Originally Posted by cguy610
Can't wait for what? Are you gonna get a job there?Originally Posted by ninjahood
Meanwhile da earth was warmer centuries ago with
Zero cars pre industrial revolution...
Can't wait till they build that keystone pipeline
You really think a pipeline will lower gas prices.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Originally Posted by cguy610
Can't wait for what? Are you gonna get a job there?Originally Posted by ninjahood
Meanwhile da earth was warmer centuries ago with
Zero cars pre industrial revolution...
Can't wait till they build that keystone pipeline
More infrastructure = more cheap gasMore cheap gas = more powerful engines & purchasing powerFor da consumer to buy other *** & grow da economyBetter economy = more v8 muscle cars
Originally Posted by ninjahood
Originally Posted by cguy610
Can't wait for what? Are you gonna get a job there?Originally Posted by ninjahood
Meanwhile da earth was warmer centuries ago with
Zero cars pre industrial revolution...
Can't wait till they build that keystone pipeline
More infrastructure = more cheap gasMore cheap gas = more powerful engines & purchasing powerFor da consumer to buy other *** & grow da economyBetter economy = more v8 muscle cars
The thing is, I never said "eliminate luxury cars".Originally Posted by finnns2003
Well what about a Porsche 911? Maybe sterile enough, and Porsche is developing hybrids, but let's take baby steps and perfect technology before jumping to conclusions and eliminating luxury cars with over 175hp as you implied. Nothing wrong with daily driving a GT-R.Originally Posted by kiendienn
You forgot the part where I said "luxury". I speak for practicality in terms of a daily driver, while I'm also all for luxury cars if its within one's budget. I know damn well I'd get a GTR for a weekend driver if I had the funds.
I thought my statement is pretty realistic, but I guess if you want to drive your R8 to work everyday in bumper to bumper traffic then by all means, but you have to question the practicality of it.
but I'm a "hippie" that doesn't know anything
Originally Posted by Big J 33
It's one thing to prefer a higher powered gasoline engine and muscle cars... but I don't understand such an adamant resistance on progress. Accepting the possibility of future benefits coming from advancing alternative energy in cars does not automatically make one a weak-minded hippie who hates America
I never rag on ninjahood during the various debates on Dominican blacknessor the size of his room, but I'm legitimately perplexed on this case. I'm completely with silly putty on this one. I'm not a radical environmentalist by any means, but I fail to see how prompting advancements in electric cars is such a bad thing. With persistent effort, electric cars will improve and as more dedication is put towards improved styling, pricing, and marketing, the people will buy them.
I might not live long enough to see benefits in this issue, but that doesn't mean I support the resistance to progress. It has to start somewhere. I don't think that makes me complacent or weak-willed or anything else like that...
I'm not opposed to progress. But there's a difference between providing an incentive for people to pursue new technologies. It's something different when a government mandates that its people buy a certain product that isn't "quite there yet" because they believe it's in YOUR best interest. We hate it when our parents did it growing up. We hate it when our boss does it. But yet people are willing to accept it when an agency that's accountable to nobody that's appointed by legislators does it because it's for the greater good?Originally Posted by kiendienn
Originally Posted by ninjahood
More infrastructure = more cheap gasMore cheap gas = more powerful engines & purchasing powerFor da consumer to buy other *** & grow da economyBetter economy = more v8 muscle cars
**Drop-in fuel is a fuel alternative that will work with today's cars.
Our world is evolving, and it will always evolve; this process of evolution applies to fuels, as well. Take into consideration the oil shock of the 1970s and how brazil turned to biofuels such as sugarcane (whom is now a biofuel superpower). America, who was unwilling to welcome change and new practices created subsidies and tariffs that kept out the brazilian alternative and pushed for its maize produced ethanol which is less efficient with more detrimental consequences from its production.
Shell has teamed up with Dr. Alan Shaw, the boss of Codexis, which creates enzymes that converts chemicals such as cellulose into sugar which is then able to produce drop-in fuel.
Total (of france), has a joint venture with Amyris which is also creating drop-in biodiesel fuels.
The greatest giant of them all, ExxonMobil has a joint venture with Synthethic Genomics (Craig Venter) as well as Solazyme whom are working on algae-based fuel.
