repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

[phoenixbass]

ok........today my friend was trying to convince me that we dont already have mainstream electric cars because of the republicans and also that only republicans have money in oil !!

ummmmmmmm!

[asdf_admin]

I love you.

[phoenixbass]

haaaaaaaaa........my friend has problems !

[toasty]

uh, I'll grant you that your friend's comments were pretty dumb, but with regard to the current adminstration, I don't think it takes a massive leap of logic to conclude that Bush and Cheney, both of whom made their money in oil, might not be pushing as hard as we might like for alternative sources of energy. When Bush and Cheney talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I pretty much assume that means they'd like to drill in Alaska, at least in part.

[BSully828]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

I've heard this same accusation before and it always makes me laugh. If there was a way, a legitimate and economical way, to design a car that is both environmentally friendly (i.e. doesn't rely on oil) and capable of performing like "regular" cars (i.e. comparable speed, amenities, and reliability) - just imagine all the money that could be made. Imagine all the money you'd save if you didn't have to fill up the tank once or twice a week - wouldn't you buy one the day it came out? If there was a viable way to build this car, don't you think guys like Bill Gates or Ted Turner would be all over it? Bush and Cheney's reign of terror can only reach so far - the wealthy private sector is also looking to pad their pockets.

Financiers with a seemingly unlimited supply of funds probably have designers working day and night to build this car because it would totally dominate the industry and they would have more money than anyone could count. Hell they could make it look like "The Homer" and people would still line up around the block to buy it. I don't think it's the oil industry that is stalling the evolution of envirofriendly cars as it is the limitations of our own technology.

So many conspiracy theorists out there these days.

[Civic_Zen]

Thank you BSully, you pretty much just summed up exactly what I was going to say.

But to add to it. We have made HUGE, utterly HUGE steps in the emissions cars produce. We have diesel cars that get 50 mpg, and we have Electric hybrids that are capable of even more. Things have changed in the car industry so much in the last 10 years as to make the previous 100 look like we were sitting on our ass. Same with computers, medicine, and everything else in the last 10 years.

It won't be long before hydrogen is considered, as we already have testing populace in Cali and elsewhere driving them right now. Electricity isn't the answer, its coming up with a solution to make hydrogen less expensive.

[Jenks]

Do you realize the global economic downturn that would happen if we quickly moved away from oil?

1. the number of global jobs petrolium provides.

2. the amount of money that is fueled into the economy because of petrolium.

the technology is certainly there to use alternative fuels, we're just not moving fast enough in that direction, nor appropriating enough funds for more research. the majority of the technological advances in alternative fuel resources are made by private funding and by the Japanese.

If the government would step up to the plate and attack this problem with the same vigor they try to get cheaper oil, we'd me miles ahead of where we stand today. You can't tell me we've made HUGE advances in this arena, because we move slower than snails. I do not blame the republican party, both parties share the burden of being fucking stupid on this issue.

Was watching the discovery channel a few weeks ago where scientists have produced a powerful car that runs on hydrogen...and it's only pollutant...water vapor.

The possibilities are endless, the funding is limited.

[Civic_Zen]

Ya okay, go look at what cars were capable of 15 years ago, and what sort of gas mileage they got. The advances from then til now are phenominal.

Lets just take an example. The chevy 5.7 L 350 V8 in the vette. In 1990, that engine got maybe 10 mpg highway, now it gets 22-25 easily (highway) and its practically the same motor. The Japanese are the reason cars have changed so much in the last 10 years, that much I agree with as well as the alternative fuel issue. They have made the rest of the world do the same to stay competitive.

Looking at the last 10 years in the car industry is a lot like looking at how far computers have come in the last 5. Are you going to deny how far computers have evolved too? I think its evident that your understanding of how far cars have come is limited, or you would not have made that statement. And yes, the changes that have been made are HUGE.

It may be slow going to get to alternative fuel, but just like you said thats limited by the stress our economy and that of the world, can handle. The advances made in my life time alone give me confidence in whats going to happen in my kids lifetime (if i ever have any). These changes may be slower then some of us like, but they are happening.

[toasty]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

If there was a way, a legitimate and economical way, to design a car that is both environmentally friendly (i.e. doesn't rely on oil) and capable of performing like "regular" cars (i.e. comparable speed, amenities, and reliability) - just imagine all the money that could be made. Imagine all the money you'd save if you didn't have to fill up the tank once or twice a week - wouldn't you buy one the day it came out? If there was a viable way to build this car, don't you think guys like Bill Gates or Ted Turner would be all over it? Bush and Cheney's reign of terror can only reach so far - the wealthy private sector is also looking to pad their pockets.

Yes, there is a strong push and demand for technologies that do not rely upon oil. Oil companies, however, have a strong incentive to keep these techologies off market or snap them up themselves. Oil revenues are measured in very, very large numbers. Paying a would-be competitor to refrain from coming to market or acquiring patents on new non-oil technologies to protect those revenues makes good business sense from their standpoint.

