DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Who Killed the Electric Car?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 112, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/26/2007 12:00:25 PM · #26
I watched the movie a month ago and enjoyed it. However, I do think it had a little more of an "agenda" than other documentaries I've seen. I even though "An Inconvenient Truth" (which I watched the day after) was more even-handed (which will probably make some people laugh).

One thing I had thought of which may be an issue or not was the upkeep. Let's say GM wants to dump the program (for whatever reason, good or bad) but 76 cars gets sold for a million dollars. Who is going to service those cars? Maybe GM didn't even want to get involved with that. I'm not sure of any of this, but there may have been a little more to the whole story than a massive conspiracy to kill the technology.

I believe I read just recently that GM (or perhaps it was another car company) is working on exactly what was mentioned above, an electric car with a turbine engine to charge the batteries.

Here's an article I found. I guess it is in the "concept car" stage.

Chevrolet Volt

EDIT to add this was typed at the same time Saj's piece was.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 12:02:53.
 01/26/2007 12:10:07 PM · #27
Another thing that bothers me is the anti-Americanism.

Comments against GM, the car, using bicycles instead etc. What gives. If Toyota or Honda unveiled such a prototype the comments would be lauding them and exclaiming how American car companies suck.

So when an American car company releases a prototype, do we laud them? No, we attack and criticize them. I just don't get it...

Or maybe I do...when stupid movies like "Who Killed the Electric Car" are released. Then shown in schools and colleges nationwide.

I don't know the exact reason GM smashed the EV-1 prototypes. But I could wager a few guesses.

The vehicles were probably brought back to GM because the large amount of batteries which contained toxic heavy metals. What were the original leasers going to do when they get told they can't just dispose of the cars because they're classified as toxic waste due to all the batteries?

So do to the liabilities entailed, GM likely brought all the cars back. Disposed of the batteries. Then had the emptied vehicles crushed and sent off to recycling.

EVIL!!!! I know....isn't it?

OMG...it must be a conspiracy because everyone knows American auto-makers want the planet to die and everyone to be sick with cancer.



Message edited by author 2007-01-26 12:31:43.
 01/26/2007 12:27:15 PM · #28
Originally posted by bigalpha:
I'm watching this right now, and it's amazing.

It's a Damn shame that some people are so greedy, they are willing to sacrifice the good of the planet to make money.

It also makes me realize the kind of difference, that we, as the "poor people" of the world can make if we were to put our collective shoulders against the shut door of the oppressive few who have slowly and quietly rose to the top of the food chain by taking advantage of us "poor people".

workers of the world, unite!


there was a solution in the 1920's and 30's. Nikola Tesla, founder of AC curent, wireless electricity, and a bunch of other stuff. he wanted to give the world free electricity to the world as a gift to end poverty, but Edison bashed him by telling the world that AC was dangerouse and could kill anyone on contac (there is actual videos out there killing a dog and elephant). He thoerized that he could harnes electricity from space in the ionicsphere (i think that's what it's called) bring it to earth and give every one electricity by radio frequency. he in fact proved it when he was living in colorado and living with free electricity. there was a guy, i forgot his name, but he was suppose to give Tesla the money to make this invention of his put to work, but found out about Tesla's intensions (free electricity) so, he didn't give him any money because of a lack of profit.

it's early and there is some misspells, gramar issues and a lack of infomation, here is a link to better understand him:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
 01/26/2007 12:33:42 PM · #29
If they make an electric car that goes a couple hundred miles on a charge, and doesn't cost $90,000 I will buy it. That is the bottom line. You make something that will get the job done for the right price and I think they will fly out of the showrooms. I don't like Hybrids, because you really don't get that much better milage than say a small diesel, and a small diesel will run for ever and has plenty of power.
 01/26/2007 12:34:16 PM · #30
Originally posted by noodleboy:


there was a solution in the 1920's and 30's. Nikola Tesla, founder of AC curent, wireless electricity, and a bunch of other stuff. he wanted to give the world free electricity to the world as a gift to end poverty, but Edison bashed him by telling the world that AC was dangerouse and could kill anyone on contac (there is actual videos out there killing a dog and elephant). He thoerized that he could harnes electricity from space in the ionicsphere (i think that's what it's called) bring it to earth and give every one electricity by radio frequency. he in fact proved it when he was living in colorado and living with free electricity. there was a guy, i forgot his name, but he was suppose to give Tesla the money to make this invention of his put to work, but found out about Tesla's intensions (free electricity) so, he didn't give him any money because of a lack of profit.

it's early and there is some misspells, gramar issues and a lack of infomation, here is a link to better understand him:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla


I wonder how many kids would have developed cancer from such technology? I mean, the power lines we presently used are criticized for causing increased cancer levels. And those are much more contained.