BP and Gevo, of Colorado, are working on producing butanol which provides more energy per mass unit than ethanol and is more efficient to produce.
LS9 and Virent, both of which located within the US, are also working on synthesizing straight chained alkanes to use as fuel.
The era of post-ethanol fuel will slowly make its transition. These huge fossil fuel conglomerates know that a change is coming, and they are fully aware that the first ones to create the most efficient and cost-effective alternative will make an ungodly amount of money.
Why else would they invest so much money in these scientific joint ventures? They aren't sticking around to push for the Middle East or Canada anymore.
There are fuel alternatives out there, and these companies understand that people don't want to buy new cars to run on this fuel, hence the term "drop-in fuel" which will work just the same as today's fuel.
I don't understand why you're so deadset on fossil fuels. The only rationale I could come up with is that you hate change and will never accept it, that's why you still have a myspace link in your signature, but other than that, change can be a good thing. Evolution and adaptation will always prevail regardless of how hard you try and keep things the same.
The only constant is change" -Issac Asimov
Lastly, your argument for the Canada pipeline is flawed. You said that Canada has enough oil to last the US 300 years, but who said that Canada would only be exporting to the US?
Ah! I don't think your statement was directed at me, but I'm against government mandated actions, as well. Then again, someone earlier raised some greats points indicating ways in which the government can easily force our hands.Originally Posted by crcballer55
I'm not opposed to progress. But there's a difference between providing an incentive for people to pursue new technologies. It's something different when a government mandates that its people buy a certain product that isn't "quite there yet" because they believe it's in YOUR best interest. We hate it when our parents did it growing up. We hate it when our boss does it. But yet people are willing to accept it when an agency that's accountable to nobody that's appointed by legislators does it because it's for the greater good?Originally Posted by kiendienn
Originally Posted by ninjahood
More infrastructure = more cheap gasMore cheap gas = more powerful engines & purchasing powerFor da consumer to buy other *** & grow da economyBetter economy = more v8 muscle cars
**Drop-in fuel is a fuel alternative that will work with today's cars.
Our world is evolving, and it will always evolve; this process of evolution applies to fuels, as well. Take into consideration the oil shock of the 1970s and how brazil turned to biofuels such as sugarcane (whom is now a biofuel superpower). America, who was unwilling to welcome change and new practices created subsidies and tariffs that kept out the brazilian alternative and pushed for its maize produced ethanol which is less efficient with more detrimental consequences from its production.
Shell has teamed up with Dr. Alan Shaw, the boss of Codexis, which creates enzymes that converts chemicals such as cellulose into sugar which is then able to produce drop-in fuel.
Total (of france), has a joint venture with Amyris which is also creating drop-in biodiesel fuels.
The greatest giant of them all, ExxonMobil has a joint venture with Synthethic Genomics (Craig Venter) as well as Solazyme whom are working on algae-based fuel.
BP and Gevo, of Colorado, are working on producing butanol which provides more energy per mass unit than ethanol and is more efficient to produce.
LS9 and Virent, both of which located within the US, are also working on synthesizing straight chained alkanes to use as fuel.
The era of post-ethanol fuel will slowly make its transition. These huge fossil fuel conglomerates know that a change is coming, and they are fully aware that the first ones to create the most efficient and cost-effective alternative will make an ungodly amount of money.
Why else would they invest so much money in these scientific joint ventures? They aren't sticking around to push for the Middle East or Canada anymore.
There are fuel alternatives out there, and these companies understand that people don't want to buy new cars to run on this fuel, hence the term "drop-in fuel" which will work just the same as today's fuel.
I don't understand why you're so deadset on fossil fuels. The only rationale I could come up with is that you hate change and will never accept it, that's why you still have a myspace link in your signature, but other than that, change can be a good thing. Evolution and adaptation will always prevail regardless of how hard you try and keep things the same.
The only constant is change" -Issac Asimov
Lastly, your argument for the Canada pipeline is flawed. You said that Canada has enough oil to last the US 300 years, but who said that Canada would only be exporting to the US?
