GM to halt production of the VOLT

[billvon 3,114]

>hmm...maybe Pedophile State doesn't teach economics very well.

No jokes about pedophilia. Period.

[shah269 0]

I'm not going to read 6 pages.
But has any one thought that this was simply a technology demonstrator?

Remember that Toyota lost money for 3 straight years when it was producing the prious. But now they are making a killing selling the technology to all the other companies.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[billvon 3,114]

> Believe it or not you can make oil out of coal!

Yes we can! But we're not doing it. We ARE building PHEV's and they work well.

> It is cutting edge stuff; the technology has only been around for about a century,
>so I don’t blame you for not understanding.

Good use of condescending arrogance in that post but you're sort of arguing with yourself here. Technology will advance. PHEV's will be part of that advance no matter how much you want them not to be. So will ethanol. So will solar and wind. We know this because all of this is happening right now.

Coal and wood gasification/synfuel creation may also be part of the solution. It isn't now, and the EROI is very low, but time will tell. The trick is to reduce our usage so that the smaller amounts of oil we can produce, and the small-compared-to-gasoline amounts of ethanol, synfuel and biofuels we can produce, will fulfill our needs.

[billvon 3,114]

>Remember that Toyota lost money for 3 straight years when it was producing the
>prious. But now they are making a killing selling the technology to all the other
>companies.

Yep. And the Prius saw a similar level of attacks from right wingers when it was introduced as well. Now they sell 40 different hybrids and have taken over 3% of the market for cars. Not to mention the six pure EV's and the two PHEV's on the market. Like the Prius, these won't sell well until people understand them better. Once they start selling people will be able to choose whether they want to use electricity or gas that day.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>Remember that Toyota lost money for 3 straight years when it was producing the
>prious. But now they are making a killing selling the technology to all the other
>companies.

Yep. And the Prius saw a similar level of attacks from right wingers when it was introduced as well. Now they sell 40 different hybrids and have taken over 3% of the market for cars. Not to mention the six pure EV's and the two PHEV's on the market. Like the Prius, these won't sell well until people understand them better. Once they start selling people will be able to choose whether they want to use electricity or gas that day.

I see a trend; hybrids are 3% of the car market and alternative energy is 3% of the energy market. Wake me up when they achieve at least a plurality.

[billvon 3,114]

>I see a trend; hybrids are 3% of the car market . . .

I also see a trend; coal/oil gasification and kerogen conversion (i.e. tar sands, oil shale) represent 0% of US energy production. By your standards, then, they are even less likely to matter than solar, wind or the Volt.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

You are confused. I said fossil fuels not just oil. Believe it or not you can make oil out of coal! It is cutting edge stuff; the technology has only been around for about a century, so I don’t blame you for not understanding.

So why aren't our energy companies doing it? Did it occur to you that there might be a reason?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And just what caused the drop in demand? Was it the Volt, the Prius, higher millage requirements? Oh that’s right it was a near economic collapse. Simply put more energy use = prosperity; less energy use = poverty.

The reason doesn't actually matter. The result does. If we increased our fuel efficiency by only 10%, we get the same result. If we increased it by 50% or 100%...massive change in the demand, and a pretty nasty blow to the economies of people we dislike (Iran, Russia, Venezuela).

[brenthutch 444]

You don’t see me clamoring for a government subsidy to developed tar sands.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Bill gave the science answer, I'll go the simpler route.

We waste a fuckload of energy unnecessarily. It's much easier to fix the consumption side than to increase the supply side.

but just like the increase-taxes/reduce-spending arguments, both should be employed. We should work to reduce our energy use (not I said "energy" not "oil") and work on producing more energy through many methods (not just oil).

--
Rob

[wmw999 2,587]

I'm not sure what your motivation is all these anti-gas-saving-vehicle posts of yours.

No one has asked you to buy any of them. No one has told you that you have to get rid of your Suburban, F150, Hummer, or Peterbilt (or whatever you drive). If you expect the government to subsidize petroleum products to make it as cheap as possible for you to own your vehicle, well, then you're obviously looking for government assistance.

A tenet of project management is that you always put together some contingency plans in case an essential material/skill/technology/whatever becomes unavailable. Given our national dependence on petroleum products, it's not surprising that a whole lot of people (and not just "stupid liberals") are trying to figure out what they will do if the price of oil spikes. It's done that before, and might well do it again. It's good project management.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm not sure what your motivation is all these anti-gas-saving-vehicle posts of yours.

No one has asked you to buy any of them. No one has told you that you have to get rid of your Suburban, F150, Hummer, or Peterbilt (or whatever you drive). If you expect the government to subsidize petroleum products to make it as cheap as possible for you to own your vehicle, well, then you're obviously looking for government assistance.

A tenet of project management is that you always put together some contingency plans in case an essential material/skill/technology/whatever becomes unavailable. Given our national dependence on petroleum products, it's not surprising that a whole lot of people (and not just "stupid liberals") are trying to figure out what they will do if the price of oil spikes. It's done that before, and might well do it again. It's good project management.

Wendy P.

One thing with the VOLT Wendy

We are all helping the new owners by them

If that would go away volt sales would be even less

The vehicles you list will not go away even with higher gas prices

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

>One thing with the VOLT Wendy
>We are all helping the new owners by them

Yep. And we are helping the oil companies by a good deal more - almost five billion a year in incentives. Overall, though, the Volt has a lot more potential to make gasoline cheaper in the long run.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>One thing with the VOLT Wendy
>We are all helping the new owners by them

Yep. And we are helping the oil companies by several orders of magnitude more - almost five billion a year in incentives. Overall, though, the Volt has a lot more potential to make gasoline cheaper in the long run.

