Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Poll: Would you consider buying a hybrid or alternative-fuel car?

May 2, 2007 6:46AM PDT

Would you consider buying a hybrid or alternative-fuel car?

-- Yes (Which one?)
-- No (Why not?)
-- Maybe someday (What's holding you back now?)
-- I already own a hybrid or alternative-fuel car (Which one, and what do you think of it?)

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Hybrid math is correct
May 5, 2007 8:09AM PDT

Until hybrids have batteries that last 300K miles (I've seen them start to fail around 150K miles) there is no economic reason to own one. There is still the issue of battery disposal and other hybrid related components that will wear and fail. I think the future is biodiesel

- Collapse -
biodiesel
May 6, 2007 9:02PM PDT

any renewable fuel will become big, biodiesel is one of a fairly large group. there are people that put down biodiesel because it uses food that people could eat, doesn't matter that it's not true, some people are stubborn in their ignorance. when i discuss alternative fuels i mention carbon cycle length, the amount of time it takes from burning the fuel, to the carbon being removed from the environment. the length of time it takes carbon from biodiesel to be recovered is approximately one growing season, same for alcohols and straw burned as pelletized fuel in furnaces. trees take a few decades, fish and animal oils take a few years, petroleum takes several million years.

- Collapse -
How do you say it's not true?
May 7, 2007 12:55PM PDT

How do you claim it's not true that Biodiesel would take from food the people could eat? I understand that Biodiesel can be made for the likes of used oil and such things. But given the limited nature of those sources, a renewable growable source would have to suppliment use french fry oil.

There is no way used oil alone could supply enough biodiesel to run all car and tracks nationwide. So what is the additional source, that is not food?

Don't get me wrong, I'm *FOR* biodiesel. However it is very important we choose the correct source, because whatever source we choose will turn into 'gold' and become subject to the price swings common in the energy market.

- Collapse -
non-food sources of biodiesel
May 7, 2007 11:04PM PDT

how about oil from potato chip makers, contaminated cheese or milk, spoiled wheat, fish skins normally tossed out, fat from the grocer, fat collected from the roasts cooked in restaurants, feed grade corn and olive pits. there may not be enough to replace all the petro diesel, but there's not a lot of hope that everybody with a diesel engine will want biodiesel either. with a tiny bit of imagination there would be enough for everybody, places that process things with fats could supply their own fuel, waste corn and other garbage could supply the rest. granted, i've perhaps jumped to the conclusion that food won't be used to replace all the diesel the world uses, but not every diesel has to be replaced with another diesel, there are plenty of cases where electric trucks would work fine, alcohol fuel takes more(made from feed grain the products are alcohol and high protein feed), there used to be steam trucks and can be again(they'll run on nearly anything), after alternatives to biodiesel are considered there aren't that many that will absolutely need any kind of diesel.
i'm tired, ready for bed, and my ear is bleeding, so i'll just take off now.

- Collapse -
This is where 'imagination' meets 'physics'
May 8, 2007 1:18PM PDT

I like your thoughts, but sadly reality is bit different.

First, the refining process requires clean sources. Rotten foods, and dirty garbage isn't going to work in a normal refinery.

Second, one refining process for one source (corn) will not work with all other souces (fish skins, contaminated cheese). You would need multiple refineries for each group of supply.

Third, not all sources have equal outcomes. Biodiesel from say corn, has about 90% the energy of 1 gallon of regular diesel. Whereas Biodiesel from olive pits could be in the 50% range. Meaning 2 gallons of olive biodiesel would be needed to go the same distance as 1 gallon of regular. (these are examples, I do not know specificaly about olives)

In this case, a clean dependable, energy rich, source for biodiesel would have to be used. Namely some food source likely. No one is going to open a refinery for biodiesel on the inconsistant source of spoiled foods.

Imagination is good, but at some point there are laws of physics that are not changing anytime soon. No one is going to buy a steam truck. The alternative fuels, other than biodiesel, are a waste. Maybe someday, but for now the technology is not there. I'd love to walk out to my car with a cup of water to run it, but it's not happening anytime soon.

- Collapse -
Oh my god, a Reality check! Thank you!
May 16, 2007 5:04PM PDT

Thanks, for bringing a bit of reality back into this pie in the sky discussion. Your input on this is absolutely rock solid.

And for the people who are saying we could grow food instead of Energy, The EARTH is already FAR beyond the numbers of people it can sustain, We dont need more food, we need LESS PEOPLE. I know this is not a popular subject but this planet can not sustain the population growths projected in the next two generations. Food is only one part of the equation, Clean water, clean air, and energy needs must be met or we will get a look at a future that is far closer to Mad Max than Star Trek.

