baggio202 Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 i dont mix politics with pleasure so i have no comment on the subject.......... you have no comment...riiiiggghhhttt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 i dont mix politics with pleasure so i have no comment on the subject.......... you have no comment...riiiiggghhhttt LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I support the fuel cell project because the technology is there. A number of cities already have buses running on them. I think the only problem is the facilities required for maintenance. This country has a large automotive industry that branches into areas of fueling cars, fixing cars, and developing parts for cars. Think of the many companies that will be forced to make a dramatic paradigm shift or face bankruptcy. I can't say I have pity for the oil industry but there are others to think of. There are millions who are certified under the ASE in the diagnosis and servicing of internal combustion engines and the safeguarding of the environment in dealing with contaminants produced by such engines. A massive overhaul of the ASE and a retraining of a large working force will have to begin quickly. Daimler-Chrysler and others can pump out cars alot faster than we can retrain automotive technicians. Then there is the fuel industry. We take our gasoline stations for granted. The transportation of fuel around this country by trucks and trains is a vast network meant to provide refined gasoline at a service station near you. What happens when we shift over to methyl alcohol to power our fuel cells. Well we can't just revamp all the gas stations because people will still be driving gas cars for a while. Somehow a second network and new or expanded stations will have to provide this new source of fuel. This is going to cost your average service station quite a bit of training as well. Methyl alcohol will eliminate pollution concerns but it is still volatile in transport and containment. We will have to be just as careful with our methanol as with our gasoline. The end results are favorable but this is not going to happen overnight. The technology is ready and we can build the cars, but there is alot more to be done before we see clear skies ahead. I'm not against fuel cells, but I'm not gonna get all giddy about them until all is said and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 I support the fuel cell project because the technology is there. A number of cities already have buses running on them. I think the only problem is the facilities required for maintenance. This country has a large automotive industry that branches into areas of fueling cars, fixing cars, and developing parts for cars. Think of the many companies that will be forced to make a dramatic paradigm shift or face bankruptcy. I can't say I have pity for the oil industry but there are others to think of. There are millions who are certified under the ASE in the diagnosis and servicing of internal combustion engines and the safeguarding of the environment in dealing with contaminants produced by such engines. A massive overhaul of the ASE and a retraining of a large working force will have to begin quickly. Daimler-Chrysler and others can pump out cars alot faster than we can retrain automotive technicians. Then there is the fuel industry. We take our gasoline stations for granted. The transportation of fuel around this country by trucks and trains is a vast network meant to provide refined gasoline at a service station near you. What happens when we shift over to methyl alcohol to power our fuel cells. Well we can't just revamp all the gas stations because people will still be driving gas cars for a while. Somehow a second network and new or expanded stations will have to provide this new source of fuel. This is going to cost your average service station quite a bit of training as well. Methyl alcohol will eliminate pollution concerns but it is still volatile in transport and containment. We will have to be just as careful with our methanol as with our gasoline. The end results are favorable but this is not going to happen overnight. The technology is ready and we can build the cars, but there is alot more to be done before we see clear skies ahead. I'm not against fuel cells, but I'm not gonna get all giddy about them until all is said and done. bush did say that he envisioned a kid born today to be able to have his first car running on hydrogen...thats about 16 years...thin kthats enough time for a transition??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 bush did say that he envisioned a kid born today to be able to have his first car running on hydrogen...thats about 16 years...thin kthats enough time for a transition??? Not really, I think he was giving a best case scenario. Opposition will slow down these changes and trust me there will be opposition. There is always fierce opposition when jobs are at stake. Here is a case where more jobs than ever will be at stake and things will get pretty sticky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 bush did say that he envisioned a kid born today to be able to have his first car running on hydrogen...thats about 16 years...thin kthats enough time for a transition??? Not really, I think he was giving a best case scenario. Opposition will slow down these changes and trust me there will be opposition. There is always fierce opposition when jobs are at stake. Here is a case where more jobs than ever will be at stake and things will get pretty sticky. good point.