PDA

View Full Version : economy VS. environment



switters
01-27-2009, 12:15 PM
President Obama has signaled that states can set their own emission standards. Which sounds great, constitutionally, and I'm all for anything that lets states get some power back.

However, is this really the time to hike up car prices? Will there really be a significant impact on the car industry which is going downhill right now anyway?

Will the reduced emission make a significant impact on the environment?

I've read several articles and there does not seem to be a very clear answer. For instance, proponents are saying that the cost of a new car shouldn't go up more than 1,500 and the cost savings in fuel should be about $300 a year on average. Lots of speculation there.

On the other hand, close to half American built autos are light trucks which will not meet the standards. This is unfair to the American auto makers. Speculation here also as to what the market will do.

And then there is the way to regulate it all, which right now is by fleet average I think.

So what do the WBF experts think, is this going to be good or bad or not significant at all?

Katherine
01-27-2009, 12:20 PM
I have my own rant about this subject, but I am a bit biased.

Flying Orca
01-27-2009, 12:27 PM
I'd add that whining about the end of the light-truck free ride, which never should have happened in the first place, is about as progressive as calling for bail-outs to support buggy-whip manufacturers.

George Roberts
01-27-2009, 12:33 PM
There are rational reasons why people have migrated to light trucks.

There are also rational reasons why people oppose the electric plug-ins/hybrids.

Regulating transportation without destroying the economy is very difficult.

switters
01-27-2009, 12:34 PM
3 post in and I'm already dumber than than almost everyone in China.

no environment= no economy I agree with that simplification.

It implies that if we were to keep the the current standards that there would be no economy. Fair enough. There has been too much man made destruction to fishing habitat that gets me mad, I didn't need "global warming" 20 years ago to believe in conservation.

How do you know that this is a good time for auto makers to retool? They seem to be resisting this, which makes me think it may not be a good time for them. But I don't know, which is why I was asking.

Flying Orca
01-27-2009, 12:42 PM
Regulating transportation without destroying the economy is very difficult.

Your hyperbole is showing. Unless you really believe this, in which case I suggest you go look up the word "destroy".

switters
01-27-2009, 12:43 PM
I have my own rant about this subject, but I am a bit biased.


It is the bilge, please, rant away.

switters
01-27-2009, 12:56 PM
Ah, but not many people in China are dumb! ;)

Now, I draw a distinction between what people working in a business tell you and what might really be good for that business on a larger scale. Its best not to take what they say at face value.

For example, we are sending our ships round the Cape of Good Hope not through the Suez Canal. We'll tell you this is because we want to keep their crews safe from Somali pirates.

Actually its because the fuel price has dropped and the Suez Canal Authority, who usually base their pricing on the differential, have been a bit slow in cutting their prices to match, so right now its cheaper round the Cape.

That's my industry; I doubt if auto making (a business we love to serve!) is very different!

So wouldn't the average Chinese say that you (not you personally, the shipping company you work for/with) are not as smart as they?

Which makes me rethink my first post about asking is it significant. One industry may not be, but when several industries take the same types of short term actions I would guess that it is.

Captain Blight
01-27-2009, 01:28 PM
I don't understand why so many people think it has to be one or the other. No less a financial mastermind than T. Boone Pickens has realized that he can squeeze money out of the very air we breathe simply by installing wind farms.

Popeye
01-27-2009, 01:37 PM
economy VS. environment

first thing is, we need to challenge this assumption

BrianW
01-27-2009, 01:42 PM
President Obama has signaled that states can set their own emission standards. Which sounds great, constitutionally, and I'm all for anything that lets states get some power back.

However, is this really the time to hike up car prices?

Speaking of stupid... I'm a bit lost on this one, haven't been playing along. :)

Is the assumption that California will set even higher standards, and car manufactures are going to build to that standard, making car prices go up everywhere?

switters
01-27-2009, 01:54 PM
Speaking of stupid... I'm a bit lost on this one, haven't been playing along. :)

Is the assumption that California will set even higher standards, and car manufactures are going to build to that standard, making car prices go up everywhere?