- Collapse -
population control
May 17, 2007 6:14AM PDT

there's been some info available for a loooong time that shows 1st world countries, especially the richer, better educated in them, have on average, a lot less children than poor, uneducated people. so, lower population by having better education, it'll lead to better jobs, then it'll lead to less children being born. unfortunately when people point at population numbers they usually don't think that it's mostly poor people without cars that are having the most children, so lowering their population would do little to lower petroleum use. it's the stinky rich few who are using the most, consequently also polluting the most, and adding to the population slowest. my cure, in small part, is to have inner city travel be restructured so it's nearly impossible to drive a car there, switch to bike/ped paths, bus only routes, and build markets where the streets once were.

- Collapse -
population control and hte stinky rich
May 29, 2007 12:31AM PDT

actually I was more refering to world population in reference to food sources and the earths ability to sustain a population more than energy usage. Would love to see public transportation expanded to something actually useful. as it is, it is rarely an option in places like sacramento, where lightrail just gives car theves a place to shop for cars to steal, knowing they are parked all day without supervision and only sporadic patrols by disintersted contract security folks.

Once your on the train you may have a seat but forget getting any work done in the time it takes to get there, (usually twice as long as driving). Yes it is cheeper than driving a car, but if you need a vehicle during the day to do your job, your screwed.

I never have a clue from one day to the next if I will get a call and need to head out of the office to some issue or assignment, so if I took public transportation, I would have all the above, then have to ride PT BACK to my car, (assuming it is still there, and the electrical system has not been destroyed by some JA** stealing my stereo), drive all the way back into town and pick up my gear, then and only then would I be able to begin my journey.

Making it imposible to drive is not the answer, as much as it sounds good, when every third commercial on TV in most areas is a CAR commercial, you have to look at more than just radical public planing.

- Collapse -
inner city restructuring
May 29, 2007 2:18PM PDT

yeh, missed that.

there's a city in europe, uh, can't remember which, but i think it's that one where pot and houses of ill repute are legal. the mayor used guerrila tactics, blocked off the streets for a few days, tore up all the roads, put down bike and foot paths. looked it up, amsterdam, it's been years since the story was on discovery channel, so i can't be sure, but nobody seemed to have had much trouble with it. the planning just has to be right so people that use cars to get to work in the downtown aren't put out, in the americas it'd be difficut, cars are gods in n. america.

- Collapse -
city traffic in Europe
Jun 27, 2007 10:23PM PDT

Practically ALL cities in Europe have a good public transport system, while being connected with high speed trains (up to 280 MPH). We pay $7/gallon of gas, so we drive diesel cars with manual transmission. City of London charges some 8 bucks per day to drive in downtown.
Soon we'll get air powered city cars. Well, sometimes I do crank my Audi A6 diesel wagon up to 150 MPH... At 2900 RPM it holds a comfortable 105 MPH cruising speed and is quiet.
More could be done to make the city bus and tram popular. The Finns did something: you can buy the ticket with your cell phone - no excuse not to use a tram or bus in Helsinki.
Living in a small town I use bicycle for all local travel under 5 miles. Snow tires with steel studs are available for bikes, too. Parking is easy etc. I may consider an electric assisted bike some day. That and an air powered car should keep me moving economically.

- Collapse -
300K already acheived
May 27, 2007 11:12AM PDT

Several Prius have gone over 200,000 miles, and one has already gone over 300,000, and are still using the original NiMH battery pack. There are 10 year old Prius running around Japan using their original NiMH battery pack. How much longer do you want them to last? Toyota has engineered very good battery management for their hybrids, so battery replacement really isn't a realistic concern.

- Collapse -
Bingo. Over in Vancouver is a little Taxi company.
May 29, 2007 12:34AM PDT

They logged 200K miles on the things. They write about other items that don't need replacing such as brake pads.

The battery issue is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tossed out by those that don't like the new things.

Bob

- Collapse -
Diesel is a good alternative
May 9, 2007 10:51PM PDT

A mid-size modern diesel car gets 40 MPG mixed hwy/suburb driving, with manual transmission, of course, which is 99% common in Europe. They are not even noisy or slow anymore.
Yes, they cost more, but if one drives a lot, it pays.

- Collapse -
the cost of a diesel car
May 11, 2007 3:53PM PDT

kinda like buying a set of compact fluorescents for your house, they cost a bunch, but they last long enough so that buying incandescents, in the first place, cost more, and they save money on the power bill, double savings. i get my compact fluorescents at the dollar store, standard bayonet base bulbs, no special external ballast lump needed, how bout you folks? so, i guess i have to bring up a closer tie to cars, putting bulbs in cars that use less power, means the car can get along using less fuel. if everybody switched to fluorescents, the grid would be loaded lighter than it is now, so plug in hybrids and grid charge electrics becoming vogue will not require a significant increase in power production, pollution will stay pretty much the same. i was going to say something important, but i forgot what it was.

