idrankwhat

I thought battery pack replacement was closer to 100,000. I can't remember if I read that on the Tesla or the Hymotion sites. Ok, the sarcastic thought that comes to mind is "why are people suddenly concerned with "breaking even" when it comes to automobiles? That's never been a priority in the past. That said, one factor that people don't seem to consider is that in addition to looking at the "break even" number, which is attainable, but by using less fuel you are USING LESS FUEL! One gallon saved is one gallon still on the market. More fuel in the market keeps the price of everything else you buy down. So, by using energy efficient vehicles you lower your total cost of ownership as well as the price of your groceries and jump tickets. And by supporting the technology you help to advance it. $0.02

Obama is calling for a reduction in the nuclear arsenal. I think that's a great idea. We have more than plenty. A little perspective What could we do with the money that we save by reducing the size of the arsenal? My vote is to spend some of it pursuing fusion and then follow some of the advice from these folks.

I just skimmed the article but it looked pretty informative and straight forward. And it addresses the questions that I've been asking recently regarding the reality of "US" oil in the global market and the new refinery question. Hopefully some of this straight talk will make its way into the campaign speeches this summer. I find the recent flip flop by McCain and some Florida legislators regarding offshore drilling to be curious. Considering that the increased oil production would do little to help alleviate oil price increases and that there's actually a greater risk that states like Florida will suffer from lost tourism dollars, why the big swing in convictions? Is it simply politics? IMO, conservation and newer technologies are the answer to our oil based lifestyles. If we were to take the resources (tax dollars) that we use to subsizize the oil industry and divert those to expanding on alternative technologies then not only would we start actually moving towards energy independence but we'd also be creating a new, lucrative industry that is ripe for domestic, economic benefit. Thanks for the article.

Please tell me where, and more importantly, how much more does it cost than a regular car? If it were that simple, everyone would have one by yesterday. Buy a 2004-2008 Prius and then contact these guys. http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products Give them $10K and you're done. Check out the site and use the plug in calculator to figure out your expected mileage. If you don't want to go that route then you'll have to wait for the production line plug-in from Toyota in 2010. Unfortunately they are going to be leased at first and you won't be able to get one unless your business leases it. But to address your other concerns. No, there's no magic technology that's going to give everyone what they want at a super low price. Low/zero emission vehicles can go a long way to serving the majority of the public with all their needs while simultaneously conserving tremendous amounts of fuel. Not everyone will want them and to them I say "knock yourself out". They're free to buy the motor home and tow their Hummer if they want to. But again, if you get the chance, check out "Who killed the electric car". Until I watched it I didn't even know that there were so many manufacturers that built successful zero EV cars. And people still DO want them. A Toyota RAV4 EV (that wasn't crushed) just recently sold on ebay for over $60K.

That depends on what you consider to be "superior". I consider a car that can carry 5 people, 4 comfortably and get over 100 mpg to be superior to most of the vehicles on the road. And that technology is available, and driving on the road, today. And regarding your marketing angle, you should watch "Who killed the electric car" some time. It's eye opening, addressing that issue along with quite a few others.

That's probably the weakest part of the argument. Ocean ecosystems don't need oil rigs to thrive. And a thriving community doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. Cancer and Zebra mussels are good examples. But once again, how will drilling "here/now" help gas prices without us nationalizing our supply? And even if we did nationalize our supply, the offshore supply is not ours. Alternatives are the answer.

How much this influenced Congress, I don't know. But it was obviously a major part of the administration's plan. A Clean Break

You forgot the still.

No, but my sense of humor still works. I'm sorry that you're having difficulty with yours. Yea, I've noticed how Obama's opponents are forced to cling to ad hominem "humor" in these, their darkest hours

Yea, that was one of my biggest problems with the earmarking process. Many of them seem to just show up in the middle of the night, anonymously. Then the Congresscritters either don't have time to read the bills or don't bother. True, and I don't really care very much for DoD appropriations and funding for a Hooters restaurant being lumped into the same funding scheme so to speak. Seems like a very poor way to do things. p.s. I had know idea who Keith Olberman was ... google'd "Olberdouche," which does generate 1,590 hits. In a Bonfire-esque tribute, the first hit is to a page titled "Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Keith Olberdouche Gets a Spanking." That's giving Rotties a bad name. Mine would not approve (see attachment). You should check out Olberman some time. His executive tongue lashings are quite artfully crafted and the delivery is typically delivered with relentless and stinging eloquence. At your leisure, M'Lady. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98BByBrhdA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE&NR=1

So does this mean to say you do not believe that the Administration intentionally deceived the public and congress to support the invasion of Iraq? I'd say that it's "pretty well confirmed". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