I'm intrigued though... Are you in the biofuel field?
i aint opposed to drop in fuel at all, and co-sign all of this.Originally Posted by crcballer55
I'm not opposed to progress. But there's a difference between providing an incentive for people to pursue new technologies. It's something different when a government mandates that its people buy a certain product that isn't "quite there yet" because they believe it's in YOUR best interest. We hate it when our parents did it growing up. We hate it when our boss does it. But yet people are willing to accept it when an agency that's accountable to nobody that's appointed by legislators does it because it's for the greater good?Originally Posted by kiendienn
Originally Posted by ninjahood
More infrastructure = more cheap gasMore cheap gas = more powerful engines & purchasing powerFor da consumer to buy other *** & grow da economyBetter economy = more v8 muscle cars
**Drop-in fuel is a fuel alternative that will work with today's cars.
Our world is evolving, and it will always evolve; this process of evolution applies to fuels, as well. Take into consideration the oil shock of the 1970s and how brazil turned to biofuels such as sugarcane (whom is now a biofuel superpower). America, who was unwilling to welcome change and new practices created subsidies and tariffs that kept out the brazilian alternative and pushed for its maize produced ethanol which is less efficient with more detrimental consequences from its production.
Shell has teamed up with Dr. Alan Shaw, the boss of Codexis, which creates enzymes that converts chemicals such as cellulose into sugar which is then able to produce drop-in fuel.
Total (of france), has a joint venture with Amyris which is also creating drop-in biodiesel fuels.
The greatest giant of them all, ExxonMobil has a joint venture with Synthethic Genomics (Craig Venter) as well as Solazyme whom are working on algae-based fuel.
BP and Gevo, of Colorado, are working on producing butanol which provides more energy per mass unit than ethanol and is more efficient to produce.
LS9 and Virent, both of which located within the US, are also working on synthesizing straight chained alkanes to use as fuel.
The era of post-ethanol fuel will slowly make its transition. These huge fossil fuel conglomerates know that a change is coming, and they are fully aware that the first ones to create the most efficient and cost-effective alternative will make an ungodly amount of money.
Why else would they invest so much money in these scientific joint ventures? They aren't sticking around to push for the Middle East or Canada anymore.
There are fuel alternatives out there, and these companies understand that people don't want to buy new cars to run on this fuel, hence the term "drop-in fuel" which will work just the same as today's fuel.
I don't understand why you're so deadset on fossil fuels. The only rationale I could come up with is that you hate change and will never accept it, that's why you still have a myspace link in your signature, but other than that, change can be a good thing. Evolution and adaptation will always prevail regardless of how hard you try and keep things the same.
The only constant is change" -Issac Asimov
Lastly, your argument for the Canada pipeline is flawed. You said that Canada has enough oil to last the US 300 years, but who said that Canada would only be exporting to the US?
I'm intrigued though... Are you in the biofuel field?
The problem at this point isn't with the desire for alternative fuels necessarily. It's the infrastructure. If you want bio-fuel, gas stations have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands to retrofit and upgrade their stations. Then you run into the problem of which fuels to stock. Considering most only make money from the convenience items inside the store, that can be quite a feat. Same goes with recharging electric cars. It takes upwards of 6 hours to charge and think about people fighting over charging spots. And who's going to pay for you to charge your car while you're shopping?Originally Posted by thejrob
It is kinda dope that someone is tryin to do smthin. I'm not an environmentalist or anything, but on the federal scene there are some people who don't believe global warming is real so...
EDIT: and i just read what some of you guys are saying about other fuels and that sounds super legit to me. Don't see why they don't let them all go in.
and these companies are Still going
Bankrupt except its with tax payer funds & not private funds..
Except its not. Again this is where you're wrong.
California asked companies to MAKE these vehicles. It doesn't mean that it will happen.
It was a public declaration to spur innovation. Its a clarion call to action. Not a physical hardline mandate. If that was the case we'd all be living on mars 200 years ago.
If people make private investments and lose their money, i'm sorry but it is what it is. Thats how markets work.
However, youre neglecting the fact that some companies add so much value to the united states that to let them fail would make the entire economy crumble. Imagine how many people would be hurting if walmart just stopped business tomorrow. Or if GM just shut down tomorrow?
Those are vital components to the government...if nothing else, it shows that the government recognizes the importance of private industry and will do what it can to enhance more resonant effects in the population.
There is a concept of social utility that I don't think you're grasping.
