some GM dealers sued in Federal court; California soon neutered its ZEV Mandate. After public protests by EV drivers' groups upset by the repossession of their EVs, Toyota offered the last 328 RAV4-EVs for sale to the general public during six months (ending on November 22, 2002). All other electric cars, with minor exceptions, were withdrawn from the market and destroyed by their manufacturers. To its credit, Toyota not only supports the 328 Toyota RAV4-EV in the hands of the general public, still all running at this date, but also supports hundreds in fleet usage. From time to time, Toyota RAV4-EVs come up for sale on the used market and command prices sometimes over 60 thousand dollars." The customers wanted them, and they still do. But the people who have the most influence on our government don't want them on the road. That's why the do things like buy patents in order to curtail the usage of NiMH batteries in automobiles. Wiki: "Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries in the United States. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[12] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics.[13] Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[14] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[14] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[15] NiMH patent expires in 2015." The new Tesla Roadster that just started delivery uses Li-ion batteries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base428 1 #39 April 22, 2008 Coal is not the only source for electricity (wind, nuclear, hydro, solar, etc.). I'm not sure about the cleanliness of coal vs. oil, but I'm sure anyone can manipulate the data to their advantage. Everyone needs to watch "Who Killed The Electric Car", an excellent documentary outlining the demise of the EVI electric car less than a decade ago. Quote"Electric cars" seem to be "Coal powered cars" in actuality.(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #40 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuote Doesn't that just change from gasoline to coal, which releases just as much if not more CO2 than gasoline? (I mention coal because I believe that you are in WV). "Electric cars" seem to be "Coal powered cars" in actuality. Even if true, it's much easier to control one power plant than 50,000 cars. Cars have to move, power plants do not. And electric motors are much more efficient than gas ones. For an accurate comparison you need to compare the efficiency of the gas engine to the efficiency of the electric motor times the efficiency of the coal powered power plant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Doesn't that just change from gasoline to coal, which releases just as much if not more CO2 than gasoline? (I mention coal because I believe that you are in WV). "Electric cars" seem to be "Coal powered cars" in actuality. Even if true, it's much easier to control one power plant than 50,000 cars. Cars have to move, power plants do not. And electric motors are much more efficient than gas ones. For an accurate comparison you need to compare the efficiency of the gas engine to the efficiency of the electric motor times the efficiency of the coal powered power plant. Of course. It still wins. Gas engines are in the 20s for efficiency, and you still have to multiple in the efficiency of the refinery then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #42 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Doesn't that just change from gasoline to coal, which releases just as much if not more CO2 than gasoline? (I mention coal because I believe that you are in WV). "Electric cars" seem to be "Coal powered cars" in actuality. Even if true, it's much easier to control one power plant than 50,000 cars. Cars have to move, power plants do not. And electric motors are much more efficient than gas ones. For an accurate comparison you need to compare the efficiency of the gas engine to the efficiency of the electric motor times the efficiency of the coal powered power plant. Of course. It still wins. Gas engines are in the 20s for efficiency, and you still have to multiple in the efficiency of the refinery then. AND the systems that deliver the oil to the refinery and the gas to the vehicle, and the coal to the power plant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #43 April 22, 2008 QuoteWhat was available bakc then? Yeah. I remember test driving a GM EV1. Too bad nobody wanted to actually pay for them. The car failed because there was not enough of an interest in them to make a profit. What about the Ford Ranger EVs? Folks ended up camping out in Sacramento because Ford recalled them to crush (as in physically destroy) and the drivers wanted to buy them. Can you buy one? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #44 April 22, 2008 QuoteHere's a guaranteed solution to high gas prices and I'm ready to buy one NOW: http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar And more info is here: http://gm-volt.com My early calculations for the cost to drive 1 mile in the following vehicles (using West Virginia's electricity rates and gas at $3.69/gallon): 2011 Chevy Volt: 1.5 cents 2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid: 9.5 cents 2002 Chevy Express Van: 25 cents Forget biofuels and Exxon boycotts. Get a Chevy Volt in late 2010 that'll go 40 miles on a charge and 650 miles total range using the onboard generator (gas engine). You probably drive less than 40 miles a day anyway, which means you'd use NO gas. This assumes you were already planning on a new car in 2010/2011. Otherwise keeping your current gas guzzler could be a lot less expensive. For me the Volt would be 55% more expensive than a car that gets 17 MPG in the city with gas at $4/gallon. My out of pocket expenses would be 4X higher with the Volt. Assuming a projected MSRP (the minimum you'll pay as an early owner) of $35,000 and depreciation over 10 years something like a Chevy Malibu to 16% of its original value, at 8000 miles a year you'd be spending 37.5 cents on depreciation over that time. If you finance $30K of that at 7% for 5 years you'll spend another $5640 on interest or another 7 cents a mile for a total cost of 46 cents a mile. I drive a 10 year old car with another 80,000 miles left on it. In theory it could depreciate from $5000 to 0 or 6.25 cents a mile. With gas at $4 a gallon and 17 MPG around town gas is 23.5 cents a mile for a total cost of 29.75 cents a mile. This is a worst case scenario - I've managed 29 MPG on the highway. The Volt would cost me 55% more. Out of pocket, a purchased Volt would set me back $604 a month for the loan and electricity versus $156 a month for gas alone. Comprehensive and collision coverage on the volt would also be higher. If you were already in the market for a new car the Volt would be a fine choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #45 April 22, 2008 QuoteWhat was available bakc then? Yeah. I remember test driving a GM EV1. Too bad nobody wanted to actually pay for them. The car failed because there was not enough of an interest in them to make a profit. Toyota Motor Company has pioneered gas/electric hybrid