TANSTAAFL - "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
 01/26/2007 12:38:54 PM · #31
And for those who think American cars haven't advanced any...full size SUVs (and yes, some people need such vehicles because you can't carry 8-passengers and tow a trailer with a Prius) used to get 10/14mpg for City/Hwy just a few years ago.

I have a Dodge Durango...now it's city mileage is still crap (about 13mpg) but the highway mileage is pretty good. I usually average between 19-21mpg driving normally on the highway. But while driving 55-60mph I can sometimes do much better. Like last night driving from Pennsylvania to Maryland I averaged about 24-25mpg. That's in a full size SUV.

That's substantially better than just 5 yrs ago.
 01/26/2007 01:03:26 PM · #32
I find discussions like this very encouraging. It seems that regardless of whether you think American car manufactures are good or evil, everyone is looking for the next evolution in personal transportation. I believe that there are pressures for and against change (environmentalist vs. oil companies) but the average person on the street is looking for a viable alternative. I would love to drive an electric or hydrogen powered car, but until there is a feasible technology that makes this possible, we will be where we are now. I am eagerly awaiting whatever breakthrough will change everything, but I know it will take time. Projects the the EV-1, the Volt, and hybrids are just the baby steps toward the final solution. And I m sure some of these current steps, and future ones, will falter before we are off and running.
 01/26/2007 01:35:44 PM · #33
Originally posted by theSaj:
Another thing that bothers me is the anti-Americanism.

Comments against GM, the car, using bicycles instead etc. What gives. If Toyota or Honda unveiled such a prototype the comments would be lauding them and exclaiming how American car companies suck.

So when an American car company releases a prototype, do we laud them? No, we attack and criticize them. I just don't get it...

Or maybe I do...when stupid movies like "Who Killed the Electric Car" are released. Then shown in schools and colleges nationwide.

I don't know the exact reason GM smashed the EV-1 prototypes. But I could wager a few guesses.

The vehicles were probably brought back to GM because the large amount of batteries which contained toxic heavy metals. What were the original leasers going to do when they get told they can't just dispose of the cars because they're classified as toxic waste due to all the batteries?

So do to the liabilities entailed, GM likely brought all the cars back. Disposed of the batteries. Then had the emptied vehicles crushed and sent off to recycling.

EVIL!!!! I know....isn't it?

OMG...it must be a conspiracy because everyone knows American auto-makers want the planet to die and everyone to be sick with cancer.

The battery type used in the first battery version of the EV-1 is 93% recyclable. The second type was just slightly less so. GM spent over 2:1 ratio fighting the CARB decision as they spent in R&D, but EV is so technically superior to internal combustion that they still ended up with one hell of a car.

Personally I hope both GM and Ford crash & burn, but especially GM if for no other reason than good karma. GM has for the last hundred or so years used questionable business ethics, taken for granted their customer base, and broken anti-trust laws. Starting early in the last century when GM unlawfully bought up trolley companies and shut them down to force municipalities build roads. During the 80s when internal memos were leaked that they were de-engineering their products so that they would not last too long, and then the EV-1.

Iâve been looking at the Volt for the last couple of weeks, and as a prototype it could be one hell of a car. But the car wasnât built as a true prototype, but as a media device like hydrogen full cell autos. The car hasnât been green lighted, and their battery excuses are bunk. Battery technology is definitely at the stage to support a reasonable (i.e. cheap) vehicle. All that is needed now is the will power to get the prices down thru mass production. But there are so many powerful (and IMO corrupt) forces fighting it including oil companies, part suppliers, and yes car companies.