- Collapse -
The Plug-in Hybrids will be the Ticket!
May 2, 2007 1:24PM PDT

There are companies that can take a Toyota Prius and turn it into a "Plug-in Hybrid" that will get close to 100 miles per gallon! I've read it is super expensive so far, but if it is possible for small customizers to do it, the big boys can do it for much cheaper.

If GM/Big Oil/The California Air Resources Board hadn't killed the electric car they would be getting several hundred miles per charge of about 2 bucks a day! Rent "Who Killed the Electric Car" it will turn your stomach.

- Collapse -
all electrics polltue
May 2, 2007 2:17PM PDT

stop with the plug in crap....something burns at the other end to produce electic power and right now you pollute more per mile driven using plug in electric than you do with gasoline.

- Collapse -
Use your head - ALL Electrics DO NOT pollute!
May 3, 2007 2:16AM PDT

Think about electric energy generating technology some of which is available today and getting better where the source of power comes from FALLING WATER, SEA WAVES, SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL, NUCLEAR. Did I forget something else? Anybody know what the drawbacks/risks are of the rotational flywheel momentum and wind-up spring mechanical powers?

- Collapse -
yep, electric would be a good answer, if only ...
May 3, 2007 2:59AM PDT

You mention a lot of good-sounding stuff, but your subject line is incorrect: all-electric cars definitely pollute (especially in the U.S.) because they require electricity, and about 2/3 of the electricity in the U.S. is still generated by burning fossil fuels ...

Flywheels (and to a much lesser extent, springs) are certainly a more eco-friendly alternative to batteries (and in fact they already exist in back-up power supplies for buildings), but there are many, many reasons why they are not being used in automobiles (which I will not belabor here, but cost, size, and safety are the three biggies).

Regards,
Greg

- Collapse -
Uh you would be wrong there...
May 4, 2007 10:00AM PDT

Hate to burst your bubble here, but as Veronica Belmont and the buzz crew are so fond of saying... "Well acutally..."

With the advent of housholds using solar panels on the roof and storage batteries to run everyday household items, you DO NOT Burn anything to charge your bank, or your car. Yes the storage batteries when done need to be recycled, but battery technology is improving all the time, and longevity, capacity, and cost continue to drop, per amp hour delivered on storage batteries.

Hydroelectric power burns nothing, (except the occasional forest when a power line goes down... ooops) but for the most part does little to add to global warming.

Yes it does affect fish and wildlife to a degree but properly engineered systems rely less and less on tall dams and instead are based off of a series of smaller less intrusive dams, with well designed fish ladders allowing fish to continue to migrate and sometimes do so even easier than in natural streams. Plug in Hybrids do provide a good way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, dependence on forign oil and the drain on your pocketbooks. Yes right now it is expensive to do a Plug In upgrade, but it is like anything else, "If you can build it, China will build it cheeper".

Architects should design more homes with roofs that are solar friendly and better insulated, and you will see a significant advantage to solar power. Build homes with better insulation and double and triple payne windows and you again find yourself using your climate controls far less.

Everything is a trade off. Gas Electric hybrids are great but you won't see them hauling multiple tons of cargo down the road. We need to explore and develop lots of technologies, not just our favorites, or the ones that are convienent.

The numbers I have seen that support polluting more with plug in's is based on pure battery electric vehicles being powered by COAL fired generation plants. The numbers rightly look at things like energy loss in distribution, as well as cost of production at peak vs no peak hours of use. Plug in Hybrids are mostly designed to charge at night, when demand is low, and can be met easily by the power from your home battery banks or by power generated by greener sources.

The most important thing to realize here is fossel fuel will run out. Sooner or later it will be far to costly to extract to make it worth using. If we do nothing till that day, we will watch as our economy collapses, and life as we know it grinds to a halt. Government can't run if it has no taxes, it cant tax a company that can not deliver it's goods. A company that can't deliver it's goods can't pay an employee, and the government once again looses the ability to fund itself.

We need to look at the TOTAL infrastructure of this country, not just cars and trucks, but inter and intra city transit, freight via rail, and other modes of moving goods and services. Our whole country is based around the suburban dream, live in the burbs and commute into the city. Can't do that in a car if there is no fuel. Goods are delivered mostly by trucks nationwide. Rail transport though more effient in general, does not go nearly enough places to make up for the loss of a large percentage of the delivery fleet when Diesel becomes too expensive to deliver with. Yes biodiesel is out there, and runing your truck on french fry oil is not only doable, it is being done every day, but do the math, we are gonna have to eat a whole messa Micky D frys to get 1/1000th of the trucks on the road today moving again.

