War On Electric Cars: BigOil Smugly Says: "Let the Free Market Decide"

Sure, I can agree with that. Then again, that also illustrates how badly planned out Los Angeles (and many other American cities) are.

California would have a lot less smog if they hadn't expanded under the model of massive highways and instead built better metro systems. Of course, it doesn't help that competing industries bought what little metro infrastructure they had.

Most of America takes full advantage of the vast amount of space they have to spread out, but in terms of efficiency and clean air, this sprawl comes at a rather high price.

 

I do agree with you, but how does attempting to sell unrealistic cars for $45,000 a copy help anything? I really wouldn't care as long as it's private investments that wasted their own money on the foolishness. Once the Government starts blowing my tax dollars on idiocy, then I care.

 

I like Hondas, but I guess I prefer the approach of upgrading every decade or so.

I'll probably drive my current car (a Saturn, don't laugh) until it hits about 100,000, but even if it was a Civic instead, I'd probably do the same.

 

I guess, at the very least, I'd like to end all subsidies of oil and gas. If we're going to take the private approach, we should be consistent about it.

For the record, I was against the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.

 

Are you willing to end the subsidies to ethanol, wind and solar as well?

 

If it means ending the ones I mentioned, yes.

Granted, I would support ending subsidies to ethanol with or without that condition.

 

Then we've found common ground. The government shouldn't be subsidizing anything....at all!

 

How about ending subsidies to nuclear? I'm all about that. If ground-level investors had to choose between the price tag for producing MW with steam from nuclear vs solar thermal steam, the choice would be glaring and obvious.

Nuclear requires taxpayers to pick up the tab of

1. Wastes and pollution from mining & refining uranium fuel

2. Security for those mines

3. Security for transporting the fuel

4. Security for the plants in operation

5. Oversight agencies for the plants in operation

6. Oversight agencies for safety of the plants in operation

7. Disaster assistance should there be one mishap at any of the plants.

8. Cleanup of radiation if a meltdown occurs

9. Compensation and evacuation of hundreds to thousands of square miles of land should a meltdown occur.

10. Mitigating damage to any aquifers polluted forever with cesium or plutonium.

11. In good times, security for transportation of wastes from the nuclear site

12. Waste storage and facilities...forever..

13. Security for those waste storage areas forever.

Or with solar thermal:

1. The construction of the reflecting mirrors, steam tubes and generators.

2. Done.

3. Perpetual free fuel means in a very short time: pure profit, a tax base and a net gain to both investors AND the taxpaying public. If we export that cheap energy we get a rise in our GDP and all of our overall quality of living.

Now, as for the car situation, the elecric car could be:

1. Powered from a solar panel on a roof. Dual batteries like with a cordless drill mean just charge on while you drive off the other.

2. Powered from flexible solar panels on its own roof. [Air conditioning can be at the very least].

3. Powered by a wind generator on a roof.

We could have solar thermal plants who's sole dedication is to juicing up electric cars. A dropoff station if you will. You drop off your battery on your way to work [instead of fueling up at the gas station] and pick it up charged at the end of the day. I can even see Home Depot carrying a backyard version of a trickle solar thermal motor/generator. We can come up with the best scenario.

Just like when the dangerous, unwieldy and "ghastly" Model T made its debut. There are some kinks to be worked out but be worked out they will..

 

Costs of regulation aren't subsidies. That's a ridiculous argument.

That's like saying we should eliminate the FAA, because it's subsidizing air travel.

 

The FAA is a subsidy for Commercial Airlines. You bet it is. They benefit DIRECTLY from this vital service the public pays for to keep their business running.

Thanks for pointing that out.

There are some subsidies that are worth it. Farm subsidies that keep food prices reachable for the poor are worth it. FAA to keep airlines and tourism coming in that benefits all of us: worth it. Subsidies to develop and refine the electric or hybrid car to meet world-market demands for these products: great idea; creates jobs and stays abreast of market futures.

Subsidizing a power type like nuclear that approaches nearly 100% subsidized, that is very dangerous and can be replaced by the same type of generation [steam] with a vastly cheaper and infinitely safer mechanism that runs on free fuel, opting instead for expensive and dangerous = bad idea.

 

Nuclear runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and makes far more sense than the other cockamamie "part time" production methods. Hydro and geothermal make sense too. Investing in part time production methods makes little sense.

 

Farm subsidies more commonly raise the price of food.

Since most farming is done corporately and very efficiently, food prices are naturally pretty low for most items. In short, farm subsidies are just free money for agricorporations that don't need it.

The FAA is a regulatory body. It's no more a subsidy than the EPA is to all of industry.

I really don't get how you keep making these false equivalencies.

 

Regulatory bodies have employees, need places to operate from with rents, heating bills, security and janitorial needs. Pensions, benefits, transportation for the employees...worker's compensation, overtime..

And all this simply to benefit the airlines. What a bargain! How much do the airlines pay in FAA taxes? Get back to me on that one will you?