technology. The early models sold in Japan and the Prius line sold in the USA were sold at prices far below the cost to manufacture them. They didn't even attempt to amortize the development costs, never mind the manufacturing costs. Now why would a company do that? Because Japanese business culture takes a very long view of the business cycle. TMC put the technology into the real world with tens of thousand of units sold at a loss. The lessons learned by this wide scale testing have been incorporated into the later models. I am sure that in the long run, TMC is going to make bank on the technology. A fine example of how to run a huge corporation. Use current profits to bankroll R&D expenses and invest in cutting edge technology. A very smart way to grow your business, long term. The US view of the business cycle is completely different. If you can't make a profit RIGHT NOW, it isn't worth the investment, long term. Wall Steet wants continual growth in quarterly profits. They don't much care about long term R&D investments. If GM had continued to develop the EV1, battery technology, etc, I'll bet that electric cars would be much farther along in the development cycle than they are now. We give the oil companies tax incentives for exploration and development. Similar benefits would work well for auto makers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #46 April 22, 2008 Quote Fuel cost about the same in 2000 as it does now, if you use any other currency besides the US dollar. That's only due to the strength of those currencies against the dollar. Since oil is traded on dollars, and the dollar is weak, the commodity is inflated. Here's an interesting chart, fuel prices in the US are up no matter what scale you use: http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm Quote As shrubco has managed the largest spree of borrowing the world has ever seen, the value of the dollar has dropped like a stone. Correct, and that has inflated the price of everything...from wheat, corn, oil, ad infinitum... Quote The reason that Iraq was invaded and occupied is that Saddam Hussien was going to start selling oil for euros. There is NO WAY the US would allow that. I've heard that before, but I don't accept that premise 100%. Saddam hoarded US currency. Quote The dollar has been propped up for decades due to the oil market using dollars as the currency for oil. While I understand what you're saying, I think that is an over simplistic observation. Quote The demand from China and India is skyrocketing, Their economies have been built on the backs of the US economy. The globalization was unavoidable. Several sectors had outsourced prior to the early nineties. However, the plight is being over amped in my opinion. Here's an old column (2003), stating that estimates of approximately 2M jobs to India by 2014. There are 146M employed people in the US. I'm not saying it "didn't happen", I am saying that the sky is not falling. Quote For short term corporate profit we sent manufacturing overseas. Labor cost were less. Now we are sending tech and customer service jobs overseas. The war on the middle class has been executed to perfection by the rescums. Pretty soon there will be really rich folks, and really poor folks. The rescums are very proud of this acheivement. Business strategies are not political statements. There are businesses that do not follow the "bottom-line-100%" crap, some by circumstance, some by choice. American made products cost more than their counterparts from China or Vietnam or India or Mexico. Hell, that Chevy that so many people buy is made in Canada and has less American content than that Honda Accord someone else just bought.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #47 April 23, 2008 Quote Assuming a projected MSRP (the minimum you'll pay as an early owner) of $35,000 and depreciation over 10 years something like a Chevy Malibu to 16% of its original value, at 8000 miles a year you'd be spending 37.5 cents on depreciation over that time. If you finance $30K of that at 7% for 5 years you'll spend another $5640 on interest or another 7 cents a mile for a total cost of 46 cents a mile. I drive a 10 year old car with another 80,000 miles left on it. In theory it could depreciate from $5000 to 0 or 6.25 cents a mile. With gas at $4 a gallon and 17 MPG around town gas is 23.5 cents a mile for a total cost of 29.75 cents a mile. This is a worst case scenario - I've managed 29 MPG on the highway. The Volt would cost me 55% more. Out of pocket, a purchased Volt would set me back $604 a month for the loan and electricity versus $156 a month for gas alone. Comprehensive and collision coverage on the volt would also be higher. Are you trying to make a meaningful cost analysis without considering the time value of money? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #48 April 23, 2008 QuoteWell, how many people continue to think that the environment is a No. 1 global priority. If this is the case, then making fossil fuels expensive is a good way to drive down demand and move toward efficiency. "Ooops. It's causing an increase in food prices as we move toward more sustainable energy." That's not a problem if your No. 1 concern is the environment. So now the price of rice is a big deal in the world - it's doubled in the last few months. Why? Fule prices are big. On top of that, a month and a half long cold snap caused problems, too. But, so long as the environment is a big issue, then these are secondary concerns. So, what is important? The environment - when everything is going well. When everythign is NOT going well, the environment takes a second seat, doesn't it? Why don't we get our priorities straightened out? The irony is that those who bitch about the overpopulation of the planet being the major cause of all problems, are the same ones bitching about the cost of tortillas in Mexico. For those of you who want to punish Big, Bad, Capitalist America, enjoy the ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 April 23, 2008 QuoteThe irony is that those who bitch about the overpopulation of the planet being the major cause of all problems, are the same ones bitching about the cost of tortillas in Mexico. Really? I can't recall a single complaint about tortilla prices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #50 April 23, 2008 Quote Everyone needs to watch "Who Killed The Electric Car", an excellent documentary outlining the demise of the EVI electric car less than a decade ago. I just finished watching it. It's outstanding. I had no idea that so many cars were available, that they performed as well as they did and that there was such an outcry to save them. One might have assumed that a "liberal media" might have clued us east coasters in on even a small portion of the controversy. I heard absolutely none of it. The movie makes a slam dunk argument for the wisdom of electric vehicles and exposes some very reasonable motives for their removal from the national inventory. I think the tell tale shot was when the protesters offered GM $1.9 million for the remaining 78 EV1's and GM didn't even blink. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