Specs on PHEV shows that your first hundred miles or so is mostly but not all electric, and only after that do you see significant useage of the gasoline engine. If every commuter was able to get their first hundred miles a day virtually free, (yes I know PHEV upgrades are not free) but envronmentally free, we would be looking at a huge load reduction on our fossel fuel dependence.

This is not some vodoo science that may or may not be viable in the future, it is do-able today. California is funding more solar assisted and solar powered homes over the next few years than any other state in the union by a large margin. (And so it should with our car culture and total lack of infrastucture to move people cleanly and efficently around town). Every one of those homes should (but doesn't) have the ability to power a PHEV.

On other areas, fuel cell research is hot and heavy right here in West Sacramento, and high conductivity material research promises better and far more efficent distribution from power plants. Yes we will have to compomise, yes we will have to look at unpopular subjects such as more hydro electric, and better designed wind energy systems, and perhaps ideas we have not even begun to explore such as space based solar arrays. The reality is, gasoline for the most part is a finite resource, one that we must replace with better and more envronmentally sustainable methods. Or we too will go the way of the dinosaur.

PHEV's are not the answer, but they are ONE of the answers.

- Collapse -
Some issues...
May 4, 2007 1:16PM PDT

I am not completely convinced oil is really going to run out per say. I understand the fossel fuel system, but there are indications that crude oil may be in fact formed by natural proccess that are not entirely dependent on fossels. That said... let's assume they are and will run out.

If that's the case we should allow the free market to come up with alternative fuels on it's own, without interferrance from the government. When there's a buyer, there will be a seller. If crude oil does begin to dry up, the market will come up with a solution.

Further, biodiesel is not limited to used french fry oil. It can be made from many sources. But even better, I recently read about a refinery that used waste from chicken and pig farms. It created 500 barrols of pure oil, of higher quality than crude, per day. The oil created isn't considered bio-diesel, but regular crude oil. Both of these are valid options.

Lastly, you mention california. California is in shambles. Jobs are still leaving, unemployment is the highest of the union, and yet you praise them because they are supporting solar pannels? This is a state that through government regulation, had rolling black outs. You want us to follow their example? Do you not make the connection that the government handing out tons of cash for solar pannels is related to the excessive tax rate that causes companies to move to other states?

Recently, my company, here in Ohio, purchased a company in California. Even though half our customers are in CA, we shut down that facility because we found it cheaper to ship products to Ohio to be built, and ship them back. That's how bad off California is. You can keep your CA examples to yourself. The very fact California did something, is an great reason for us not to.

- Collapse -
more misinformation
May 10, 2007 3:46PM PDT

It would be nice in the future if your assertions were actually based in fact.

Regarding California, yes, the costs of doing business there are high and the housing costs are insane. I live in Nor Cal. As for "unemployment is the highest of the union", that's simply not true. Per http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm, it's at 4.8% right now which is not a good spot compared to most other states, but hardly the worst which would be 6.9%. As for "jobs are still leaving", probably so... but per http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm in March 07 "the largest employment gains occurred in California (+18,500)" and per table D there was a year over year charge of +250K jobs in California.

As for rolling blackouts, I wasn't in the state when that occurred, but Enron was clearly partly to blame w/their manipulation of the market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis mentions it partly was due to the incomplete deregulation.

- Collapse -
right and wrong.
May 12, 2007 1:44AM PDT

Wouldn't though? As you say, employment is increasing in CA. Which is amazing to me since, I've now worked for two different companies who have both closed down their California facilities. Further, the formation given, if I remember correctly, the unemployment rates only include those actually on unemployment. There are thousands not working who do not get unemployment.

However... since I can not seem to find the article I based my statement on, and since I can't find any other supporting evidence... I'll give up on this one. Be sure I'll look into this.

Clearly partly to blame... right. Ok so you have the government forcing the local electricity suppliers to sell their generation plants... sell control of their distrobution lines, and force them to buy elecrticity from a "control free market", while at the same time putting a price cap in place. And you are surprised that any company would take advantage of the stupidity of government and make a killing in profit? Further, the regulations on where power could come from, the limited supply of natural gas, the ban on coal power plants, and the dry summer that limited hydropower, and the price of electricity went beyond that of the price cap. The local power companies could not pay for the power, and you are surprised the other companies that owned the generation plants cut the power?

No hot air please... California's government shot their own foot off, and setup a situation for companies to take advantage of them. It's their fault, no one elses. "deregulation" doesn't equal forcing companies to sell assets and installing price caps. They set themselves up for failure. We don't need that here.

- Collapse -
Unemployment qualifications
May 21, 2007 1:28AM PDT

I may be a bit late on the discussion, but there are a couple things, according to my Econ instructor, that the gov't does to determine the unemployment rate.