That is one set of assumptions, and there are a few more states other than California that want to do this. Basically the west coast and Arizona and the North East. There is another option, and I don't understand the auto industry well enough to know if it could happen. The people in those states are not going to be able to buy some autos, or will there be a cap on trucks. If there is a cap is it first come first serve or will there be a lottery? What keeps them from driving out of state to buy a vehicle?

Gary E
01-27-2009, 02:01 PM
I don't understand why so many people think it has to be one or the other. No less a financial mastermind than T. Boone Pickens has realized that he can squeeze money out of the very air we breathe simply by installing wind farms.

You better ask him how his so called "investment" in blow power is working out...
When you do, your find he's loosing his a..

But he's got plenty of capital, so he'll be fine, and none of this falderal will make a lick of difference in his lifestyle.

Robert L E
01-27-2009, 02:10 PM
I suspect that this whole subject will make a return trip to the Supreme Court. My own feeling are that due to to the interstate nature of travel, standards for vehicles should be national in scope. State by state solutions seems like a nightmare to me and expensive too. It seems to clash with the free trade and commerce clause of the Constitution.

States, and cities too, can have regulations as to what vehicles travel when and where. Banning vehicles altogether, banning certain vehicles like diesel trucks or Hummers, or requiring certain number of passengers (car pooling) are some legitimate local solutions that do not have the same problems that local emmision or mileage standards would impose.

Bob

Gary E
01-27-2009, 02:34 PM
I suspect that this whole subject will make a return trip to the Supreme Court. My own feeling are that due to to the interstate nature of travel, standards for vehicles should be national in scope. State by state solutions seems like a nightmare to me and expensive too. It seems to clash with the free trade and commerce clause of the Constitution.

States, and cities too, can have regulations as to what vehicles travel when and where. Banning vehicles altogether, banning certain vehicles like diesel trucks or Hummers, or requiring certain number of passengers (car pooling) are some legitimate local solutions that do not have the same problems that local emmision or mileage standards would impose.

Bob

I agree with you andI dont think it's about clean this or clean that... THEY, being those in power, and not the ones we know about, the ones behind the scenes, the string pullers are setting the agenda and it's about CONTROL... when they control all this stuff, they control us and we the little folks are screwed...
so... BOHICA

Captain Blight
01-27-2009, 02:38 PM
You better ask him how his so called "investment" in blow power is working out...
When you do, your find he's loosing his a..

But he's got plenty of capital, so he'll be fine, and none of this falderal will make a lick of difference in his lifestyle.
He'll turn a profit, one way or another. the reason he's losing his ass is because he's still in the NRCI phase. Wind generators cost real money, and he's talking about thousands of them; tapping into the existing grid as well as stringing new lines and paying good people to do all this work. Eventually, the whole system will be up and running; but it might take a good while for "eventually" to happen.

Part of the reason we're in this economic mess is guys like you, Gary, who want to see instant ROI, want profits every single quarter, and don't want to see potential profits used to improve infrastructure.

Captain Blight
01-27-2009, 02:40 PM
The problem is that to meet the standards, about half the mix has to be 50+ mpg cars. It's not a clean air thing, it's a carbon emission standard that's being set and set on a timetable the car companies can't meet in their present financial condition.Then they deserve to go under. Freedom to succeed means freedom to fail, too.

Let me get this straight, then: Are you seriously saying that the only government regulations that are allowable are the ones that work to a corporation's advantage? Because that is so much manure, it's not even funny.

Gary E
01-27-2009, 02:55 PM
Part of the reason we're in this economic mess is guys like you, Gary, who want to see instant ROI, want profits every single quarter, and don't want to see potential profits used to improve infrastructure.


Well... you must be one of the Kalifornia fruits and nutz...just like the program I saw about Ed Begley the actor, and his neighbor Bill Ney the science guy... they both are into the lets greenup the home and car and bike and for all I know his toylet paper...anyway, the program showed what each of them did and they glossed over and ran past the COST OF HIS PANNELS on the roof and the associated conglomeration of controls... Bottom ine, that stuff cost hiim $30,000 for what looked like a small litttle house... WHO THE HELL THNKS THAT IS ECONOMICAL????
YOU GOT 30 g's to install that?? and take 20 yrs to break even???