As far as the movie being shown in classrooms, Iâd worry so much more about what are in the classrooms every day, like textbooks. Ultra right wing think tanks along with corporate interests deluge textbook publishers and local school textbook boards to keep their âAmerican Dreamâ agendas and censoring some most negative aspects of American History. Thru programs like Channel One and school sponsorships corporate America is bombarding the kids with enough ads and propaganda that a few hours a year devoted to a few documentaries wont hurt. They have so much more to fear from real threats like high fructose corn syrup.

Toyota and Honda (and others) are doing more to promote so called American ideals (capitalism, free choice) than the big three, as they are just building a better mouse trap to get more customers instead of threats, corporate welfare and dishonesty.
01/26/2007 01:59:50 PM · #34

"The purpose of the EV1 program was, in part, to satisfy California's Zero-emissions vehicle mandate initiated in 1990. The ZEV program specified that by 1998, 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto manufacturers in the state of California were to meet 'zero emission' standards as defined by the California Air Resources Board. While other manufacturers developed plans to address this mandate, the General Motors EV1 was the only vehicle which made it to the production phase."

-----------------------------------------------

"When canceling the program, GM also cited a lack of demand for the two seater, particularly in light of its limited range and its suitability to "warm weather" states only. GM's internal research showed very clearly that the EV1's already perilously low range would be reduced by as much as 50% for use in cold-weather states."

-----------------------------------------------

"March 15, 2005 the last 78 in storage had been transferred to the GM Desert Proving Grounds in Mesa, Arizona for disposal. The EV1s sent to this site were stripped of their recyclables and crushed."

-----------------------------------------------

Of particular concern to the company was the likelihood that each leased car's battery packs would require replacement at 25-35,000 mile intervals, and that the very low volumes involved would necessitate the corporation's subsidy of spare parts to private owners, perhaps on an indefinite basis. (As an example, the wholesale, or in house, cost of the battery pack to GM was still in the $2-3,000 dollar region during the production phase of the EV1 program. Including delivery and installation, GM thought it unlikely an EV1 could be repowered for less than $6-7000 per unit)

-----------------------------------------------

GM believes that the electric car venture was not a failure, and that the EV1 was doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place.

-----------------------------------------------

In fact, The NiMH battery packs (or Ovonic Battery) that were expected to dramatically improve range came with their own set of problems; GM had to use a less-efficient charging algorithm (lengthening charge times) and waste power on air conditioning to prevent the battery packs from overheating.

-----------------------------------------------

One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research, development and other associated costs.

*NOTE* - Consider GM spent approx $500 million of their own money and produced approx. 1,000 cars that would place the vehicle at a cost of $500,000/vehicle. I am skeptical that the above incorporates all research and associated costs and is more likely represents what the vehicle would have cost if made into a production vehicle.

$80,000 for a non-sporty car with limited range and a $3,000-$5,000 periodic battery replacement cost puts it WELL beyond the average consumer. Heck, I think you can get a Porsche Cayenne for about that price. Those who leased an EV-1 were only able to do so because GM used a pseudo-price. Albeit, I am sure Mel Gibson, Danny DeVito and others could have bought one. But to say it was a feasible consumer car would be highly inaccurate. Most of us can't afford what Mel can...

-----------------------------------------------

The Gen 1 cars got 55-to-75 miles (90-to-120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75-to-100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75-to-150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours).

-----------------------------------------------

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV-1

*********************************************************

Volt (hopefully available around 2010 for about $20,000-$25,000)

General Motors states that battery technology available as of 2007 is not sufficient to store the 16 kilowatt-hours of energy required for the vehicle, at least not without significant cost. GM has plans for a vehicle platform due in 2009 which will be compatible with an E-Flex drivetrain.[6] However, the company believes that a suitable battery technology will not exist until 2010 or 2012. If the Chevrolet Volt becomes a production vehicle, those would probably be the earliest dates it would be available. It would have to be price-competitive with other compact cars, and GM is targeting a range of $17,000 to $18,000, not including the price premium for the batteries and other components.[7] At the time of the Volt concept's unveiling, GM's estimates for the battery pack's cost using existing technology ranged as high as $20,000. GM stated they likely wouldn't consider producing the vehicle until the cost was reduced to $4,000 or $5,000.[8]

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt
01/26/2007 02:00:02 PM · #35
"The battery type used in the first battery version of the EV-1 is 93% recyclable"

I think I was commenting on GM taking the cars back for the intention of recycling. And though the batteries ARE recyclable, that's a lot of batteries.