I forget exactly how people are considered unemployed, but if memory serves correct, if they have actively searched for an employment opportunity within the past several weeks they are considered unemployed in the calculation. People who do not search for jobs and such are not considered unemployed since they are not considered to be part of the workforce (because they aren't making an effort to be part of the workforce).

You take that figure and put it over the total size of the workforce.

If you were to find everyone who was able to work but didn't have a job regardless of whether or not they were searching for one the unemployment rate would undoubtedly be higher.

- Collapse -
CA resident
May 16, 2007 12:56AM PDT

Not sure this is the right place to post, but with a discussion on CA I had to jump in. I've been living in CA since 1991 so I am familiar with rolling black-outs, changing politics, increases in tuition at state universities, insane housing prices, etc. Given that, there are few other places I would rather live in the US. (I grew up on the East Coast and have driven across our country 2.5 times so I am somewhat familiar with the US geography.)

I tried to buy a diesel in January 2007 because I wanted a vehicle that runs on biodiesel. CA stopped allowing regular diesel cars to be sold because of diesel pollutants. My friend has a 2003 VW small car that runs on biodiesel and I'm insanely jealous. My options were to find a used Mercedes, VW diesel, or other diesel vehicle because there are no new diesel vehicles available in my price range in CA. I could have bought a VW Toureg for about $92,000 but that is just a little bit too much for me.

After doing online research, talking to hybrid owners, test driving many vehicles, renting vehicles so I could try them out for extended periods of time, etc. I found the decision to not be easy. Ultimately I did get a 2007 Prius and am actually surprised that I like it as much as I do. At first I, too, thought the Prius was way too ugly to be a vehicle I'd want to drive, but for my driving style it is extremely functional. With rising gas prices, it is really nice to be able to afford to fill my tank. Yesterday I put in a measly 6 gallons after going 260 miles. I'm only averaging 47 mpg, but compared to the Passat I used to drive, this is wonderful.

The more research I do, the more I find contradictions and conflicts. For me, buying a Prius proved to be a good choice especially since CA is limiting the vehicles we can acquire that utilize alternative fuels.

- Collapse -
Couldn't agree more... but
May 14, 2007 2:38AM PDT

Andy, I could not agree more with the statement CA is in shambles. It is the origonal State of Confusion. But you need to seperate the wheat from the chaf here guy...

Just because a good thing was done in California does not make it a bad thing to do.

I did not mean to suggest that biodiesel was only french fry oil. It is as you know only one of many sources, but it gets the most press since it relates to the common man.

Business in CA is indeed hobbled by too many regulations, and too much is given to big corporations for doing essentally nothing to protect and preserve our envronment.

As to fossel fuel running out, even if it is a naturally occuring product one must assume it will take thousands if not millions of years to naturally produce. We aint got that kind of time. The crude oil from Pig and chicken farm waste is great, what are we gonna do for the rest of the Several Million Barrels a year? What are the byproducts of those farms, in runoff when it rains? I think it is a great idea, and one of many solutions it will take to get us off of fossel fuel. Solar is one of the few things that is essentally free and plentyful but it does not come without costs. Manufacturing is costly and envronmental issues with storage batteries are significant hurdles to overcome, but on a good vs bad ratio you have to admit solar is a great way to go. Now if we get a major supervolcano style eruption or other block out the sun issue we are in trouble, but then again we are in trouble anyway for that scenario.

I understand you are frustrated with California's Business Climat, and rightly so. That does not mean everything that CA does is bad. I don't see a fuel cel research partnership with the major manufacturers in OHIO, I see it in CA. I don't see wind energy being used in Ohio. And yet I don't think bad of Ohio. CA is an inovator and always has been.

Unemployment in CA is up partially because we can not close our borders and we are adding a million or more people a year into California's population. Ilegal or not, they use resources and will do jobs cheaper than current residents. So thusly you have people who are paying taxes and here legally displaced by "undocumented aliens" which is just a nice word for ilegal alien. This is the main reason why CA has such high unemployment and a tax rate that is far to high.

Companies in CA ARE overtaxed. I agree, and yet many companies do little to assist the local comunities where they profit beyond providing a paycheck to thier employees. (yea that is a big one I know but we are talking larger socieo-economic issues here).

I am glad you found a way to make your company more effient, and sorry to see you could not do it in CA. But like I said at the begining, Just because it is the right thing to do, and CA did it, is not a reason not to do it.

It would be like ... Bill overthere put a life jacket on before he started up his bass boat, but I hate that guy, so I aint gonna!

You can't just say CA is bad at envronmental issues just because they are not the best business climat in America. Good luck in business, hope the high fuel prices we are all paying does not affect your business model for serving your CA customers.