You green people are fookin morons...
or extreemly rich and dont care what this stuff costs

Dan McCosh
01-27-2009, 03:05 PM
Certain states have set their own auto emission standards since the regulations were first introduced. The issue at hand is whether individual states have the right to limit the sale of cars and trucks that don't meet the individual states requirements for fuel economy. California is anxious to ban the sale of Mercedes, BMW, Jaguars, etc., and Vermont wants to ban the sale of pickup trucks. When this happens, those who want these vehicles will have to go the the next state without the restrictions, and drive them back home. The chief advocate of this legislation is a former pitchman for GM's Humvee division.

No, I am not making this up.

huisjen
01-27-2009, 03:07 PM
Surely that's an oversimplification.

Dan

Gary E
01-27-2009, 03:10 PM
Dan,
Next will be a checkpoint at the border...
You sir are driving a ___________ and we dont allow them in this state of ours without payment of a hefty temporary permit fee.... sorta like the permit fees that tractor trailers pay for the privelege of riding on the states roads... and ohh, by the way, you will be measured for how many miles you drive in this state and charged accordly...

You think they cant do that?.. I know neighborhoods that do not allow pickups to stay overnight in your own driveway. And over 45 yrs ago Greyhound was charged by each state the bus drove through. I dont know if they are still paying those fees these days but I knew the accountant that had to figger that stuff out then. And Football/baseball /hockey players are charged for the amount of time they are in cities and states that have income taxes... THEY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AT ALL TIMES....haha haha

Dan McCosh
01-27-2009, 03:16 PM
Surely that's an oversimplification.

Dan

Ok., maybe Arnold is not the chief advocate. He was the one television the other night.

Captain Blight
01-27-2009, 03:23 PM
Dan,
Next will be a checkpoint at the border...
You sir are driving a ___________ and we dont allow them in this state of ours without payment of a hefty temporary permit fee.... sorta like the permit fees that tractor trailers pay for the privelege of riding on the states roads... and ohh, by the way, you will be measured for how many miles you drive in this state and charged accordly...

You think they cant do that?.. I know neighborhoods that do not allow pickups to stay overnight in your own driveway.Completely legal, and IMHO a very good idea.

Flying Orca
01-27-2009, 03:25 PM
Yep. You can buy carbon credits with that kind of scheme.

Dan McCosh
01-27-2009, 03:31 PM
Completely legal, and IMHO a very good idea.

Actually, it would not be legal.

The main reason is that the US fuel economy standards are not for any particular car, or any car owner. They are set as an average of the fuel economy of cars sold by a particular corporation. Once the car is on the road, the actual mileage is meaningless. Once you set such a "standard" for a given state, the identical car sold another state still is perfectly legal.

George Roberts
01-27-2009, 05:02 PM
"He'll [Mr. Pickens] turn a profit, one way or another. the reason he's losing his ass is because he's still in the NRCI phase."

No. He is losing money for the same reason that people who planned on $150+ oil are losing money - oil is under $50.

This week an electric car maker - several thousand sold (at around $30K) and on the road, went chapter 11 (maybe even chapter 7). Seems no one will finance their modest plans to expand.

Large scale economics is a rough place to bet the farm.

skuthorp
01-27-2009, 05:31 PM
Whilst it seems to me to be madness to let individual states set their own rules re cars, in the land of the free I'd have thought that less regulations was what you wanted. At least the car companies will have to pay attention to the marketability of their products and the highest standards will likely rule.

L.W. Baxter
01-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Here's one of those paradoxes of energy regulation: increased particulate emissions standards lead to loss of fuel economy and therefore more carbon emissions per mile. This is for any given vehicle, of course. If the average vehicle size and horsepower is reduced then we can have reductions in both.

And I don't advocate relaxed particulate emissions, by the way. (Even though extreme particulate emissions standards ruined a whole generation of diesel trucks.) Just making the point that sometimes the conservation of resources gives way to other environmental concerns.