Suppose a small upstart company develops a new fuel cell that doesn't rely upon oil. An oil company can purchase that technology from the upstart company for a price that results in a windfall for the upstart but still makes ample economic sense from the oil co.'s standpoint because it protects its revenues from competition. There is a huge incentive for all of the players to engage in these types of shenanigans.

I know this likely sounds like conspiracy theory, but I actually make my living treading in such things, and believe me, this shit happens all the time. Oil companies are not evil incarnate (I reserve that title for drug companies), but they are definitely looking out for their bottom line at every turn, and until it becomes economically stupid to keep these technologies from coming to market, you have to know they are going to try.

[Civic_Zen]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

Oil companies are not evil incarnate (I reserve that title for drug companies),

Wow, didn't expect you to agree with me regarding this issue. Drug companies are evil incarnate. It suprises me especially since its the Democrat's that are making it easier and easier for them to become even more evil.

At least lately, with Cheney and Bush, Republicans can and probably should be associated with the evil "Big Oil" is capable of. But just like you said, there are bigger evils, drugs being one, Diamands being another for me. And yet, Dem's are the ones making it easier, at least for the former. And by my estimation, and what seems like yours too, Pfizer and the like are just as big a problem as Big Oil, except everyone needs Oil. Where as the drug companies force drugs on people that have no need for them.

[Jenks]

Ya okay, go look at what cars were capable of 15 years ago, and what sort of gas mileage they got. The advances from then til now are phenominal.

phenominal, i don't think so. 15 years ago, 1989-1990. the big three, ford, gm, chrysler, in their big market cars and trucks, have not made PHENOMINAL advances. MPG has risen maybe by 5 across the board, and that's being extremely generous. I drive a 2004 Fx4 truck, it gets 18 on a good day, 10 years ago i had a chevy z71, similar engine, same gas milage.

your definition of "phenominal" and mine must differ greatly.

Lets just take an example. The chevy 5.7 L 350 V8 in the vette. In 1990, that engine got maybe 10 mpg highway, now it gets 22-25 easily (highway) and its practically the same motor.

sorry, you're wrong buddy. My brother had a 92 vette with the LT1 (big fucking hoosier car if you ask me, but whatever) it got way more than 10mpg. Today's Vette, first of all isn't even close to the same engine...and i guarantee you it's not getting more than 25 easily.

Looking at the last 10 years in the car industry is a lot like looking at how far computers have come in the last 5. Are you going to deny how far computers have evolved too? I think its evident that your understanding of how far cars have come is limited, or you would not have made that statement. And yes, the changes that have been made are HUGE.

ease up on the crack pipe dude, we're not talking about computers, we're talking about cars, and anyway, there is no comparison. Chip speeds and memory have grown exponentially while price has come down drastically...not so with the auto industry. Are you seriously telling me that fuel efficiency has grown EXPONENTIALLY in ten years? No fucking way man. Granted, mpg has gotten better, but not even close the progress needed, or comparable to the advances in computer technology. And i know exactly how far cars have come in the last 10 years because i've bought a new one every 10 months for the last 7 years, all similar vehicles because of my career needs, it's not getting much better.


and for the record...i looked it up...

1990 Corvette 5.7
Fuel Type Premium
MPG (city) 16
MPG (highway) 25

2004 Corvette 5.7
Fuel Type Premium
MPG (city)18
MPG (highway) 25

^yeah man, PHENOMINAL advances.

[Civic_Zen]

Your going by Government EPA ratings there, which are way off. What you forgot to mention is that the 1990 LT1 made 250 HP. Now, the 2005 has an output of 405 HP, the same as what the Z6 had last year. And yes, the LS1 (the current config of the 350 cubic inch Chevy small block) is based off the L98, a direivative of the LT1, they are very similar when you get down to the internal components.

That being said, I used the 5.7 as an example, and probably shouldn't have since its not the greatest. I used to have a 1994 Trans Am with the LT1 and I can assure you it never got more then 18 mpg, all highway. The 1994 output was 275 HP. I happen to know someone who owns a 2003 Z6, and he gets 22-23 Highway all the time. Thats all he drives it on, is the highway. Thats real world figures for me. It also has 405 HP. So with the vette, if they detuned the motor to 250 HP like it was in 1990 then it would probably get 40 MPG on the Highway. So like I said, not a good example that I used there because they are going for performance with that motor. Its still a Huge difference even with that as an example, 1994 to 2003, over 100 HP and 5 MPG. Thats substantial to me, but again we must be on different lines of thought.

Using a better example, lets tak the Honda Civic, and the gas mileage it got 5 years ago, because thats what I have now. 1999 Civic Si, that gets 30 Highway, and between 23-25 city. (once again real world figures, not EPA ratings that are always wrong) Then take a 2004 Civic Hybrid. There is no comparisson, and yet thats only 5 years.

