Rick Wagoner Steps Down as GM Head.

[Ecofarm]

Regarding electric cars:

1. They do not generate electricity and then use it. They are not perpetual motion machines.
2. The batteries must be charged.
a. The batteries are extremely expensive and resouce intensive to produce.
b.The batteries weight alot.
3. What are you charging the battery with?
a. Your house?
b. Gratz on running your car on coal. Great.

Hybrids, however, generate some electricity (during down-shifting/high-rpm/city driving) and store it in the battery to use it for sustained speed (not much for acceleration). Ultimately, they run on fossil fuels (natural gas hybrid would be nice) but the MPG is great.

4. MPT? Do we really want to guage the efficiency of an electric car in Miles Per Ton (of coal)?

Perhaps you have a nuclear plant providing electricity to your house/car, but let's not fool ourselves to believing the "only exaust is water" crap. We need to see the bigger picture, at least a little.

ps. The best source of methane is composting.

 

[Elta]

It has nothing to do with the environment for me, it is about saving money on gas.
They will only be a + for the environment when we start to use more renewable resources.


And I know all the rest of what you wrote, it is generally common knowledge.

 

[luiz]

Chrysler is. That's why they're not making any changes. It is clear that the gov't it cutting its strings. Chrysler's owners supposedly have a mound of cash they arent using to help it out.

But why not GM?

 

[Ecofarm]

It has nothing to do with the environment for me, it is about saving money on gas.

Have you compared it to the increase in your electric bill? Charging a car is like running a washing machine +.

Is there a local repair facility? Tune ups? All work by dealer at $80-100/hour?

And if my post is such common knowledge, why do idiots still claim "the only emission is water!!", as if it were a closed system.

 

[JerichoHill]

But why not GM?

Well, clearly they think GM can be viable. GM also employs 350K vs. Chrysler 50K

 

[Bill3000]

Perhaps you have a nuclear plant providing electricity to your house/car, but let's not fool ourselves to believing the "only exaust is water" crap. We need to see the bigger picture, at least a little.

Helluva lot easier to manage pollution at its source.

 

[.Shane.]

@Eco, I realize electric cars are not "perpetual motion machines" (did I or anyone else in this thread say they were?), but from what I understand the net "footprint" of an electric car, in total, is much less than the traditional gas-powered.

That said, hybrids are fine too. In fact, until the economy intervened I had hoped to be getting the 2010 model Prius. That said, I don't think the answer is an all-or-nothing proposition. No reason we can't have electric, hybrids, fuel cell, etc... the only exception, I think, is ethanol, which is horrible, from what I understand.

 

[Elta]

Have you compared it to the increase in your electric bill? Charging a car is like running a washing machine +.

Is there a local repair facility? Tune ups? All work by dealer at $80-100/hour?

And if my post is such common knowledge, why do idiots still claim "the only emission is water!!", as if it were a closed system.

My Grandpa is a electric engineer, So I am not worried about the repair cost.

The 300 mpg claim on the electric version is of course not what it really means. They took gas at a base cost of 2 dollars per gallon and factored in how much energy it is. Then they calculated it out and 2 dollars worth of electricity gets you 300 miles. That is where they get their 300 mpg claim.

The only emission is water claim is from dumb ass reporters regarding hydrogen fuel cell cars. Although should the power come entirely from renewable resources than it is essentially true. But of course making it and maintaining it (new tries etc) also causes pollution. Much less so than a gas powered car overa ll though.


When I say common knowledge I mean common knowledge for the type of people who visit this forum. ..... I don't consider my self super smart or anything of the sort, but I do find the general public to be undereducated when it comes to things like this, so in that regard no it is not common knowledge.



@.Shane : The ethanol we use from corn is a environmental negative because we need to put in almost more fossil fuels than we get out. (the energy input out put is 1.3, so you are only getting 30% more from it, as such it would take immense amounts of land to power the country, it is simply undoable) Supposedly this will change when they learn how to process the entirety of the corn, though I think that it will take a while before that happens. In any case ethanol from sugar cane is highly efficient giving you a minimum 700% of your energy back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Comparison_with_the_United_States

As you can see we have tariffs on it though......
In general I don't like it because I am a free trade believer, but more over, if it is cheaper than gas, makes less of an *environmental impact and it comes from our friends in Brazil (maybe not friends, but they like us more thean the Persian Gulf does) Why can't we just get it without tariffs? WTH ?!