Dan McCosh
01-28-2009, 11:11 AM
Here's one of those paradoxes of energy regulation: increased particulate emissions standards lead to loss of fuel economy and therefore more carbon emissions per mile. This is for any given vehicle, of course. If the average vehicle size and horsepower is reduced then we can have reductions in both.

And I don't advocate relaxed particulate emissions, by the way. (Even though extreme particulate emissions standards ruined a whole generation of diesel trucks.) Just making the point that sometimes the conservation of resources gives way to other environmental concerns.

This is quite true. There is a trade-off between both contemporary (smog-forming) emission standards and the formation of CO2. There also is a trade-off between high mileage cars and safety, particularly in the smallest classes of vehicles. It is getting increasingly difficult to keep these in perspective as global warming-related policies are introduced.

LeeG
01-28-2009, 09:27 PM
first thing is, we need to challenge this assumption

zactly

MiddleAgesMan
01-29-2009, 09:20 AM
There is no conflict between the economy and the environment--long term.

It is short-term thinking that has given us the fine mess we have today. Corporations AND governments have been thinking short term. We now have a president willing and able to think long term but the Congress has already forced him to go short on way too many issues.

Gary E
01-29-2009, 10:05 AM
There is no conflict between the economy and the environment--long term.

It is short-term thinking that has given us the fine mess we have today. Corporations AND governments have been thinking short term. We now have a president willing and able to think long term but the Congress has already forced him to go short on way too many issues.

The MESS we have TODAY??? what are you blind?
If you live in the US today you are living more comfortabley than at any other time in world history. Maybe you should go back to your nickname of the middle ages and go outside and use a club to gather your food instead of getting in your car and drving to the store where you have available food from not only the farmer a few miles away but from farmers all over the intire world. Then look how we comunicate today, not smoke signals like in the past, we have the worlds best phones, fax, computers, and TV... gawd man look at the rest of the world, they want to go where, To the USA, they are climbing fences to get here, swimming the freekin river to get here, Is ANYONE trying to leave?... NO, not even the damn actor libs of Hollywood that said they would when Dubya was elected,
Your just wrong, about this. Are there things to fix? sure there are... you think it better somewhere else?... GO... there's no one stoping you. LEAVE, and dont let the door hit you in the ass.

LeeG
01-29-2009, 10:49 AM
GaryE,,you are excitable today, aren't you the guy declaring the scourge of druggies breaking into ones home?

martin schulz
01-29-2009, 10:59 AM
...close to half American built autos are light trucks which will not meet the standards.

and:


This is unfair to the American auto makers.

Obviously someone hasn't done his homework. The same is true here and right now the automobile industry is desperately trying to get money, or at least some sort of subsidy to survive - the same industry that has strictly rejected any government involvement the last years.

The newest scheme is that you will get 2,500 EUR if you buy a new car. But the question is if driving a car, lets say 10-15 years old isn't much "cleaner" than dumping it and buying a newly built car considering all energy efforts.

Gary E
01-29-2009, 11:00 AM
GaryE,,you are excitable today, aren't you the guy declaring the scourge of druggies breaking into ones home?

That has been going on for 40 yrs..and it's still ILLEGAL, you got something new in that dept?
What's your point?

switters
01-29-2009, 11:11 AM
and:



Obviously someone hasn't done his homework. The same is true here and right now the automobile industry is desperately trying to get money, or at least some sort of subsidy to survive - the same industry that has strictly rejected any government involvement the last years.

The newest scheme is that you will get 2,500 EUR if you buy a new car. But the question is if driving a car, lets say 10-15 years old isn't much "cleaner" than dumping it and buying a newly built car considering all energy efforts.

The light truck sales number was from an article I read in the paper. If you consider SUVs are included in light trucks as are mini vans then maybe it will make sense. If you have a different source then post it. Is it or isn't it fair to automakers? They don't think so, I asked the question. Agreed it could have been phrased better.

So you've done your homework and like the Chinese and the English, are far smarter than Americans. Answer your own question, buy a new car which is more efficient or keep the old one running and save on energy and materials needed to build the new one.

martin schulz
01-29-2009, 12:18 PM
So you've done your homework and like the Chinese and the English, are far smarter than Americans. Answer your own question, buy a new car which is more efficient or keep the old one running and save on energy and materials needed to build the new one.