People often just drop a car off at a junk yard when it's dead. When it's full of 1/2 ton of batteries your average junk yard is going to be less inclined..

"Personally I hope both GM and Ford crash & burn, but especially GM if for no other reason than good karma. GM has for the last hundred or so years used questionable business ethics, taken for granted their customer base, and broken anti-trust laws."

Oh, and let me guess. Toyota never has?

"Iâve been looking at the Volt for the last couple of weeks, and as a prototype it could be one hell of a car. But the car wasnât built as a true prototype, but as a media device like hydrogen full cell autos. The car hasnât been green lighted, and their battery excuses are bunk. Battery technology is definitely at the stage to support a reasonable (i.e. cheap) vehicle."

Really? my Lithium-Ion batteries for my laptop are approx. $150 and they're NOT very big. And well, based on recent news any tech-saavy individual knows that production can have issues. How many laptop batteries have been recalled? What would be the cost if that wasn't just a small battery but a few hundred lbs.

Oh is there improvement...yes, is there commercial viability (ie: vehicle at a $20,000-$25,000 price point). Questionable. Especially questionable is unforseen costs in such new technologies. The last thing a company like GM or Ford needs right now is to have to recall 10,000 vehicles on a $5,000 part replacement. I mean, that's only $50,000,000.

WHY DO YOU THINK TOYOTA AND HONDA AREN'T BOUGHT OUT BY OIL TOO?

Funny, California's emissions called for 2% of vehicles made by the big 7 auto-makers to be zero emissions.

Only GM had made any serious progress on this front. California changes it's laws to allow Japanese makers partial credit on their hybrids. Very few of which offer drastically better mileage. (Chevy Geo and Ford Festiva used to get 50+ mpg.) So GM's investment in the only true zero emission vehicle is basically nullified. Who's going to spend $40,000 (even though most estimates I've seen placed production cost of EV1 at around $80,000) when you can buy a hybrid for a mere $5,000 premium.

So who killed the electric car? Honda & Toyota.

"Ultra right wing think tanks along with corporate interests deluge textbook publishers and local school textbook boards to keep their âAmerican Dreamâ agendas and censoring some most negative aspects of American History."

ROTFL....really...man, the books you read must have been much different than the one's we had. In fact, most of the education I went thru seemed focused on the failings of America as opposed to it's successes.

"They have so much more to fear from real threats like high fructose corn syrup."
That I'll agree with you on...high fructose corn syrup is of the devil!!!! I hate it. Most sodas are healthier than juice these days.

01/26/2007 02:02:04 PM · #36
All this aside, think of the marketing blitz that could be done. Remember the Volkswagon Jetta Trek w/bicycle.

How about the Chevy Olympus Volt Chevy Volt + an Olympus EVOLT Digital SLR camera!
 01/26/2007 02:42:51 PM · #37
Originally posted by boomtap:
If they make an electric car that goes a couple hundred miles on a charge, and doesn't cost $90,000 I will buy it. That is the bottom line. You make something that will get the job done for the right price and I think they will fly out of the showrooms. I don't like Hybrids, because you really don't get that much better milage than say a small diesel, and a small diesel will run for ever and has plenty of power.


My neighbor has a "Matrix" hybrid and it gets 46 mpg highway, the same mileage I get with my '91 Saturn (highway mileage, not exceeding 60 mph).

Toyota and Honda both produce non-electric autos that average close to 50 mpg with gasoline engines. Diesels would do even better. The hybrids really shine in city driving, exceeding their highway mileage, but no significant advantage for longer trips.

