|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 6, 2012 16:12:37 GMT -8
For the present, at least. Maybe someday things will be different. Again I repeat this simple fact; We will need fossil fuels for a long, long time. Maybe not forever (I hope not forever), but the transition to renewable, clean energy sources will be very long (think in terms of decades, not years) and really has not yet even started. Meanwhile, Obama and his cronies are sticking it to the American economy and the American consumer. In this piece, notice the part about the result of economic policy being dictated by politicians instead of business leaders. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electric-cars-and-the-liberal-war-with-science/2012/03/05/gIQA7SpYtR_story.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 6, 2012 16:53:53 GMT -8
This is a predictable outcome when you have economic decisions based on political concerns and ideology. I have said for a long time that a plug-in hybrid with some kind of passive (solar) recharging system will be a long term winner. Ever improving battery technology is a factor as well. We will always need another fuel source for the battery backup. For now it should be gas or natural gas. In the future it could be fuel cells only or some combination with electric.
Now we are paying over $4 at the pump because Obama and his herd of dimwits want to go green long before green is viable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 7, 2012 9:38:01 GMT -8
This is a predictable outcome when you have economic decisions based on political concerns and ideology. I have said for a long time that a plug-in hybrid with some kind of passive (solar) recharging system will be a long term winner. Ever improving battery technology is a factor as well. We will always need another fuel source for the battery backup. For now it should be gas or natural gas. In the future it could be fuel cells only or some combination with electric. Now we are paying over $4 at the pump because Obama and his herd of dimwits want to go green long before green is viable. My electric car cost me $22.00 last month to run. That is 10% of what gas would have cost to drive the same number of miles. Naner Naner Naner. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 7, 2012 13:33:32 GMT -8
This is a predictable outcome when you have economic decisions based on political concerns and ideology. I have said for a long time that a plug-in hybrid with some kind of passive (solar) recharging system will be a long term winner. Ever improving battery technology is a factor as well. We will always need another fuel source for the battery backup. For now it should be gas or natural gas. In the future it could be fuel cells only or some combination with electric. Now we are paying over $4 at the pump because Obama and his herd of dimwits want to go green long before green is viable. My electric car cost me $22.00 last month to run. That is 10% of what gas would have cost to drive the same number of miles. Naner Naner Naner. ;D Cool. Can you drive to the Sierras in a few hours and go off-roading? Didn't think so. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Montezuma on Mar 7, 2012 13:58:17 GMT -8
I own my cars best I understand many of the electric cars must be leased and must be returned to the car companies when the lease up. I know this the case with the Nissan Leaf, it makes sense since the batteries are hazmat. Also do electric car owners really think that they will get electric for free forever? Where does the electric come from? Not those dumb windmills; it comes from coal fire plants and nuke power. Enjoy the ride to Vegas in that Golfcart, that's right it is out of range.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 7, 2012 14:14:47 GMT -8
I own my cars best I understand many of the electric cars must be leased and must be returned to the car companies when the lease up. I know this the case with the Nissan Leaf, it makes sense since the batteries are hazmat. Also do electric car owners really think that they will get electric for free forever? Where does the electric come from? Not those dumb windmills; it comes from coal fire plants and nuke power. Enjoy the ride to Vegas in that Golfcart, that's right it is out of range. You don't know what you are talking about. I OWN my Nissan Leaf. The batteries are guaranteed to lose no more than 20% at 10 years old. The electricity comes from the plug which comes from the charger which comes from the grid which comes from multiple sources; gas turbine, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, geo-thermal, and coal. In San Diego, very little of our electric power comes from coal. What you paid in gas for the month of February probably would pay for my electricity for a year (or so). |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 7, 2012 17:39:03 GMT -8
This is a predictable outcome when you have economic decisions based on political concerns and ideology. I have said for a long time that a plug-in hybrid with some kind of passive (solar) recharging system will be a long term winner. Ever improving battery technology is a factor as well. We will always need another fuel source for the battery backup. For now it should be gas or natural gas. In the future it could be fuel cells only or some combination with electric. Now we are paying over $4 at the pump because Obama and his herd of dimwits want to go green long before green is viable. My electric car cost me $22.00 last month to run. That is 10% of what gas would have cost to drive the same number of miles. Naner Naner Naner. ;D You have a Leaf, not a Volt and you don't (can't) drive very far. That one makes some sense for you. A plug in hybrid would be even better. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 8, 2012 8:37:56 GMT -8
My electric car cost me $22.00 last month to run. That is 10% of what gas would have cost to drive the same number of miles. Naner Naner Naner. ;D You have a Leaf, not a Volt and you don't (can't) drive very far. That one makes some sense for you. A plug in hybrid would be even better. I don't disagree with you. The idea and technology of the Volt is a great idea. They should have used a larger battery though. |
|
|
|
Post by romanaztec on Mar 8, 2012 17:21:30 GMT -8
This is a predictable outcome when you have economic decisions based on political concerns and ideology. I have said for a long time that a plug-in hybrid with some kind of passive (solar) recharging system will be a long term winner. Ever improving battery technology is a factor as well. We will always need another fuel source for the battery backup. For now it should be gas or natural gas. In the future it could be fuel cells only or some combination with electric. Now we are paying over $4 at the pump because Obama and his herd of dimwits want to go green long before green is viable. You are absolutely right. viability, it could happen, just not in the near future..No sense in encouraging experimental technology through public funds. Let private money choose winners and losers....BUT people general don't think this way, the Obama camp see's this as a political winner. I do too, politically. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 8, 2012 20:30:31 GMT -8
You have a Leaf, not a Volt and you don't (can't) drive very far. That one makes some sense for you. A plug in hybrid would be even better. I don't disagree with you. The idea and technology of the Volt is a great idea. They should have used a larger battery though. I doubt that the limitations of the Volt's battery are due to poor judgement by GM. (Though poor judgement has been plentiful at GM for decades.) More likely it's the best they could do with today's technology. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 8, 2012 20:39:32 GMT -8