*despite what anyone tells you they are not tearing up the amazon to make big corporate farms..... small farms run by poor people are and they try to crack down but it is pretty hard to enforce. Every kid in school is a step in the right direction though.


P.S. sorry if that is a little bit confusing or unreadable guys, I have a mean hangover.

 

[BSmith1068]

As you can see we have tariffs on it though......
In general I don't like it because I am a free trade believer, but more over, if it is cheaper than gas, makes less of an *environmental impact and it comes from our friends in Brazil (maybe not friends, but they like us more thean the Persian Gulf does) Why can't we just get it without tariffs? WTH ?!

One word: Corn. Corn is used heavily for sweeteners in this country (corn syrup), and cheap sugar would threaten the corn industry.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Says on BBC and others that Obama told GM CEO to step down. How is it that he can fire CEOs of private companies? They wouldn't get away with that in Sweden even in its deepest crimson periods so how the hell do they manage in the US?

 

[Mise]

Says on BBC and others that Obama told GM CEO to step down. How is it that he can fire CEOs of private companies? They wouldn't get away with that in Sweden even in its deepest crimson periods so how the hell do they manage in the US?

The implication was probably, "if you don't step down, we're not going to bail you out." Shareholders would certainly have demanded he stepped down, if that were the case. Presumably he's going without a fuss, to prevent further embarrassment for GM.

 

[El_Machinae]

@Eco, I realize electric cars are not "perpetual motion machines" (did I or anyone else in this thread say they were?), but from what I understand the net "footprint" of an electric car, in total, is much less than the traditional gas-powered.

That said, hybrids are fine too. In fact, until the economy intervened I had hoped to be getting the 2010 model Prius. That said, I don't think the answer is an all-or-nothing proposition. No reason we can't have electric, hybrids, fuel cell, etc... the only exception, I think, is ethanol, which is horrible, from what I understand.

With some exceptions, the best 'footprint' car is one that is already made (today) and is handled with TLC so that it lasts as long as possible.

Electric cars are great because the only emission is water (so much better for city folk). As well, it's easier to provide 'clean' electricity if the plant is localised.

Ethanol still isn't so bad, but corn ethanol is stupid. Ethanol should become more popular as the resources for making batteries become more sparse.

 

[Elta]

One word: Corn. Corn is used heavily for sweeteners in this country (corn syrup), and cheap sugar would threaten the corn industry.

I know, corn syrup alone is 10% of our diet. But I see ethanol as a totally different thing, once it is ethanol it is not food at all. And we know that corn ethanol is worthless. It sounds ridiculous but it really is all about the interest of the "corn people"

Says on BBC and others that Obama told GM CEO to step down. How is it that he can fire CEOs of private companies? They wouldn't get away with that in Sweden even in its deepest crimson periods so how the hell do they manage in the US?

Well they are asking for federal money. It is a condition of the "loan".

 

[luiz]

Well, clearly they think GM can be viable. GM also employs 350K vs. Chrysler 50K

Anything is viable with enough government subsidies, no?

"Viable" is a very bad way to put it. It clearly is not viable if it is failing.

 

[Gooblah]

My problem with the idea of letting GM and/or Chrysler fail (Ford is doing relatively fine, it'll weather the crisis) is that my state is going to get owned even more than before. The Big 3 still employ a ton of workers throughout Michigan, even in their emaciated state. Let them die, and so will the local economy.

 

[Elta]

Anything is viable with enough government subsidies, no?

"Viable" is a very bad way to put it. It clearly is not viable if it is failing.

It is failing because they pay some of the people their absurd amounts of money and they are choking under their promises to provide good health care to every past, present and future employee.

It won't be so bad if they can sort a few things out.

My problem with the idea of letting GM and/or Chrysler fail (Ford is doing relatively fine, it'll weather the crisis) is that my state is going to get owned even more than before. The Big 3 still employ a ton of workers throughout Michigan, even in their emaciated state. Let them die, and so will the local economy.

Lucky Michigan is actively trying to encourage all of these tech companies with their incentives. I wonder about the risk of relying heavily on one industry again though.

 

[mangxema]

Regarding electric cars:
...
3. What are you charging the battery with?
a. Your house?
b. Gratz on running your car on coal. Great.

True, but I think part of the benefit that people factor in is that you are going from a known bad (gasoline) to something that may or may not be bad (electric). It is true that whatever you use for your house is whatever you'd use for your car, but if we say... switched to nuclear power or something, autos would then automatically switch over too. Perhaps then nuclear power would be more profitable?