Sanctions, Snatching, Or Summer?

[Kashif]

Their is no dam way Hilary is going win if she is the Democrat front runner. If that's the case lets hope for John McCain.

[starfish]

+1

Collusion all the way. Evidence = Record profits. Fish, Bush is an oil-man. No sincere Renewable energy efforts, no sincere electric vehicle support, no support for even plug-in hybrids (which is the beginning of the end for big oil).

COLLUSION - Nobody was crying for the oil companies when oil hit $10/bl.

RECORD PROFITS - Today cheap oil is hard to come by because of either a majority of government regulations or location. During this time of record oil prices we also see that the government has received record tax collection as gas is taxed on a percentage basis so that the higher the commodity is priced the more government collects. Coincidence or is the government maintaing the status quo? How about a tax relief on gas to lower prices?

BUSH THE OIL MAN - If Bush is an oil man than so am I and so are you. When I hear people saying talking like it is a bad thing or something it is nothing but crazy talk. How many people in this country have there retirement accounts that hold there investment money in oil stocks? Oil is the energy that drives the worlds economic engine. If you want to see what it is like living in a country that is not oil dependant, move to some third world African nation. The top countries leading the way with economic growth today are China and India. They did it with cheap labor and pursuing interests in acquiring huge oil supplies. Hence the higher demand as these long suffering economies grow.

RENEWABLE ENERGY - Its called methanol! Where have you been? The farmers in this country can not grow corn fast enough and we are attempting to import as much as we can to help the supply chain to make more methanol. This is a stupid idea because we now compete energy costs with food costs. President Bush has stated many times that we need to go to "switch grass" and increase biofuels and has funded many of these projects. This is a start but will not be a either or solution to eliminate our need for petroleum. The production of methanol is a net energy loser. Farmers are dumping huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizers every year to grow these crops. These applications will have a greater pollution impact on water supplies as more and more acres are producing corn. The production of ethanol requires more huge amounts of water in the distilling process. I hope your not on a well nearby the local ethanol plant? If we were to be totally reliant on corn for methanol production to have everyone driving in some E-85 vehicle we would need to plant corn on an acreage 1-1/2 times the size of the United States, and in a short period of time we would be in the same position as we are in now.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES - Another idea that at first glance appears promising but in any type of major changeover would result in an environmental disaster. It takes more energy to produce a Toyota Prius than a Hummer. The environmental impact on supplying and recycling toxic battery chemicals will never be tolerated on a large scale. California has the most registered vehicles in the nation. Every year we read or hear on the news about rolling blackouts or rolling brownouts due to excessive electric usage to run air conditioning. We would need to build what maybe 700 new nuclear power plants across the nation at a price I could not imagine to source these new electric cars. I'm sure Al Gore will go for that!

THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER - Increase oil production. Increase oil refining. Increase energy conservation. Develop alternative energy sources that can compete in a free and open market. God gave us oil for a reason, to use as an energy source. It has no other value.

THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ANSWER - There is none! They are more interested in a political cause than a solution. Their message is all about the spreading of misinformation, the building of worry, grooming feelings of loss of hope to develop more mindless victims into Democratic voters.

[USMC850T]

+1

Collusion all the way. Evidence = Record profits. Fish, Bush is an oil-man. No sincere Renewable energy efforts, no sincere electric vehicle support, no support for even plug-in hybrids (which is the beginning of the end for big oil).

record profits are not an indication of collusion. Collusion is basically what OPEC is for, control supply against almost perfectly inelastic demand and you control market prices.

[RAzOR]

record profits are not an indication of collusion. Collusion is basically what OPEC is for, control supply against almost perfectly inelastic demand and you control market prices.

You are technically correct. The reason oil was $10 a barrel (IMHO) was becuase the EV-1, Toyota RAV4, and other electrics were out making a huge impact with the public. And the California ARB Zero emmission vehicle mandate was in force and threatening.

The oil companies took a hit to kill off the future. Makes gas cheap and no one wants to change-up. Funny how once the EV's were smashed (literally) and the ZEV madate was rescinded, the prices started to creep up again.

Sure seems suspicious to me........