This is a predictable outcome when you have economic decisions based on political concerns and ideology. I have said for a long time that a plug-in hybrid with some kind of passive (solar) recharging system will be a long term winner. Ever improving battery technology is a factor as well. We will always need another fuel source for the battery backup. For now it should be gas or natural gas. In the future it could be fuel cells only or some combination with electric. Now we are paying over $4 at the pump because Obama and his herd of dimwits want to go green long before green is viable. You are absolutely right. viability, it could happen, just not in the near future..No sense in encouraging experimental technology through public funds. Let private money choose winners and losers....BUT people general don't think this way, the Obama camp see's this as a political winner. I do too, politically. The Volt is an embarrassment and so is Obama's energy policy. Fossil fuels will be needed in great quantities for decades. Not forever, one hopes, but for a long, long time. Obama and the environmental Left are trapped in a fairy tale world in which wishes become reality just because they are wished fervently. The fact is that the U.S. has massive reserves of energy that the Left simply will not allow us to exploit. Of course we must work hard to develop renewables, but don't you think that if a breakthrough were easily achieved that it would have emerged in the three or more decades that research has been going on? As for politics, if the price of gasoline is pushing five bucks a gallon by Fall, it sure as hell will be a big negative for the President. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 10, 2012 15:12:04 GMT -8
The conservatives are all in a frenzy about government subsidys for "green power". The "market" should make these decisions, conservatives say. Yet the government subsidizes the oil industry and I never see any complaint from the conservatives.
Why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 10, 2012 16:01:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 10, 2012 21:53:37 GMT -8
I suspect that the GOP is going to make a big deal out of Obama's support of Brazilian offshore drilling while at the same time crippling expansion of such drilling off our shores. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 11, 2012 11:53:12 GMT -8
What would lefties say to a Manhattan Project to dramatically increase mileage and also rapidly develop domestic gas and oil? A fuel efficient car and really cheap gas?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 12, 2012 8:49:57 GMT -8
Did you not post that before? My question went to why conservatives are fine with some kinds of government intervention in markets, but not others. Why the inconsistency? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 12, 2012 11:53:22 GMT -8
Did you not post that before? My question went to why conservatives are fine with some kinds of government intervention in markets, but not others. Why the inconsistency? The best answer to your question has nothing to do with the GOP per se. The answer is that the government should interfere as little as possible in the private sector. That does not mean no interference at all, but does mean a whole lot less that what has been the case for these past several decades. You may ask just what interference is appropriate. A good question. Okay, how about this? If a company sells a food product and advertises it as clean and wholesome, but the food turns out to be harmful in some way, the government should take action. That's what the FDA is there for. Now, here is an example (at least in my mind) of government interferecne that goes over the line. The government should not mandate that health insurance companies must include certain benefits in the plans it sells to the public. If a company wants to sell a bare-bones plan, it should be able to do so. You or I might not be interested in such a plan because it does not cover certain services that we feel we are likely to need. Our recourse is to sign up for a more expensive plan that covers those services. On the other hand, younger consumers (well, at least younger than I! ;D) who are healthy and living on a limited budget, might decide that the bare-bones plan is the most sensible one for them. They should have the right to sign up for that plan. At present, the government says, " No, sorry, we know better. We know that ALL plans must include these services, even though some of them may make no sense for you in particular." This is the collectivist mind at work. We are all just interchangeable parts in a big social machine and as such must get used to being treated accordingly. The fact is that the Left is always authoritarian (to be charitable) and quite willing to force all citizens to comply with its mandates. After all, the government (well, at least when run by collectivists and progressives) knows what is and what isn't good for you. The genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it, for the first time, conceived a governmental framework in which the government served the people and could only exercise those powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in that basic document. The Left often sees the Constitution as a roadblock to its goal of shaping society in ways it believes are noble and good. The key difference between conservatives and libertarians on the one hand and collectivists and progressives on the other is that the former consider the basic rights of the individual to be more important than the government. The latter see things exactly in reverse. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 12, 2012 12:21:17 GMT -8
Did you not post that before? My question went to why conservatives are fine with some kinds of government intervention in markets, but not others. Why the inconsistency? I went back over the thread, and can only find one post of mine with that comment and link. If there was a double post, it was unintentional, and must have been removed by mods.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 12, 2012 20:33:33 GMT -8
Did you not post that before? My question went to why conservatives are fine with some kinds of government intervention in markets, but not others. Why the inconsistency? I went back over the thread, and can only find one post of mine with that comment and link. If there was a double post, it was unintentional, and must have been removed by mods. Sorry, did not mean in this thread. I thought the story was familiar and thought you had posted it in the past. I may have read it elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Mar 12, 2012 20:55:28 GMT -8
William, I think your post is full of inaccurate statements. Your understanding of the Constitution seems to ignore completely the position of Hamilton and Washington. You might want to study up on Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing. Hamilton was our first Sec. of Treasury and Washington's chief aid. He designed our government in practical terms during his time in office. You, I imagine, would have been a Jeffersonian at that time.
Liberals love our Constitution. I carry a copy in my pocket. To say that we view it as an impediment is a bald faced LIE.
Now, William, if you think that the Left is authoritarian, I can trump you with Right Wing authoritarianism. Many Red state legislatures are passing laws that require doctors to insert probes into the vaginas of women, against the will of the women, because right wing politicians want to discourage a legal medical procedure. That would be rape were it not a law passed by Right Wingers. That, William, is government getting between patients and their doctors.
|
|