Sorry, but the point I was trying to make was that cars have changed more in the last 10-20 years, then they did the 80+ years they existed before that. The changes are there, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the pace we are going at. It will be less then 10 years before Hydrogen is a viable option. Hell, I know personally a couple people driving them around right now, as I type this, in California. Also, the 2005 model year has brought a total of 5-6 more hybrids to the market, Hybrids have only been around for 4-5 years now, and look that the impact they've made. Those are HUGE steps when compared to the 90+ years before and the changes they made now.

I also wasn't talking about just emissions. I was talking about brakes, Handling, Tire Compounds for christ sake. The synthetic fibers and such used in tires nowadays are fucking phenominal. The Disc brakes and what they are capable of now compared to 10 years ago. Airbags, and other safety features that have come in the last 10 years. It will probably be within every persons lifetime, that we have auto-pilot built in to our cars. And there will be some foam that sprays out in case of an accident. The changes are so phenominal dude, I could go on forever and ever.

[BSully828]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

If there was a way, a legitimate and economical way, to design a car that is both environmentally friendly (i.e. doesn't rely on oil) and capable of performing like "regular" cars (i.e. comparable speed, amenities, and reliability) - just imagine all the money that could be made. Imagine all the money you'd save if you didn't have to fill up the tank once or twice a week - wouldn't you buy one the day it came out? If there was a viable way to build this car, don't you think guys like Bill Gates or Ted Turner would be all over it? Bush and Cheney's reign of terror can only reach so far - the wealthy private sector is also looking to pad their pockets.

Yes, there is a strong push and demand for technologies that do not rely upon oil. Oil companies, however, have a strong incentive to keep these techologies off market or snap them up themselves. Oil revenues are measured in very, very large numbers. Paying a would-be competitor to refrain from coming to market or acquiring patents on new non-oil technologies to protect those revenues makes good business sense from their standpoint.

Suppose a small upstart company develops a new fuel cell that doesn't rely upon oil. An oil company can purchase that technology from the upstart company for a price that results in a windfall for the upstart but still makes ample economic sense from the oil co.'s standpoint because it protects its revenues from competition. There is a huge incentive for all of the players to engage in these types of shenanigans.

I know this likely sounds like conspiracy theory, but I actually make my living treading in such things, and believe me, this shit happens all the time. Oil companies are not evil incarnate (I reserve that title for drug companies), but they are definitely looking out for their bottom line at every turn, and until it becomes economically stupid to keep these technologies from coming to market, you have to know they are going to try.

Good point - but couldn't that go in the opposite direction too? Wouldn't someone like Rupert Murdoch have the same capability to go out and buy that technology before the oil co's do? If Rupes had his own side project going on, this technology would be invaluable and give him a big boost towards creating that magic car. Now that I think of it Murdoch is a bad example - he'd probably buy the technology, turn right around and sell it to the oil co's for a nice little profit, but you get my point.

And if it came down to two buyers and the offers were comparable - an oil co's trying to limit the advance of fuel free engines and a private co trying to propel the advance of fuel free engine - wouldn't this small upstart want to see thier research prosper rather than be hidden away?

I must admit that this is getting a bit out of my zone so if that was a totally ignorant comment, bash away - but while I don't doubt the Oil co's hold a strong hand against the progress of envirofriendly autotech, I just find it hard to believe that they can weigh the entire process down. The desire and the market is there, but I don't believe the technology is.

[Jenks]

The changes are so phenominal dude, I could go on forever and ever.

changes in automobile technology have been great, yes, ceramic breaks, yada yada yada. This thread is about fuel economy, fuel consumption, not wether some kid is safer in the all new stopping power of braking technolody, or airbags or whatever. It's common knowledge there have been technological advances in automobiles, duh, but not PHENOMINAL changes in fuel consumption in the last 10-15 years, which IS what we're talking about. Fuel, period.

[Civic_Zen]

True thats what the thread was about, emissions. But it was also about electric cars. Electric cars suck, everyone know that they suck. But we made the internal combustion motor better by adding an electric motor onto it. Thats a significant stride, that has come within the last 5-10 years. And only on the market in the last 5. Same with Hydrogen, which have been made in the last 5 years.

When I said the changes cars have made in the last 5-10 years was HUGE, I was talking about cars as a whole. I also think Hydrogen is the only viable option, so who the hell cares about electric cars if your looking toward the future? Sure you can say the government has held them back, but I don't want a car with 40 HP, even it it does have infinite gas mileage. Electric cars have there own set of problems, and is worse in real world scenerios then emissions any way since people couldn't live with it on a daily basis.

The thread should have been "Republicans limiting Hydrogen and other alt sources" but really he was just expressing how stupid his friend is for making that statement.