I worry more about the impact on the limited electric generating capacity in the U.S. if everyone is forced to drive strictly electric vehicles. We would need more than double the present generating capacity. California shot itself in the foot years ago by restricting new generating capacity in that state and also regulating the wholesale price of imported electricity, hence extensive summer 'brownouts'. Politicians will invariably screw things up!
 01/26/2007 03:10:28 PM · #38
âI think I was commenting on GM taking the cars back for the intention of recycling. And though the batteries ARE recyclable, that's a lot of batteries.

People often just drop a car off at a junk yard when it's dead. When it's full of 1/2 ton of batteries your average junk yard is going to be less inclined..â

There are no major impediments of recycling one is that that material must be recyclable and the other is that is it economically feasible to separate the recyclable components from the no recyclable components. For example those small juice boxes kids love. The inner bag is usually made from PDPE plastic or something similar and the outer box is made of cardboard. Both are recyclable, but since the cost (and energy) to separate the two is high, subsequently our landfills are full of them.

Cars like the juice boxes contain mostly recyclable parts, but few get recycled. A battery is not only cost effective to recycle, but is a hell of a lot easier to remove than say an aluminum engine block.

One side note is that the vast majority of the non-recyclable parts of an automobile such as the dash, carpets, energy absorbing bumpers, etc are made from petroleum products, and is fiercely protected by oil company lobbyists. Hemp has been successfully tested for all those applications and is cheaper, recyclable, biodegradable and most importantly renewable.

âOh, and let me guess. Toyota never has?â âWHY DO YOU THINK TOYOTA AND HONDA AREN'T BOUGHT OUT BY OIL TOO?â

No, Iâm sure as a multinational corporation Toyota (and Honda) has done their share, but Iâm looking at the lesser of evils.

âReally? my Lithium-Ion batteries for my laptop are approx. $150 and they're NOT very big. And well, based on recent news any tech-saavy individual knows that production can have issues. How many laptop batteries have been recalled? What would be the cost if that wasn't just a small battery but a few hundred lbs.â

No one predicted that computers would become as advanced and cheap as fast as they did, but it was mass production that brought that about. My 512k Mac cost me $2200 in 1985, but now my toaster is smarter than that and cost $40. How about diverting some of the millions that is spent on oil subsidies or the millions in governmental grants given to pie in the sky technologies like hydrogen fuel vehicles and invest in future battery technology? And don't forget about the millions given to the big three to develop hybrid technology during the Clinton administration, without developing a viable product until recently being forced to my Toyota & Honda. The battery obstacle is a self imposed one and the only requirement to overcoming it is will power.

âOh is there improvement...yes, is there commercial viability (ie: vehicle at a $20,000-$25,000 price point). â

Besides battery issues there are a whole hell of a lot less parts in an EV than an internal combustion engine, so it should be cheaper. Of course Iâm sure the auto manufacturers will take a clue from the record companies when the CD was released and jack up the price for ânewâ technology even though it cost less to produce (including R&D).

âOnly GM had made any serious progress on this front. California changes it's laws to allow Japanese makers partial credit on their hybrids. Very few of which offer drastically better mileage. (Chevy Geo and Ford Festiva used to get 50+ mpg.) So GM's investment in the only true zero emission vehicle is basically nullified. Who's going to spend $40,000 (even though most estimates I've seen placed production cost of EV1 at around $80,000) when you can buy a hybrid for a mere $5,000 premium.â

Although not as aggressive as the EV-1 GM wasnât the only serious player. Honda, Ford, Solectra, and others had working viable models.

Its funny you mention the Geo and the Festiva as they were stripped down under engineered cars that achieved their gas efficiency thru lightweight and underpowered engines. If you remember the Honda Civic HX (I could have the letters wrong) it was a high performance car with the emphasis on economy. It was fast and got over 40 miles to the gallon. I really wanted one, but was just a struggling college student at the time. But I did drive one and besides being fast it was plush and comfortable. Just a comparison between takes between GM/Ford and Honda.

The EV-1 was hand built that is why the cost was high. If it would have been put into mass production the costs would have been less.

âROTFL....really...man, the books you read must have been much different than the one's we had. In fact, most of the education I went thru seemed focused on the failings of America as opposed to it's successes.â

Try reading James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Great book that will open your eyes.

01/26/2007 04:09:08 PM · #39
Originally posted by theSaj:
All this aside, think of the marketing blitz that could be done. Remember the Volkswagon Jetta Trek w/bicycle.