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I heard something on the radio regarding who they consider the top 1% and it is people who make around 80,000 - 100,000 a year, most of whom consider themselves middle class people. Now I don't have anything to verify what I heard being correct, but if this is indeed what they consider the top 1% then they are way off, imo. As far as the tax cut goes, I will stick to my ways that it helps everyone. Who says that those who pay more shouldn't get money back, while others should get plenty of money back? I think if you work, and theres a tax cut, everyone deserves money back. in turn, if you make more, then your going to get more back and to me thats your given right. The rich DO NOT NEED 42,000 DOLLARS. Jesus f***ing Christ, how blind are you people? They probably use it as monopoly money for f***s sake. Top 1% making 80-100 k a year? My family makes roughly 135,000 a year combined, and we got a 600 dollar tax rebate. Top 1%? more like 50%. What is it about the people in this country that they feel that the successful should not be rewarded for being successful. That is what drives this country. We all strive for the almighty dollar. Some are better than others at achieving this. Why are they not entitled to reap the benefits of their success? When a "rich" man starts a new company that eventually employees 20,000 people while making a profit, why should he not benefit from that? Because he is "rich"? For the record, I am by no means rich, nor even close to it. I'm just your average working man. But, I know that if the rich man that started the company I work for could not benefit from his hard work and investment in this company, I would not have been working here for the past 20+ years. I don't begrudge him his wealth. And if he paid more taxes than me, then by rights, he is entitled to get more back. He should not be denied that money just because he "doesn't need $42000". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 In the first days when Dubya entered office, he killed the Supercar project, even though Daimler-Chrysler engineers had reached a car that sustained 82 MPG. Then why aren't they selling it? We were just talking about this in the office this morning... weird. Anyway, from what I understand they have been working TOGETHER for the past several years (actually the concept came along sometime back in the 50's I think it was but got squashed - don't know by who as I was not around in those days), but all of a sudden the car companies were getting the run around on the patent. My guess... once the g'ment realized just how much $$ they make off us car driving Americans... the "supercar" no longer became such a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 What is it about the people in this country that they feel that the successful should not be rewarded for being successful. That is what drives this country. We all strive for the almighty dollar. Some are better than others at achieving this. Why are they not entitled to reap the benefits of their success? When a "rich" man starts a new company that eventually employees 20,000 people while making a profit, why should he not benefit from that? Because he is "rich"? For the record, I am by no means rich, nor even close to it. I'm just your average working man. But, I know that if the rich man that started the company I work for could not benefit from his hard work and investment in this company, I would not have been working here for the past 20+ years. I don't begrudge him his wealth. And if he paid more taxes than me, then by rights, he is entitled to get more back. He should not be denied that money just because he "doesn't need $42000". A good point there YASNY. I will add that having rich people is inherent to capitalism. Our system is built on the basis that individuals can strive for and accumulate wealth. People can start businesses and fail or become the next Fortune 500 success story. The redistribution of wealth is not the responsibility of our government. Granted some people choose to hoard all their money over seas in tax-free accounts; that is their choice. Plenty of other individuals, businesses, and societies have donated billions to worthwhile causes. The fact that charity is tax-deductable is certainly an incentive and it gives people a choice. Taxes go to infrastructure and security for your nation while donations go to other people. This nation could become a welfare state and help alot of people, but that only encourages more people to join the system and get a free ride. Statistics on welfare-recipients are not good when it comes to how many are able to work themselves to self-sufficiency. Yes there are entitlement programs to try and improve these statistics, but they have not been successful for the large part in reasonable numbers. People are entitled to their returns and the freedom to do what they want with their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 In the first days when Dubya entered office, he killed the Supercar project, even though Daimler-Chrysler engineers had reached a car that sustained 82 MPG. Then why aren't they selling it? We were just talking about this in the office this morning... weird. Anyway, from what I understand they have been working TOGETHER for the past several years (actually the concept came along sometime back in the 50's I think it was but got squashed - don't know by who as I was not around in those days), but all of a sudden the car companies were getting the run around on the patent. My guess... once the g'ment realized just how much $$ they make off us car driving Americans... the "supercar" no longer became such a good idea. Anyone have any place I can go to read about this car. I've never heard of it before. I'd be very interested in finding out more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Tribune did a three day report on it. I believe it is at http://www.chicagotribune.com/supercar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 BJ... you didn't believe me, did you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Tribune