I am sorry.
I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean you haven't done your homework, I meant the car industry haven't made their homework. They saw it coming but decided to play the lobby-card to keep producing gas-guzzlers instead of devoting time & money for innovations in energy saving vehicles.




Yesterday I saw a report about a guy who designed and manufactured a Porsche 911 electric car with the same amount of power (he likes to drive fast). He did all the design and work with his small 5 people R&D bureau. It took them about 2 years to have the car in a presentable shape.

Now someone has to explain to me why highly paid R&D branches in international automobile manufacturers are unable to do what 6 in a small company can do in their free time...

prestonbriggs
01-29-2009, 12:38 PM
The MESS we have TODAY??? what are you blind?
If you live in the US today you are living more comfortabley than at any other time in world history.

I'd take the US back in the 1950s.
By comparison, the current situation does seem like a mess.

Preston

Kaa
01-29-2009, 01:27 PM
I'd take the US back in the 1950s.

But then, you're probably a white male..? :D

Kaa

oznabrag
01-29-2009, 01:39 PM
I'd take the US back in the 1950s.
By comparison, the current situation does seem like a mess.

Preston

I'd take the 50s too.

The top income tax bracket was 90%.

We actually had a middle class that didn't depend on credit for their status.

Of course, as this is wishful thinking, I'd do away with all the ugly little 'isms' we were saddled with at the time.

It's kinda weird that we went from fiscally progressive to socially progressive. Never the twain shall meet?

John T

prestonbriggs
01-29-2009, 02:29 PM
But then, you're probably a white male..? :D

Kaa

Granted. And I'll further grant that the present situation grew out of our (the US as a whole) actions back then.

Preston

Dan McCosh
01-29-2009, 05:06 PM
I am sorry.
I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean you haven't done your homework, I meant the car industry haven't made their homework. They saw it coming but decided to play the lobby-card to keep producing gas-guzzlers instead of devoting time & money for innovations in energy saving vehicles.




Yesterday I saw a report about a guy who designed and manufactured a Porsche 911 electric car with the same amount of power (he likes to drive fast). He did all the design and work with his small 5 people R&D bureau. It took them about 2 years to have the car in a presentable shape.

Now someone has to explain to me why highly paid R&D branches in international automobile manufacturers are unable to do what 6 in a small company can do in their free time...

I've often thought the same thing. Every time I go to the Oshkosh EAA air show, I see what five guys can build in the garage and wonder why the big aircraft companies can't seem to build the same aircraft.

L.W. Baxter
01-30-2009, 12:19 AM
first thing is, we need to challenge this assumption

It is a common delusion for the hopeful to suggest that 6 billion human beings can live on earth without shaping the environment.

The human economy has been in contention with the environment since the first man rubbed two sticks together and set the woods on fire. If you can seriously challenge this assumption, please do it.

George Roberts
01-30-2009, 01:31 AM
"Now someone has to explain to me why highly paid R&D branches in international automobile manufacturers are unable to do what 6 in a small company can do in their free time..."

And I designed an plug-in electric car that will run 400 miles at 50mph before needing a recharge.

Only problems are that is is uncomfortable, batteries have limited life (still cheaper than gas), reasonable person would pay the purchase price, ...

A lot of people do in their garage what no business will do.

---

Those 6 guys should quit their day job and build cars. I can get them enough capital to get up to a reasonable scale. :)

martin schulz
01-30-2009, 07:39 AM
Lets hava a look at this emmision-free car:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1322300,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1322314,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1322289,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1322308,00.jpg



Ruf Automobile GmbH, a German automotive company that has been tuning Porsches for a long time, will make an electric version of the Porsche 911 called the eRUF Model A.