Gas is the price it is because there is no alternative.
its a monopoly on energy.
And I don't know where you're getting "gas is cheap" from
The price of gas, not even account for inflation, is ridiculously higher than it was even a few years ago.
Stop making up data. This is getting ridiculous.
hell does California understand
That this country is broke?
California understands what it means to be broke more than any other state...so I'm sure any and every action they take to right their situation will be met with criticism and scorn, but you don't get to solve that by not doing ANYTHING.
I don't see anyone pulling you out of your car at stop lights and forcing you to ride a bike.
You made the damn topic and you still don't even understand what the mandate asked for.
It wants to encourage the use of alternative energy.
You need to quit with this false persecution theory you have. No one is FORCING you to do anything. But if you want to breathe asbestos and use DDT on your crops, then keep going ahead and doing so in light of the recommendation NOT to do so.
Its a free country and stupidity is not illegal, just ill-advised.
Asking for an alternative is not the same as FORCING themselves on you....this is as much of government forcing people to use electric as the civil rights bill was to FORCE black kids to be adopted into white families.
It didn't happen and you're making wild assertions.
Dude, where do you get your information from?
This isn't even true. China is struggling under its own weight because they do stupid crap like building entire cities that dont even get lived in and their real estate market collapses, or they have horrible environmental regulations that are literally killing their own citizens, and theyre frivolously spending money on things that aren' even of quality.
China has a problem of quality, not quantity. Their output is great, but their standards are trash and they're suffering because of it. They have more problems than economic woes that are contributing to their struggle, but to assert that being environmentally sound as the cause? Ridiculous.
If you walk around beijing in a white shirt all day, you'll come back home with a tan shirt. Thats how dirty the air is there.
If I remember correctly, don't you live in an apartment that had the rent-limit maxed out?
Just making sure.
You have a piss-poor understanding of resources.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Originally Posted by cguy610
Can't wait for what? Are you gonna get a job there?Originally Posted by ninjahood
Meanwhile da earth was warmer centuries ago with
Zero cars pre industrial revolution...
Can't wait till they build that keystone pipeline
More infrastructure = more cheap gas More cheap gas = more powerful engines & purchasing power For da consumer to buy other *** & grow da economy Better economy = more v8 muscle cars
Gas won't get any cheaper. Oil companies have made RECORD profits in the last 2-3 years. The only company breaching the top 10 was Apple, and that was last year only.
Do your research and learn the facts.
But you haven't answered the question. What happens when we have no more oil or natural gas? Where will your purchasing power go?
What will power your V8 muscle cars?
Air?
Originally Posted by Big J 33
It's one thing to prefer a higher powered gasoline engine and muscle cars... but I don't understand such an adamant resistance on progress. Accepting the possibility of future benefits coming from advancing alternative energy in cars does not automatically make one a weak-minded hippie who hates America
I never rag on ninjahood during the various debates on Dominican blacknessor the size of his room, but I'm legitimately perplexed on this case. I'm completely with silly putty on this one. I'm not a radical environmentalist by any means, but I fail to see how prompting advancements in electric cars is such a bad thing. With persistent effort, electric cars will improve and as more dedication is put towards improved styling, pricing, and marketing, the people will buy them.
I might not live long enough to see benefits in this issue, but that doesn't mean I support the resistance to progress. It has to start somewhere. I don't think that makes me complacent or weak-willed or anything else like that...
My sentiments exactly.
Its like dudes complaining about having to use halogen bulbs instead of incandescent ones in his house, when the new ones are better in every single way.
There is no doubt that capitalism will always take root in emerging fields...
There will be a company that will take the lead on alternative energy to influence policy...just as there was for tobacco and alcohol and oil (which you chose to leave out)
I understand the risks of things like carbon taxes and people feeling like they are being duped even more.
But put everything on the table.
Using energy that doesn't rely on oil allows us to keep more money home and will drive the prices of other forms of energy down. Its about an investment into the future. Its better for all of us in the long run.
We all have our qualms with big pharma, but that doesn't change how drugs have improved the quality of life overall for billions of people. Its about the goal in mind ultimately.