did a three day report on it. I believe it is at http://www.chicagotribune.com/supercar Good job in bringing up this issue. I'm known as a non liberal here I suppose, but I am definitely not a reflexive knee jerk Republican. I am greatly in favor of technological advances that will 1. Make us independent of Mideast oil and 2. Burn fuel cleanly. On August 12, 2001 Rick Popely wrote an article in the Transportation section of the Sunday Tribune about the future of fuel cell technology in automobiles. I was so impressed that I kept the article. I don't think it is linkable at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 In the first days when Dubya entered office, he killed the Supercar project, even though Daimler-Chrysler engineers had reached a car that sustained 82 MPG. Then why aren't they selling it? they are selling it. they are only about 30k to if i belive right. im not sure if they are 82 but it is higher the 60 mpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 In the first days when Dubya entered office, he killed the Supercar project, even though Daimler-Chrysler engineers had reached a car that sustained 82 MPG. Then why aren't they selling it? they are selling it. they are only about 30k to if i belive right. im not sure if they are 82 but it is higher the 60 mpg Actually it's not quite 60mpg (averaging 20mpg less in testing). This is from Honda's website. And they are way less than $30K, too. "Introducing the Civic Hybrid, a clean and fuel-efficient vehicle for today's world. The Hybrid is a Civic inside and out, so you can expect a safe, fun and dependable ride. Plus, its powertrain uses gasoline-electric technology that lets you travel up to 650 miles on a single tank of gas*. And its battery recharges itself, because you've got better things to do than plug in and wait. * EPA mileage estimates for Civic Hybrid with manual transmission: 46 mpg city/51 hwy. Use for comparison purposes only. Actual mileage may vary. Suggested Starting Price $19,550 " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 In the first days when Dubya entered office, he killed the Supercar project, even though Daimler-Chrysler engineers had reached a car that sustained 82 MPG. Then why aren't they selling it? they are selling it. they are only about 30k to if i belive right. im not sure if they are 82 but it is higher the 60 mpg The Honda you're refering to, I believe is only an electircal-gasoline hybrid, it is not totally powered by fuel cells... Hopefully one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 In the first days when Dubya entered office, he killed the Supercar project, even though Daimler-Chrysler engineers had reached a car that sustained 82 MPG. Then why aren't they selling it? they are selling it. they are only about 30k to if i belive right. im not sure if they are 82 but it is higher the 60 mpg The Honda you're refering to, I believe is only an electircal-gasoline hybrid, it is not totally powered by fuel cells... Hopefully one day. They don't have any that are totally powered by fuel cells in production for introduction to the "public". Looks like at least a decade away.. and I'm sure that only depends on if the ozone layer is on it's last leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 They don't have any that are totally powered by fuel cells in production for introduction to the "public". Looks like at least a decade away.. and I'm sure that only depends on if the ozone layer is on it's last leg. Oh screw that. Why should oil companies lose profits? It's only skin cancer. If god loved you, anyway, he'd make sure that you have lots of money and can afford to get top-notch medical treatment. If not, well, John Calvin says you're going to hell anyway so you do no good on the Earth but waste all the good, rich people's oxygen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 They don't have any that are totally powered by fuel cells in production for introduction to the "public". Looks like at least a decade away.. and I'm sure that only depends on if the ozone layer is on it's last leg. Oh screw that. Why should oil companies lose profits? It's only skin cancer. If god loved you, anyway, he'd make sure that you have lots of money and can afford to get top-notch medical treatment. If not, well, John Calvin says you're going to hell anyway so you do no good on the Earth but waste all the good, rich people's oxygen. double... Step away from the keyboard, honey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 BJ... you didn't believe me, did you.... No, I believe you and Cerb that the car exists, I am skeptical of the characterization of how it was killed. But I could be wrong so I will read the article and do more reasearch before commenting further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Those Civic Hybrids are pretty nice cars. You also get like a 2000 buck rebate from the government if you buy one. Honda makes really clean cars as it is. Mine gets like 26 mpg, and is super ultra low emissions or whatever you call it. Of course, I went from a full size gas guzzling truck to this These hybrids are the first step though. The big thing about the Honda Hybrid is they don't have that piece of crap design all those electric cars had. This one is actually the same as the gas cars, but it does have a weaker engine. They'll still have to learn how to make this hybrids powerful and stuff, but I read where Acura is coming out with like a 400 hp hybrid or something like that. THey have the engine designed and everything and are likely going to use it in a future car, maybe even the new nsx whenever they redesign it. I forget the exact numbers on that engine, but thats just a rough estimate from my memory, but I know it was a lot. It was in the LA Times a couple months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.