- Collapse -
Let me restate my main point
May 19, 2007 8:31AM PDT

What "good thing" was done? The CARB board mandating what a company must sell? Do you realize that it was that very mandate that forced GM to fight it and kill the EV1? If I was at GM or any other corp, I'd have fought it too, and refused to sell Electric cars. Why? Because it's bad business. I have no choice to sell something that there's no promise people will buy. Even if there was at the time, that may not always be. So I'd have to fight it, which is exactly what GM did. CARB killed the EV1, no question. GM was in the proccess of devoloping it before CARB. If they had just shut up, GM would have brought the product to market on their own.

So what else have they done? Setting up a power utilies to go bankrupt? Maybe Tax money hand outs for Fuel Cel research? In your post you said "too much is given to big corporations..." which is correct. But then you go on saying "I don't see a fuel cel research partnership with the major manufacturers in OHIO" Well no joke, we don't have a "too much is given to big corporations..." problem. You can't have it both ways. Tax hand outs to big corporations is either bad or it's not.

If it is, stop supporting hand outs just cause "it's for research". If it isn't, then don't bother saying you are over taxed, and corporations get too many hand outs. It's one or the other, not both.

Here's my deal. If something is worth doing, and people want it, someone will supply it. If Fuel Cel research is the way to go, and people want it, let the big companies pay for the research. Why should my money pay for building a product, that I'll end up having to pay to buy? That makes no sense. Let the companies pay for their own research, especially when their the ones who will benefit from selling it.

And *that* was my point about the refinery that makes oil from pig and chicken farm waste. What a great technology, using waste that would otherwise be disposed of, turning it into various products including oil fuel. Whose funding the research? The people who made the plant. Not the tax payers, not some dumb government program. When the demand is there, the products will come, without government help or intervention.

But instead people support our government handing out our tax money, and things like Ethanol subsidizing comes up. Here we hand out millions to poor average Americans like Ted Tuner, to grow corn for Ethanol, that must be exampted from taxes in order to just barely be afordable, while getting much worse gas mileage.

- Collapse -
I love a good debate.... thanks for your comments Andy
May 20, 2007 2:47AM PDT

The EV1 while a nice concept may never have made it to the market becuase as you state, People will only buy it if they need it, and trust me a few years back nobody had the burning desire to run out and buy one. And yet wow, GM was researching it on thier own? What caused them to do that? Maybe a FEDERAL GRANT and TAX Incentives?

California Air Resources Board evil people that they are, charged with actually enforcing FEDERAL Air Quality Standards (wow what a bunch of horible people, trying to make it so people can actually breath) may or may not have actually forced the EV1 out of the market, but if GM had wanted to bring it to market, they would have done so. Remember they are the omnipotent corporation that you seem hell bent to demonize so you cant have it both ways, they can't be the victim if they are the agressor too.

So to "punish the evil do gooders at CARB", poor little GM decides they won't bring the EV-1 to market? Sounds like an "I am taking the ball home and you cant play with it" attitude to me. More likely, it was not financially viable and they blaimed CARB to keep the shareholders off their back. Always easier to blame the government, they are too busy doing your bidding to defend themselves. What kind of responsible company would not bring a product to market out of vindictiveness? Surely there were other reasons.

Funny about the Power Utilities going bankrupt, Have not actually seen anybody go out of business, SMUD, PG&E and other power utilities serving CA still seem to be able to somehow turn a profit.... (in fact I believe for some a record profit). Now before you get all riled up, I am not saying the degregulation was anything but a ploy to Scam BILLIONS off of the consumers, and people responsible should be taken out and shot for it, but we know that ain't gonna happen... Most of the people truly to blame don't seem to be in reach of prosecution. (dont look at CA on that one, the FEDS once again have made that decision for us).

Your Idea that tax incentives are always a bad thing is a gross over simplification. Tax incentives are an excellent way to get a company to go in a direction that might be good for the people in general, but not financially feasable for a company in the short term. It is a financial arangement. And that is what government is supposed to do, help the people in general.

While you may not agree with where the money is spent in CA, and that too much is taken from business by over taxing and fees, Funding research in CA is a good idea because it can bring about change for the good of not just CA, but the nation and the world as a whole. This is an investment, a financial decision based on the good of the people instead of the bottom line of a ledger.

Your company moved to Ohio for a reason, a financial one. In your case it was to AVOID paying higher taxes and fees, but it still a decision based on financial motives. Companys staying in the higher cost of doing business area like California are providing jobs and supporting the comunities they are in, be it in manufacturing, transportation, housing and the list goes on.