Under the hood, a 150kW (201hp) brushless three phase A/C electric motor that can generate an impressive 480 lb.-ft. of torque and a lithium-ion iron-phosphate battery pack made of 96 160Ah Axeon cells and a sophisticated monitoring system to make sure it doesn't overheat. Read on for more details and photos.



eRUF Porsche Technical Specifications

It accelerates from zero to 100 kph in less than seven seconds and has a top speed of 225 kph (140 mph). Estimated range per charge is 250 kilometers to 320 kilometers (155-199 miles), depending on performance level, using a 50.72 kWh lithium-ion iron-phosphate pack from Axeon plc.

But the battery pack could be replaced as new technology comes out. In its press release, RUF says: "The generation of batteries available from Axeon represents by no means the end of the developmental curve. Current performance improvements in battery technology indicate that end of this improvement spiral is nowhere near. "

The eRUF Porsche also features regenerative braking.

LeeG
01-30-2009, 08:32 AM
that is a lot of batteries,, for one of those electric sports cars there are 10,000's of small displacement engine driven cars. Must be a reason.

Popeye
01-30-2009, 08:58 AM
The human economy has been in contention with the environment since the first man rubbed two sticks together and set the woods on fire. If you can seriously challenge this assumption, please do it.

good example , sure is neanderthal isn't it

the assumption has always been economy excludes environment , not sure when , why or how this became rationalized in modern culture , but it certainly has become ingrained , so challenge it for a moment if you will

if the problem is a finite resource must support exponential growth , then the solution is sustainability , so adapt technology to support both the economy and the environment , simple really

Gary E
01-30-2009, 09:02 AM
Since some of you guys seem to be so smart and know all or enough of the answers why is it that your here and not somewhere where they actually DO SOLVE PROBLEMS??

Popeye
01-30-2009, 09:04 AM
It is a common delusion for the hopeful to suggest that 6 billion human beings can live on earth without shaping the environment.

sure they shape the environment , you are assuming consumption is always a net loss , this is false reasoning

Popeye
01-30-2009, 09:05 AM
Since some of you guys seem to be so smart and know all or enough of the answers why is it that your here and not somewhere where they actually DO SOLVE PROBLEMS??

i am .. somewhere else .. solving problems .. right now as a matter of fact .. and also solved some problems in the past .. will solve s'more later on too .. :D

martin schulz
01-30-2009, 09:15 AM
that is a lot of batteries,, for one of those electric sports cars there are 10,000's of small displacement engine driven cars. Must be a reason.

True and I don't believe just switching from one kind of engine to another will be the solution. After all electric power has to be created as well and that is usually done with the side effect of producing either emissions or nuclear waste. IMHO we should seriously consider the end of personal transportation...

Anyhow, this Porsche example is just to show that the automotive industry, including the only still profitable company Porsche, have been sleeping very well the last 20 years, knowing that by lobby-bullying, they won't be forced to think about alternatives to the 100 year old concept of the internal combustion engine.

And there is this guy and a small team of experts putting together what the automotive industry today claims to be a major development effort that will takes years.

Popeye
01-30-2009, 09:29 AM
It is a common delusion for the hopeful to suggest that 6 billion human beings can live on earth without shaping the environment.

think of your time on this earth with 6 billion other souls as temporary

think of messing up your environment as you would think of messing up your bedroom

think of me as your mother

George Roberts
01-30-2009, 09:54 AM
"And there is this guy and a small team of experts putting together what the automotive industry today claims to be a major development effort that will takes years."

So what did that car cost? What is the lifetime cost of the car? And who owns the patents these fellows "used?"

There car like mine is a toy.

---

The Aptera is a production electric car, hybrid and plug-in available. It appears to not be an economically viable alternative to other small cars. It is very hard to made a production car.

martin schulz
01-30-2009, 10:01 AM
Since some of you guys seem to be so smart and know all or enough of the answers why is it that your here and not somewhere where they actually DO SOLVE PROBLEMS??

Oops...sorry, but I just ran out of solvent

LeeG
01-30-2009, 10:43 AM
Martin, in a similar vein there was a car competition amongst various high schools for maximum mileage. One group of kids wanted a high performance car sothey got a turbodiesel Jetta and made a hybrid with super capacitors. 0-100km/hr times around 6 seconds with 50mpg highway speeds. It drove home the cost of excess horsepower for fast acceleration times. If they simply stuck with the VW they'd have the same mpg rating.