[starfish]

You are technically correct. The reason oil was $10 a barrel (IMHO) was becuase the EV-1, Toyota RAV4, and other electrics were out making a huge impact with the public. And the California ARB Zero emmission vehicle mandate was in force and threatening.

The oil companies took a hit to kill off the future. Makes gas cheap and no one wants to change-up. Funny how once the EV's were smashed (literally) and the ZEV madate was rescinded, the prices started to creep up again.

Sure seems suspicious to me........

The fact that the EV-1 cost $80,000 each to build I guess had nothing to do with it? The fact that the EV-1 could only be driven in California and Arizona making larger production runs unrealistic had nothing to do with it? The fact that the EV-1 was unpopular amongst drivers had nothing to do with it? The fact that GM had to maintain a parts inventory and meet service requirements for a 10 year period for each of these unpopular vehicles had nothing to do with it?

The fact that it was cheaper for GM to sue California to rescind their overstepping laws than to continue producing a vehicle at a tremendous loss had a lot to do with it!!!

None of your examples were the cause of $10 a barrel oil. It was a world-wide recession.

[Mesoam]

you guys are missing the bigger issue of why is the v70r owner using regular?

[gdizzle]

you guys are missing the bigger issue of why is the v70r owner using regular?

It's a 98.. ;)

[RAzOR]

The fact that the EV-1 cost $80,000 each to build I guess had nothing to do with it? The fact that the EV-1 could only be driven in California and Arizona making larger production runs unrealistic had nothing to do with it? The fact that the EV-1 was unpopular amongst drivers had nothing to do with it? The fact that GM had to maintain a parts inventory and meet service requirements for a 10 year period for each of these unpopular vehicles had nothing to do with it?

The fact that it was cheaper for GM to sue California to rescind their overstepping laws than to continue producing a vehicle at a tremendous loss had a lot to do with it!!!

None of your examples were the cause of $10 a barrel oil. It was a world-wide recession.

You are categorically wrong on every point you make- do you just make this stuff up? The cars were not sold but leased at $500/month. The EV-1 could be driven anywhere but initially was deployed only in a few citities where the was more than enough demand for the entire limited run and the local governments supported the project with local infrastructure improvements (such as charging stations). The EV-1 was wildly popular amongst its owners and the public. So much so that they held a mock funeral at the end, staked out the holding facility where their cars had been taken and sued GM to force them to sell the cars to them. As far as your parts statement, I do not know about that, my guess is that GM had no obligation to meet the 10-year parts requirement as these were "lease-only". Which is partly why they did it this way. It was understood by all that although these were production units, they were not intended for full release.

And there was no recession in the late 90's, actually a very good economy and the midst of the most bullish stock market ever. So quite the opposite. On top of that, demand for gas was breaking records due to SUV popularity. So if anything, this is when prices should have spiked.

Where are you getting your information? You may want to question it.

I strongly encourage you to watch Who Killed the Electric car. It is well done and fair. You can draw your yor own conclusions.

[Kashif]

Razor it's official you have way more a life then fish. Man it must take forever to write those fish dissertations.

[RAzOR]

Razor it's official you have way more a life then fish. Man it must take forever to write those fish dissertations.

Thank you but unfortunately the very fact that I do even write them proves that I, in fact, should get a life!!! :lol:

[starfish]

Razor - Generally I am in agreeance with many of your opinions here in this forum. On this particular issue I seemed to have struck your nerve? As a kid I grew up watching the Jetson's and always had hoped that by now we all could drive those cool little space cars like George and Mr. Spacely. Sadly, we know how that has turned out. I have been involved with automobiles for more years than I care to discuss as it is my livelihood. I remember quite well the excitement level when the EV-1 came out and the hope it was to make that Jetson car closer to a reality and it's departure. Many of the comments I had made were based on articles I had read from auto writers in magazines and trade publications years ago. I no longer have these articles but have found some great summaries on-line that seem to echo my statement. Thanks for helping me remember what a neat car the EV-1 was.

General Motors EV-1

Who killed the electric car?