If a company as big as GM can't AFFORD to kick out a single electric vehicle in CA, how are they or any other company going to be able to do the actual research and development to provide Fuel Cel vehicles which are a hundred times more complex to produce?

Your right that if someone needs something, many times someone will build it. But it usually is done far into the problem when things are desperate. And you know as well as I do something done in haste is usually done half assed and costs far more than if it is planed out and produced without the pressure of an "oh my god the world is gonna end" deadline. We have all seen examples of the never enough time to do it right but plenty of time to do it over scenarios. Stopgap measures are wastful and have little merit to explore.

The nation does not have the kind of time to wait around till someone decides to spend their vast personal fortune to bring a "car for the masses" to market that can transport us without polluting us out of existance. And I suspect whomever would do this "fairy tail funding" will still expect a significant return on thier investment, no matter how altruistic they seem. So once again we are at a position where money talks and chicken waste walks. Even the Gates Foundation spending billions to fight disease, expects to see progress or they will move money to more promising areas of "research". (ooops there is that dreaded word again).

Your quote of my "too much is given to big corporations" is out of context, (but then again you knew that because it fit your argument better). I said "too much is given for what they do to protect the envronment". My point was not that they should not be given incentives to operate cleaner, but instead that they should do more to operate cleaner for the money given. Companies will do what makes them money, not what is best for the envronment. You have only to look into the envronmental history of your new state to see plenty of examples of that. If it costs more to operate cleanly and there is no regulations telling them they have to do so, then the majority of companys will not. They answer to owners and shareholders who demand higher and higher profits and dividends, and you do not increase profits by spending money on things that do not increase productivity. Ok slight oversimplification but for the most part that is true in any business.

Your own posting and your companies actions prove the point. You moved your company to avoid higher taxes and more regulations that would cost your company more than you were willing to pay. You moved to a state with lower taxes, (may even have gotten a tax incentive to move to the state or a tax break for moving to a certain area) and are most probably in a significantly more favorable business climate due to relaxed envronmental laws and regulations. You went to where the money was better. To get companies to do things that cost them money, (such as develop ways to opperate cleaner)the evil onerous government hands out tax dollars so they can do so, and keep jobs and other tax revenue in the state and reduce the rampant unemployment that you railed against in your earlier post.

Sorry to get personal here but if your so concerned with unemployment in CA, what did moving your company to Ohio do to help that? What amount of pollutants are the trucks that haul your goods putting into the environment to haul your products to California. So your company is producing a product in another state, and selling it in CA? Are you collecting sales tax and sending it back to CA? No? If not then you are benifiting from California without putting anything back except your product, assuming of course your product has a positive influence to the economy and envronment, and does not get used up and thown into one of our land fills.

Since you want to talk about having your cake and eating it too, On the one hand you say that companies should fund their own research because tax incentives are bad, and on the other you say that GM killed the EV-1 because they could not afford to bring it to market under the onerous CARB, even though they had millions in tax incentives, loans and other funding that did not come out of GM's coffers. A more believeable scenario is that it was not a viable project at the time with curent technology, and GM was looking for an out, OR..... More likely still, Big Oil sat down with them and said, gee, electric vehicles are not gonna make us money, we find that annoying. Let's find a way to kill this project and blame it on someone beside you and me. If you do so... we will keep oil prices lower than they should be for the next few years to help boost sales of combustion based vehicles. We will both win, and make CA government look like the bad guys for trying to clean up the air.

If the current belief by the public is that big oil is behind our invading Iraq, then surely they could have had the clout to kill a tiny little research project and keep thier hands clean while doing it.

As for the pig and chicken waste power plant, I am very happy to see research like this out there and as I stated before, "it is a great thing" but it's not done without costs. If it truly was developed without tax incentives, or tax breaks, government sponsored loans or any form of government assistance or funding, GREAT! But I bet as part of the "evil empire of researchers" they have had at least one if not both hands in the public grants, loans, subsidies and such. Maybe not but probably. But thinking about it, if they haven't, then they are not doing as much as they should for the project because the money is out there. And if they are not using it for good projects like this, some hair brain is gonna piss it away on something stupid and then you will have a REAL waste of tax money. If it was produced entirely with private funding of a financally well to do backer, Where do you think a good deal of his wealth came from? TAX BREAKS is a likely bet. If he owns a coporation with share holders and he did not take advantage of tax breaks and low interest loans, and outright grants availble to help his company, then the shareholders should be in his face demanding an explanation why.