Just out of curiosity what is your take on Germanys programs for solar power? Is there another country making as large an investment in renewable energy sources?

L.W. Baxter
01-30-2009, 10:44 AM
...think of me as your mother...

If you don't stop dad from abusing my little sister, I'm going to kill the bastard. You obsess over tidying up a house that's going to burn.

Popeye
01-30-2009, 10:51 AM
You obsess over tidying up a house that's going to burn.

not

here read this ..

"Germany has established itself as a world-leading center for photovoltaics technology, thanks to legislation designed to encourage its development. (http://spie.org/x17246.xml?ArticleID=x17246)"

L.W. Baxter
01-30-2009, 11:12 AM
You started the analogy, please keep up.

I didn't say that the house was going to burn because I left my socks under the bed. It's going to burn because somebody's going to set it on fire.

Read the news lately? What man does to his fellow man is what rules our fate. What man does to his environment is damage control; tidying up, as it were.

L.W. Baxter
01-30-2009, 11:30 AM
I read the article you linked to, Popeye. Yes it is encouraging, and I would rely on technology to help us with...technical problems. But it will not change the human nature that leads to holocausts. It won't fill any rice bowls we don't bother to fill. We just came through a period of unprecedented growth and wealth (and environmental cleanup) in the developed world, and never really broke off a piece for our brothers. We've come out the other side with an obsession over "our" future climate. When we've never really used the inclusive "we" before.

And I don't see how the solar and wind power generators required to replace fossil fuels are really in concert with the environment. It will hopefully be an improvement over burning fossil carbon but it will always be "versus" the environment.

LeeG
01-30-2009, 11:32 AM
ok,,someone write a screen play based on that exchange.

martin schulz
01-30-2009, 11:36 AM
Just out of curiosity what is your take on Germanys programs for solar power? Is there another country making as large an investment in renewable energy sources?

I can say this much. There is currently a big interest in renewable energy sources. Needless to say that we are now "harvesting" what the socialist-green administration started with subsidies, emission control and development encouragement. I have been saying for years that jobs just don't disappear and that any move away from the old energy concepts (coal-burning power & nuclear power) will of course lead to cutback in jobs, but will definitely be an investment in the future. The energy Lobby (EON) obviously didn't like that, since all their power plants already were paid off and beginning to make big money.

I really don't know about solar power, but since Husum (have a look at http://www.husumwindenergy.com/) is nearby and I have clients who work in windenergy, I know that there is a lot going on. As example, there is this little town called Husum where Germany's largest windenergy company VESTAS have their headquarter. Husum hosts a windenergy trade show every year, probably the most important windenergy trade show in the world. But until 2 years ago the classic German tradeshow cities (Hamburg, Hannover) didn't even pay attention to what is going on in Husum, now they have started a fight, trying to take this tradeshow away from Husum.

This is just a personal feeling, backed by what clients tell me, but I do think that there is a constantly increasing interst in renewable energy and Germany seems to sit on top of the development (lets not forget Denmark of course).



Top 10 wind turbine manufacturers[1]

1. Vestas (Denmark)
2. GE Energy (United States)
3. Gamesa (Spain)
4. Enercon (Germany)
5. Suzlon (India)
6. Siemens (Germany)
7. Acciona (Spain)
8. Goldwind (China - PRC)
9. Nordex (Germany)
10. Sinovel (China - PRC)

LeeG
01-30-2009, 11:40 AM
maybe we can start as much with our new president. I hear he's an advocate for social programs so he must be a socialist.

Dan McCosh
01-30-2009, 11:53 AM
True and I don't believe just switching from one kind of engine to another will be the solution. After all electric power has to be created as well and that is usually done with the side effect of producing either emissions or nuclear waste. IMHO we should seriously consider the end of personal transportation...

Anyhow, this Porsche example is just to show that the automotive industry, including the only still profitable company Porsche, have been sleeping very well the last 20 years, knowing that by lobby-bullying, they won't be forced to think about alternatives to the 100 year old concept of the internal combustion engine.