How about the Chevy Olympus Volt Chevy Volt + an Olympus EVOLT Digital SLR camera!


That got me thinking, is Nikon going to get into the car business?
 01/26/2007 04:13:57 PM · #40
Originally posted by Nullix:
Um...you didn't answer the question. Who? Or are you asking us? Or, what the h@ll are you talking about? Was it photographed this killing of an eletric car?

Originally posted by bigalpha:
It's a Damn shame that some people are so greedy, they are willing to sacrifice the good of the planet to make money.


It's called capitalism.


[sarcasm on]
Sure. Capitalism is what makes individuals selfish and stop caring about the world around them. [/sarcasm off]

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 16:14:32.
 01/26/2007 04:18:20 PM · #41
Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
Cars like the juice boxes contain mostly recyclable parts, but few get recycled. A battery is not only cost effective to recycle, but is a hell of a lot easier to remove than say an aluminum engine block.


Do you know how many batteries were in the basement of the house I lived in. Unclaimed, unrecycled. There were like 3-4...

BATTERIES are hazardous toxic waste. I am not talking about the ability to recycle but to assure that 500 tons of hazardous waste get's recycled.

Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
No, Iâm sure as a multinational corporation Toyota (and Honda) has done their share, but Iâm looking at the lesser of evils.


Lesser of evils...why is failing to develop even a prototype zero emission vehicle for California's standards then petitioning them to waive the requirement and accept a mediocre fuel-efficiency increase and canning the 0% requirement not the greater evil?

???

Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
No one predicted that computers would become as advanced and cheap as fast as they did, but it was mass production that brought that about."


No, you are quite wrong. I have been using a computer since the early 90's. At the time very few people I knew had computers. They were about $2,500 on the low end.

What dropped the price wasn't mass production. But "mass demand". That was brought about by the internet. Which was truly the "killer app". Within a few years of internet access becoming widespread (no longer government, schools, universities) computer sales sky-rocketed. Prices fell.

That took about a decade's time too. But computers already existed in a fairly stable design and development cycle. Electric vehicles do not. You're asking a company to ramp up production to high enough levels to lower the cost instantly.

IT CAN'T BE DONE

Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
"Mac vs Toaster"


I'm sorry, you're toaster is not smarter than your 1985 Mac. Not if you bought it for $40. Furthermore, your toaster is a derivation of of nearly a century of design. Thus only minor refinements and styling. Not full end development. Furthermore, there is already a demand for toasters but only at an economical price.

If I tried to sell you a toaster that used 20% of the electricity of your present toaster but would cost you $120. Would you buy it? I highly doubt it. Nor would anyone else.

Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
Besides battery issues there are a whole hell of a lot less parts in an EV than an internal combustion engine, so it should be cheaper.


Eventually once the kinks are worked out of the designs and full production is in place. But until then it will be costlier and more limited.

Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
Although not as aggressive as the EV-1 GM wasnât the only serious player. Honda, Ford, Solectra, and others had working viable models.


Please substantiate....

And if so, THEN WHY THE !@#$% DIDN'T THEY RELEASE THEM?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Originally posted by "hyperfocal":
Try reading James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Great book that will open your eyes.


I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN'T LIE. I just said they didn't cater to some right-wing agenda as you tried to make out.

I'll be the first to state that most school books are filled with inaccuracies. Pilgrims did not land at Plymouth rock. Nathan Hale never said "I regret that I have but one life to give to my country."

Yes, our history has been both romanticized and demonized. Turned all fluffy!!!

No argument there...but to say they deny any wrongs. Not sure where you went to school, but 80%+ of my history classes focused on how horrible and evil we Americans are.

- 50% focused on slavery and african-american history, sans the facts about Africa and it's ties to slavery
- 20% on everything bad done to the native americas
- 20% on western history (greece, rome, etc)
- 10% postive U.S. (mostly Revolution War, anti-british, FDR, and Unions)

I just disagreed with your insinuation that all the text books are some right-wing conspiracy thing....
01/26/2007 04:20:40 PM · #42
Originally posted by yanko:

[sarcasm on]
Sure. Capitalism is what makes individuals selfish and stop caring about the world around them. [/sarcasm off]


Yup...everyone knows that China and Russia both came up with 100mpg vehicles with zero emissions.