Having said that, I see you studiously avoided discussing any byproducts of the process of producing power from waste. How much Methane does a huge pile of cow dung put out while it is waiting for it's collection, or for that matter while it is being transported over roads that are paid for by tax money? How much water polution is produced by the chicken and cattle waste as it is hit with the rains and snow melt? Where does all that polution go? These are serious concerns to the envronment, and need to be looked at in the total scheme of things. Dairy pollution and Poultry is not a small problem. The reasons that many companies that do poultry processing reside outside CA is because it puts them beyond the tougher safety, hygine and envronmental requirements that CA has in place. (and before you say it... many of those laws are unenforced due to lack of manpower, and yes political pressure, but like it or not, stuff like that happens everwhere).

Yes turning these wastes to energy is a good thing, and should be aplauded, but at the same time, understand that as I have said in this and other posts, there is no free lunch here. Every form of energy production has a downside. We have to decide what consequences of energy production are acceptable, and in what quantities, and try and balance those with the positives of the power produced. If the polution is just shifted from air polution to water polution what have we gained?

Andy, it is obvious that you are never going to be a big supporter of California, and that is fine. CA is never going to return to the way it once was, Orange Groves for miles in any direction and Weber grills in every backyard, (Man if we knew how much hydrocarbons we were throwing out with all that charcoal lighter back then). Clean air to breath was taken for granted when I was growing up in LA, (tells you how long I have been around), but nowdays it is a luxury, and people celebrate days when they can see the San Gabriel mountains from the beach. Of course those days really suck for the people in the inland empire and the High Deserts because all of LA's polution gets blown in thier faces.

California air quality has deteriorated, but at a FAR slower rate than it should have, considering they are adding WAY over a million people to the population a year from points south of the border. And Andy, trust me on this, they are not buying EV1's Prius's or Honda Civics, they are dragging crap out of the scrap heap and beating it till it runs and driving it till they get caught. The only reason people can even walk around in the LA Basin without an Air Pac is because of the work of CARB, and the South Coast Air Management District and others who work to bring clean breathable air to it's citizens, and the Californians who agree that clean air is important, and live under the laws and regulations designed to help make that a reality.

As you and I know (but others reading this may not), LA is a big bowl with high mountains around most of it, and Strong onshore breezes keeping the smog and particulates from disapating off into the ocean. If CA had not gotten tough on air quality, trust me, people would be unable to live in the basin, it would be that bad. Lung problems and cancer would skyrocket and people would be dying in droves.

People have to take responsibilty for their actions, and even the action of existing on the earth leaves an imprint. Clean Air, Clean Water should be something everybody should be able to have. Doing something to help bring this about IS A GOOD THING. Even if is pisses off GM, puts a scientist out of work who gets to write a book about it and make money that way instead. If the death of the EV-1 and skyrocketing gas prices have done anything positive at all, it has caused people to rethink their priorities with respect to transportation and the envronment. As others have posted the EV-1 had significant drawbacks from a standpoint of economics, getting power to the car from the power producer was not efficent, I think I heard three watts of power to get one watt to your house. Now if you had a house with Solar Arays on the roof the Cost per mile delivery would be almost nothing, but cost of array, Cost of storage batteries, envronmental cost of recycling of said batteries and worn out solar Arrays, envronmental polutants released in a house fire with one of these installed..... there are tradeoffs everywhere you look, but the one thing we agree on is we have to do something... and soon.

As always, I await your reply....

- Collapse -
The idea is to reduce dependency on imported oil...
May 26, 2007 11:18AM PDT

If generating electricity pollutes, that's another issue entirely. Solar or other clean methods of producing electricity are available if keeping down pollution levels is a priority. First and foremost is the need to reduce use of gasoline engines to keep fuel costs from going even higher. Driving smaller & more fuel efficient cars fewer miles is one method. Driving electric hybrids or biodiesel vehicles are other good choices. People living in flatter areas who don't need to travel over about 30 miles or so might make good use of bicycles. That also works for excercize & no noticable pollution with a bike. Whatever it takes to bring gasoline prices back down is what needs to be done! It's just icing on the cake if this also reduces pollution.

- Collapse -
ugh...
May 4, 2007 12:59PM PDT

You people are going to make me rent that horrid video and suffer through it. I already know it's going to be filled with liberal garbage and half truths, and tons of complete speculation based on no evidence.

Anyway... plug-in doesn't help anything. You just move the problem from here to there. If you save $100 at the pump and spend an extra $100 at the outlet, how much did you save. You realize that for every 1 KwH you use in the car, it takes 2 or 3 KwH at the outlet to charge it, right? This is physics here. You are not saving that much. Further, if everyone get's electric or plug-in cars, we're going to need a ton more fuel to make the power (psst oil). Further the cost of electricity will go up by a ton. Remember that old supply and demand? If everyone is pluging in their cars every night... psst: demand went up! So price will go up. Be careful about putting electricity as the great savior.

- Collapse -
not much electricity is generated using oil
May 19, 2007 2:20PM PDT