Then why didn't Chevron install a nuclear plant to create steam instead of a solar thermal one here:

Maybe Chevron crunched the numbers and decided solar thermal steam during peak daylight hours, with no overhead once the facility is built, and no [that's ZERO] fuel costs perpetually made better business sense than a nuclear device to just create the same steam they get for free from the sun?

That's what I like about Chevron. They're always so good at math like that!

 

Well, if we're counting regulatory costs as subsidies now, then I guess that means that the EPA is somehow a subsidy to oil companies.

 

It is in a way. It certainly seems to look the other way when compensated to do so. The fact that BigOil was in charge of its own oversight in inspections, the type of insider-monitoring that lead to the Gulf Spill in 2010, means for sure they're looking the other way.

That unusual relationship means that we the taxpayers are paying salaries to people to keep us safe from environmental harm. And those same people are taking that money, turning around and taking more from BigOil and just ignoring the safety of the People. That's classic mexican corruption. Wherever there's money, so go the rotters.

It's this same type of racket that BigOil was involved in up to their elbows beating back technology like the electric car, solar thermal steam and anything else that meant the inevitable threat: use of less oil...or in the simplist of terms: less money for oil barons.

They have a particular distaste for the electric car and solar thermal because the two paired together mean potentially zero consumption of oil as the technology evolves. This will not do. This most definitely is not OK with BigOil.

Except apparently Chevron who is looking ahead somewhat at least.

 

im not gonna laugh at your saturn, but i am gonna tell you that i personally suggest you upgrade as well. saturns dont live the older days very well.

and to be honest if i were you id find me a good used car, these newer cars are not much to be proud about, even hondas newer stuff is nothing compared to what they used to be.

im actually looking into getting an older civic for a daily grinder.

 

Hummmm, you do understand that some time ago, some 80 years ago the electric car was put down totally for a gas power car. So really electric has already failed in this scenario, it can not perform as IMO most people want out of a car. I want to be able to drive hundreds of miles at any given time, use as much AC, Heat as I (*)(*)(*)(*) well please. Outside of that if the electric car can do it as good as a gas car I'm fine with it but that is what we call Nirvana or La-La Land. Personally if they perform as to suit my needs I would be fine with electric, not like I care if the electric comes from a Coal Powered Electric Plant.

 

In 1964 as a young lad I went to the World's Fair in Flushing Meadows NY. General Motors had an exhibit called "Futurama", We were pretty much told by the year 2000 we'd all be driving around in a car like the Jetson's cartoon.

​

 

80 years ago eh? Back then, electronics weren't quite what they are today.

We'll give her another go and see if today's innovations in electronics can overcome some of the bugs they had 80 years ago. OK?

..lol... Now you guys are really grabbing at straws. They're here to stay. The world needs them. Europe cannot afford to import petrolium anymore. All those tax breaks and favors you guys took and gave to Wallstreet came back to bite you in the butt. Ruined economies cannot afford expensive gasoline. Should've put that one in your calculators before you decided to push it too far this time..

 

You see...you did it to yourselves...

 

From the same link:

Ouch! Didn't see that coming did you? In the old days of the Old West, BigOil's price-jacking ending up in consumers turning away from their product was known as "shooting yourself in the foot".

 

LMAO

TEN PERCENT.. TEN PERCENT..

Don't make me laugh.

When those numbers rise like to 90% let me know. Otherwise you are just puffing wind.

It won't be until 2050 or later before that number reaches that high and you know it, regardless of anything you say.

Every solution you environloons put forth is always some niche solution designed for nerds and geeks. Where are the general solutions that fit the general American way of life?? As in electric cars that perform like muscle cars and drive 250mph and trucks that can haul big trailers and your electric powered RV's and (*)(*)(*)(*)??

Until that (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the market in an affordable way you are just wasting our time. We Americans don't want nerd cars we want the powerful (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

...said the harness, buggy & whip maker at the turn of the last century, about the "ridiculous newfangled motorized carraige!"

You can peddle antiques. Meanwhile I'm looking ahead to the JD Powers and associates prediction of a trend, and investing accordingly...

 

Like I said, Americans don't want some wussy nerd car. They want powerful muscle cars that can do 0-60 in a few seconds, they want big powerful trucks to pull their trailers and airstreamers across the country to Yellowstone, they want big huge RV's. Watch the (*)(*)(*)(*) commercials, that is what Americans want. Power, superior handling and a sexy image.

They don't want your pissant little geekmobiles run on a battery. What the hell do you think people talk about when they say "America's car culture"??

The day battery powered cars are competing in NASCAR races, then you might be able to sell something, that is what Americans want!

 

Commuter cars make up about 90% of all automobiles. For the heavier jobs you have diesel [most low end torque of all types of engines] trucks. Ford keeps their F-series and converts all models to diesel. You use solar thermal steam to process biofuels to cut into diesel engines further and further refined to work off higher and higher percentages of cut diesel.

You don't need to refine diesel like you do gasoline. And I dare you to call a diesel truck "wussy". It'll outpull and outhaul any gas engine around. Why do you think semi trucks have relied so heavily on them? You get that diesel engine up to speed on a stretch of road and it can haul immense tonnage just idling along.

Problem solved.