And there is this guy and a small team of experts putting together what the automotive industry today claims to be a major development effort that will takes years.

I don't think anyone in the auto industry ever said it would take years to make one electric car. Ultimately, the difficult trick is to build something 30 million people or so are willing to buy every year. FWIW--the electric car predates the internal combustion engine, was the first powerplant to achieve 60 mph; electric cars were in series production through the mid-1950s, are still in limited production, etc. The IC engine was considered a major step forward when it was introduced, despite the big corporations pushing all-electric cars. It's advantage remains: the IC engine generates more power with less mass than any known alternative. Legislative efforts to ban superior technology tend to fail--a problem still unsolved. Likewise, efforts to mandate the sale of unwanted goods have faced the problem of the difficulty of prosecuting those who don't buy them.

Popeye
01-30-2009, 01:38 PM
it will always be "versus" the environment.

this is the type of nonsensical argument i'm talking about , we seem to want to feed and maintain economic cycles for what purpose exactly ?

someone pointed out to me the other day , it is possible .. we could be happier having less stuff

kind of a powerful statement

Kaa
01-30-2009, 01:42 PM
we seem to want to feed and maintain economic cycles for what purpose exactly ?

Prosperity.

So that you don't go hungry. So that your child doesn't die from a disease. So that you can afford a decent lifestyle for your elderly parents. So that a machine does the back-breaking work and not you. So that you have enough leisure to read and maybe write books. Etc. etc.

Kaa

Popeye
01-30-2009, 01:50 PM
Prosperity.yes, monetary wealth is relative , iow , for you to be 'rich' , someone else has to be poor , so you must maintain the cycle, growth being the primary goal

George Roberts
01-30-2009, 03:13 PM
"for you to be 'rich' , someone else has to be poor"

Few believe that. (OK, those who want more social programs tend to believe that and they are the majority.)

I am sure that everyone here would be happy with a computer from 1990 with dial up access.

We have such things because some of us have traded our individual wealth for such things. In bulk those trades have made some people rich.

I have no problems with others being richer than I am. I don't even care if they deserve it or not.

All that matters is that I, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, and their families and neighbors get better off over time.

I, my wife, and my children work hard, and in time my grandchildren will be old enough to work hard to keep us better off.

If anyone wishes to join those who work hard, I suspect over time they will be better off.

L.W. Baxter
01-30-2009, 05:11 PM
this is the type of nonsensical argument i'm talking about , we seem to want to feed and maintain economic cycles for what purpose exactly ?

someone pointed out to me the other day , it is possible .. we could be happier having less stuff

kind of a powerful statement

Well, like I said, technology can offer technical solutions, but it can't make people "happier having less stuff." It almost seems to do the opposite, from what I've seen.

I predict that, as alternative energy sources become more feasible, economical, and more fully expoited, the human thirst for energy will only increase. Greater efficiency and renewability will lead to more energy use, not less. Any bets on who will get the lion's share?

People will use the resources they can afford, or control by force, same difference.

If you want a revolution in human nature, just say that. But don't inject your desiring into a rational argument regarding the world as it is, as if it describes a real phenomena.

Dan McCosh
01-30-2009, 05:15 PM
I predict that, as alternative energy sources become more feasible, economical, and more fully expoited, the human thirst for energy will only increase. Greater efficiency and renewability will lead to more energy use, not less.

.

History certainly supports that position. Might add that as energy efficiency increases, so does consumption--pretty much for the same reason.

Rigadog
01-31-2009, 10:17 AM
I'm for getting back to wind-powered cars. They were good enough for our grandfathers, they should be good enough for us. The wind don't blow, you don't go. What's the big hurry anyway? The world is round and you're gonna wind up right back where you started eventually.

switters
02-03-2009, 04:37 PM
Glad to see our government put it's money in something greener.


Army to buy electric cars



By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 25, 2008 7:26:14 EST
Aiming to save fuel and advance alternative-energy plans, the Army, Navy and Air Force intend to buy thousands of battery-powered, 35-mile-an-hour electric cars and light trucks to provide on-base transport, senior Army officials said.




http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_electric_cars_112408w/

full article.