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

Please no snivveling, your apologies are accepted. B)

[RAzOR]

Razor - Generally I am in agreeance with many of your opinions here in this forum. On this particular issue I seemed to have struck your nerve? As a kid I grew up watching the Jetson's and always had hoped that by now we all could drive those cool little space cars like George and Mr. Spacely. Sadly, we know how that has turned out. I have been involved with automobiles for more years than I care to discuss as it is my livelihood. I remember quite well the excitement level when the EV-1 came out and the hope it was to make that Jetson car closer to a reality and it's departure. Many of the comments I had made were based on articles I had read from auto writers in magazines and trade publications years ago. I no longer have these articles but have found some great summaries on-line that seem to echo my statement. Thanks for helping me remember what a neat car the EV-1 was.

General Motors EV-1

Who killed the electric car?

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

Please no snivveling, your apologies are accepted.

Struck a nerve? You made completely false statements. I am glad you've read about EV-1s. Hell, I heard Rush say once that EV's don't have air conditioning. I couldn't believe he was so misinformed. I was involved in the deployment program in Los Angeles. I drove them and other EVs on many occassions. I was peripherally involved when the first hybrid came out in 1992. That's right- 1992. You won't hear about it but it was displayed on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall. It worked great, mid-sized four seater by the startup manufacturer Clean Air Concepts. It was killed a few months later with no explanation. Not since the current hybrids, nearly 15 years later, has the concept existed. Where was it? Suppressed by low gas prices is my suspicion.

The GM EV-1 was far superioir to the Toyota RAV-4s and Nissan "mini-vans" (I forgot the name). So why did they crush it first? Why did they smash every single one? Beats me. Why did they SMASH them? There were lotsa advanced parts in there. The EV RAV's still run today, and run well.

You wanna know what I think? I think Toyota and Honda don't play golf with Ford, GM, Chevron, Texaco, etc. That's why they came out with the hybrids, and NOT GM, Ford, Chrysler.

I have been a Republican my whole life. I grew up in a corporate environment. I have seen first hand and truly believe that most corporations are harmless and usually well intentioned. But at the same time big money is smart- very smart. And free to strategize and execute. I am also not a big believer in coincidence. It takes quite a bit for me to accept a theory, let alone take it to my preception of reality. But in this case, the years of experience as a watchful observer and a devil's advocate has left me very, very suspicious.

[starfish]

Razor - I hate to always be the one on this forum to constantly disclose how so many of the self-proclaimed intellectuals have become lemmings running head-long over a ledge into an ocean of stupidity but in someway, somehow, someone needs to stand up for humanity. Your repeating comments by some liberal environmental religious whacko producing a movie that was designed to create a political reaction in attempt to alter your thinking and make a profit as fact.

The EV-1 WAS a neat car, but as a vehicle to compete with its gasoline cousin it was a total failure at every measure. There was no oil company conspiracy. There was no corporate collusion to ban its sale. There was no diabolic plot to crush the cars like some aborted fetus depriving the owner of life's fufillment. This concept was a project that had guidelines. The contract was fufilled and its listed obligations were met.

This car was a total loser for company profit. As a publicly owned entity, GM had a right to pull the plug at any time to protect the shareholders from further loss, a loss that they new would accumulate. The EV-1's time was up, but that did not mean the technology was scrapped. The automobile manufactures decided at that time they were pissing up a rope with a technology that would be so limited by its own virtue that they had to change course of direction.

Linky dink to another radical right-wing conservative website describing how the EV-1 sucked

[Chilled man]

It might not be the best way to go about it , but at least its a way in the right direction from being stuck with sandmonkey oil and our dependance on the sandmokey oil.

[RAzOR]

I am not a liberal or a conservative I am a person who follows common sense. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am someone who can smell a rotting fish when there is the odor in the air as it was in this case.

The car ran very well

The car was good for commuting, daily daily driving, etc

The car had lead acid batteries and got 60 miles guaranteed, and up to 100 if driven lightly.

The car slated for NiMH but Chevron had acquired the technology and for whatever reason, did not allow the new deployment.

I was wrong. The car leased for $300/month. Not bad.

A first run car NEVER makes money, let alone a new powertrain.

Ford sank $1,000,000,000 into develoing just the Escort in 1988(?), a simple commuter car.

The electric Toyota RAV-4 are still in service and get 120-150 miles with Ni-MH batteries.