In fact, I imagine if you took the top 50 most fuel-efficient cars they'd all be from communist nations. They'd never all come from capitalist countries like the U.S.A, Japan or S. Korea....no never.

01/26/2007 04:27:15 PM · #43
Interesting research I did the other day..

When you review Cost of Living indicators such as consumer staples and obscure references such as gasoline and movie tickets, you see a startling trend...

That all items, nearly every single one when compared to 1955 (50 years ago) is exactly the same price when valued against themselves and inflation...

I have a weird knowledge of economics and finance, and quite frankly, price of gasoline for example has not increased ONE PENNY, relative to Per Capita Income. So it absolutely kills me when people argue that Oil companies are robbing us blind, when in fact they have not increased their "effective" price at all over 50 years...

Note: I am speaking of America only...prices in Europe for example are higher obviously.

2nd Note: Environmental concerns are a whole other issue, I just thought I would let everyone in on this little secret....
 01/26/2007 04:35:37 PM · #44
Here's a nice option to an electric car that's been smashed to bits. What do you think?

01/26/2007 04:47:20 PM · #45
Strange that electric dominates the future motor industry. For years, oil companies have been buying up inventions for alternative fuelled cars. The hydrogen engine, the corn oil engine etc have all been bought out by the big oil companies.

Years ago we could have been driving cars powered by water, the corn oil engine works well and cost almost nothing. But that would spell an end to the likes of BP, Shell, Texaco etc. With that would come an end to Middle East dependency, but also the main industry in the US.

Electric, Hydrogen or corn oil...lost technology at least until the oil runs out. But with no corn oil engines, it means more Whisky!!
 01/26/2007 04:52:05 PM · #46
Ford bought a norweigna company called Think, which made electric cars. Think produced small electric cars, and was constantly sold out. To get a Think, you have to try to get one second hand, and they sell for more than the retail price.

What did Ford do with Think? They bought it, and a few months later they shut the whole company down. Why? That's the question everybody here are asking, the demand is huge here.

I think certain powers would like to see the electric car dead. If you and me didn't have to buy petrol, to whom would they sell it?

Tesla motors might be pricey at the moment, but they plan to cut prices aggressivly, and increase production with 300% each year. I believe the majority of cars in the future will be 100% electric. Green and clean!
01/26/2007 04:53:32 PM · #47
Originally posted by formerlee:
For years, oil companies have been buying up inventions for alternative fuelled cars. The hydrogen engine, the corn oil engine etc have all been bought out by the big oil companies.


Really? What's your source for this information?
 01/26/2007 04:58:01 PM · #48
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Originally posted by formerlee:
For years, oil companies have been buying up inventions for alternative fuelled cars. The hydrogen engine, the corn oil engine etc have all been bought out by the big oil companies.


Really? What's your source for this information?


Discovery Channel, BBC2, Top Gear, Fifth Gear(Channel 5) MotorsTV...do I need to go on??

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 16:58:16.
 01/26/2007 05:11:25 PM · #49
Originally posted by formerlee:
...do I need to go on??


No but some links backing it up would be nice.

They might want to buy the Hydrogen Engine Center. Seems like a good thing to buy if you're trying to quash alternative energy forms.

Here's Ford hydrogen shuttle bus

They should buy BMW too. They're making hydrogen engines too! Goodness!

Vive la conspiracy!!!
 01/26/2007 05:15:26 PM · #50
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Originally posted by formerlee:
...do I need to go on??


No but some links backing it up would be nice.

They might want to buy the Hydrogen Engine Center. Seems like a good thing to buy if you're trying to quash alternative energy forms.

Here's Ford hydrogen shuttle bus

They should buy BMW too. They're making hydrogen engines too! Goodness!

Vive la conspiracy!!!


Woah, hit a raw nerve!! Got shares in BP and Shell??

It's all there if you really need to know. I don't, I drive what gets me from A to B. Not really a big issue. But have a look around.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 11:23:41 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 11:23:41 AM EDT.