I haven't tried to verify your claim as to who authored the most bills so let's say that the Dems authored ALL of the bills that the Cons decided to pass. What difference does it make when the earmarks are the biggest problem? In 2006 there were 15,832 earmarks totaling $71.77 billion. The OMB earmarks site has the 2008 summary at 11,237 earmarks totaling $16.87 billion. We're heading in the right direction. That said, I'm still having a hard time with the notion that the Dems are responsible for massive spending under Con control yet when the Dems take over, the massive spending slows significantly. Maybe it's Bush's vetos, maybe it's simply that many of the Treasury access punch drunk Cons are out of Congress. Maybe the Dems actually do want to control spending for a couple of valid reasons (that's what they campaigned on and it would serve them well politically to pick up the fiscal responsibility banner that was tossed aside over the last six years). Maybe it's all of the above. But to summarize, I think it's pretty ridiculous to try to blame the Dems for the insanity of the last few years. And I don't watch Olberman with the exception of the very occasional YouTube excerpt. The man's got some talent. I always thought he would be a good VP for Jon Stewart, at the very least he could be Jon's White House Press Secretary

Yea, but how much energy will it take to quickly smash them into the luscious, black, gooey goodness that we all crave?

This year? Yes. The amount of pork aligns with the majority/minority split. The bright side is that 2008 is about 23% lower in total earmarked dollars than the high water mark set in 2005. If you're implying that the records set under the R led congresses and the Bush administration are due to the Dems spending, then either someone slipped something in your brownies or the Rovisionist Press just released a new report.

Because those are just talking points. I asked this in another thread and I'm not sure if anyone tried to answer it. Sorry if I missed it. 1) That oil is not "ours" as in a national sense. How would we benefit at the pump when global demand is high and the oil companies' primary responsibility is to themselves? I don't know if we still do it but for years we used to send most of the oil that came from Alaska to Asia because it was more profitable for the industry. 2) Why would an oil company build a refinery when we already have all the gas we need and by increasing output, they would decrease the value of their product? That basically means spending money to make less. What incentive would an oil company have to do that?

I couldn't find precisely the vote I was looking for but my vote is to follow Cali's 1990's lead (that they abandoned) and have the federal government mandate that a small percentage of cars meet zero emission standards. 3% over 8 years was enough to get most of the manufacturers on board in the '90s. And that was only one state! Make it nationwide, as it is indeed in our national interests, and the electric cars will be built.

You answered your own question. Besides, even if somehow we were able to be certain that that didn't happen, what do you think the chances are that congress would repeal the break, after Labor Day and right before an election? If everyone switched to these you'd probably see a drop in gas prices. Maybe not a whole lot but you'd already have tripled your gas mileage.

Breaking report: That "war oil" *STILL* isn't a drop in the bucket compared to imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuala... now over to you, Matt. Mike, you ignorant slut.... (Oh, crap. I hope people get the reference)

This just in: The US doesn't give Bill Gates $billions and use our military to invade countries like India so that he can cheaply produce a product that is expensive and doesn't work well. (We might let the monopoly thing slide but at least we haven't killed anyone yet)

There was more in that bill than just the windfall profits tax. No one expected the bill to pass as it was presented. It's not mathematically possible when you know that Bush will veto it. Besides the obvious chance to show that the R's aren't interested in alternative energy promotion, maybe the idea was to openly debate the the subsidies and tax breaks that the oil companies get. In addition there was apparently a provision that would require that oil speculators put up more of their own collateral. Regardless of what you think about the subsidies, requiring traders to put up more collateral may very well indeed lead to lower oil prices. That said, yes. Both sides are playing election year politics. The Dems are putting up things that they know won't pass and the Cons are obstructing everything that they possibly can.

If you're "shocked", you're alone.

Here's a good example of what Obama may have had in mind. It's a news article that basically puts Republicans for big oil and against conservation and alternative energy. Whether that's a fair summary or not could be up for debate but there's no doubt that's what it looks like. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits_13

why would we want the same party in power in both branches that never works out favorable for the people. only for certain people I don't know that it's a good idea but the Republicans need to get smacked around a bit until they figure out what the hell their platform is. Then again I consider both parties to be kissing cousins in the "business party" so it really doesn't make too much difference. One good thing is that we're not debating about forcibly keeping brain dead people alive any more. Now it's all about important stuff like professional sports doping.

Why would an impeachment be harmful to the democrats this fall? I think that by pursuing impeachment before the election the Democrats would be giving the Republicans a political stick with which to beat the Democratic candidates. They have nothing to gain politically but much to lose. If they want to do it after the election for accountability reasons then it probably wouldn't be a problem. Of course they'd run out of time. Personally I think that they should continue with the Congressional investigations in order to continue to expose the extent of the malfeasance but I don't see it going all the way through an impeachment by the end of this year. I do think that some sort of formal reprimand would be in order.