Maybe
But it will make things like electricity more expensive

there is always a trade off

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

>But it will make things like electricity more expensive

Yes, it might, if people prefer electricity to gas. And by having electricity compete with oil prices, consumers pay less overall for their transportation energy.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But it will make things like electricity more expensive

Yes, it might, if people prefer electricity to gas. And by having electricity compete with oil prices, consumers pay less overall for their transportation energy.

Again, that is a maybe

But if we keep spending on wind and solar it will be much much higher

Again, there are trade offs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

>But if we keep spending on wind and solar it will be much much higher

How so? My power bills are currently zero. (Actually they occasionally pay me.) Can't get much lower than that.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

I'm not sure what your motivation is all these anti-gas-saving-vehicle posts of yours.

Simple -- the energy status quo lines his pockets and he feels threatened by the prospect of increased use of renewable energy sources.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>One thing with the VOLT Wendy
>We are all helping the new owners by them

Yep. And we are helping the oil companies by a good deal more - almost five billion a year in incentives. Overall, though, the Volt has a lot more potential to make gasoline cheaper in the long run.

There's the problem. We shouldn't be subsidizing any of it. Not oil, not electric, solar, wind, etc.

The government should not be using our money to subsidize for profit companies.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure what your motivation is all these anti-gas-saving-vehicle posts of yours.

No one has asked you to buy any of them. No one has told you that you have to get rid of your Suburban, F150, Hummer, or Peterbilt (or whatever you drive). If you expect the government to subsidize petroleum products to make it as cheap as possible for you to own your vehicle, well, then you're obviously looking for government assistance.

A tenet of project management is that you always put together some contingency plans in case an essential material/skill/technology/whatever becomes unavailable. Given our national dependence on petroleum products, it's not surprising that a whole lot of people (and not just "stupid liberals") are trying to figure out what they will do if the price of oil spikes. It's done that before, and might well do it again. It's good project management.

Wendy P.

One thing with the VOLT Wendy

We are all helping the new owners by them

If that would go away volt sales would be even less

The vehicles you list will not go away even with higher gas prices

Last time I checked, ordinary taxpayers were giving oil companies some pretty hefty tax breaks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,114]

>There's the problem. We shouldn't be subsidizing any of it.

I agree, to a degree. Oil vs alternative energy is one example; a lot of that effectively cancels each other out. Another one (my favorite) is one part of the USDA pushing cheese usage (the "cheezy crust" marketing campaign for Pizza Hut came from the USDA) to placate dairy farmers while the FDA publishes dietary guidelines that say "reduce consumption of dairy." Such uses of government money are entirely wasted; they effectively cancel each other out.

However, I do not agree that anything that is good for the market is good for the country. There are times that the good of the country outweighs the good of a market segment. Freon is one example; pollution regulation is another. Being entirely reliant on foreign oil is a huge military security risk for the US. Our military runs on oil, and having potential enemies responsible for powering our military is a poor decision. And there are some markets (like nuclear power) that are simply not possible for the market to run safely and economically. Heck, fusion may never be economical at all - but without government support of basic research that's a guarantee.

Thus I think there is a place for both regulation and incentives, especially incentives that use the market to accomplish US goals as opposed to rules that simply impose the goal by fiat. These should be minimized and should always align with our national strategies for defense, energy security, public health etc.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

I'm not sure what your motivation is all these anti-gas-saving-vehicle posts of yours.

No one has asked you to buy any of them. No one has told you that you have to get rid of your Suburban, F150, Hummer, or Peterbilt (or whatever you drive).


But they have asked me to subsidize the Volt.

• Quote

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure what your motivation is all these anti-gas-saving-vehicle posts of yours.

No one has asked you to buy any of them. No one has told you that you have to get rid of your Suburban, F150, Hummer, or Peterbilt (or whatever you drive). If you expect the government to subsidize petroleum products to make it as cheap as possible for you to own your vehicle, well, then you're obviously looking for government assistance.

A tenet of project management is that you always put together some contingency plans in case an essential material/skill/technology/whatever becomes unavailable. Given our national dependence on petroleum products, it's not surprising that a whole lot of people (and not just "stupid liberals") are trying to figure out what they will do if the price of oil spikes. It's done that before, and might well do it again. It's good project management.

Wendy P.

One thing with the VOLT Wendy

We are all helping the new owners by them

If that would go away volt sales would be even less

The vehicles you list will not go away even with higher gas prices

Last time I checked, ordinary taxpayers were giving oil companies some pretty hefty tax breaks.

If you call deprecation, and depletion, tax breaks. Open a book and educate yourself on standard accounting practices. If you want a carve-out for industries you find objectionable that is fine but to suggest that "big oil" has some unfair advantage is just naive.

[billvon 3,114]

>If you call deprecation, and depletion, tax breaks.

Nope. But I'd call the oil and gas exploration and development expensing exception a tax break.

"A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy."

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>If you call deprecation, and depletion, tax breaks.

Nope. But I'd call the oil and gas exploration and development expensing exception a tax break.

"A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy."

News flash! Fossil-fuel, based energy has a greater level of depletion than the nuclear industry. If you want to make a special carve out to punish an industry you find objectionable, that is fine. But don’t pretend you are doing otherwise.