More complaining.Originally Posted by crcballer55
The problem at this point isn't with the desire for alternative fuels necessarily. It's the infrastructure.Originally Posted by thejrob
It is kinda dope that someone is tryin to do smthin. I'm not an environmentalist or anything, but on the federal scene there are some people who don't believe global warming is real so...
EDIT: and i just read what some of you guys are saying about other fuels and that sounds super legit to me. Don't see why they don't let them all go in.
Its like saying I know I need to work out more, but I hate running. But still complaining about your high blood pressure and hypertension.
You can't have it both ways. Thats how investments work.
You don't even have a problem with energy alternatives, you're just too lazy to want to put in the effort to make it a reality.
How much was spent upgrading the nations TVs to digital?
How much was spent installing HD radios?
Its about the goal in mind...but again, selectively you choose to moan and groan instead of rolling up your sleeves and getting to work.
Then you run into the problem of which fuels to stock.
Is this a serious question?
You sell energy...and you're telling me that they have to pick whether or not they should sell peanut butter or E85?Go sit down.
I'm pretty sure they'll know the difference between their rear ends and a hole in the ground.
Considering most only make money from the convenience items inside the store, that can be quite a feat.
Thats because there is no competition to encourage profit sharing with store-owners. There is no incentive to without competition.
Change the system and you'll see a different set of rules. You can't use the old system to judge how a new one might work. Its two different things.
The mobile devices had battery lives of how long? 30 minutes?
Now we have phones that can last for a week on standby...and thats just small mobile batteries of a few mAh
Clearly the need for innovation has encouraged more research into other types of battery sources and has enhanced battery capacity to unforeseen heights.
INNOVATION DRIVES COMPETITION WHICH CAUSES EVOLUTION IN THE MARKET.
Originally Posted by ninjahood
Mostly all electric cars have super limited range & LONG recharge time..
Imagine getting stuck in traffic in da summer time...you're gonna tell drivers
About havin to turn off your A/C to extend battery life?
They would have to tow 1/2 a highway off da roads...
Lets imagine having this conversation in the 1980s "Hey man, my boombox only lasts 2 days on the D-Cell batteries, how are we gonna be able to play all night long?"
This is the WORST argument against energy investments in the alternative fields.
If your argument is, "well my battery life is too short" then you need to remember how long we've come in understanding the tech behind rechargeable batteries and similar tech.
Remember how the first cellphone batteries had a quality that forced them to be run down completely, then charged up? then we developed newer ones that didn't force us to keep the "memory cycle" of the battery in mind?
Thats progress spurred by needs in the market.
[h1]Ener1, Parent of Obama-Backed Green Company, Files for Bankruptcy[/h1]
Ener1 Inc. CEO Charles Gassenheimer takes Vice President Joe Biden on a tour of the plant in Greenfield, Ind., Jan. 26, 2011. (Darron Cummings/AP Photo)
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ener1...n-company-files-bankruptcy/story?id=15456414#
Share
85 Comments
Text Size
- / +
By LEE FERRAN and MATTHEW MOSK (@mattmosk)
Jan. 27, 2012
The parent company of an electric car battery maker that received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration has filed for bankruptcy protection, the company announced Thursday.
Alex Sorokin, the CEO for lithium-ion battery manufacturer Ener1, said the company suffered when demand for the batteries dropped as fewer Americans than expected opted for electric cars.
"This was a difficult, but necessary, decision for our company," Sorokin said in a statement on its website. "We moved aggressively to reduce costs and shift focus when the marketplace did not evolve as quickly as anticipated. Our business plan was impacted when demand for lithium-ion batteries slowed due to lower-than-expected adoption for electric passenger vehicles."
EnerDel, a subsidiary of Ener1 dedicated to making batteries for electric cars, was awarded a $118 million grant from the Energy Department in 2009 as part of President Obama's economic stimulus package and green energy push. Ener1 said that the bankruptcy filing and newly announced company restructuring would allow its subsidiaries, including EnerDel, to "continue normal operation."
The filing came exactly a year after Vice President Joe Biden visited an Ener1 manufacturing plant in Indiana where he proclaimed the company was the "start" to reshaping the way Americans drive and "the way Americans power their lives."
"A year and a half ago, this administration made a judgment. We decided it's not sufficient to create new jobs -- we have to create whole new industries," Biden told the plant workers then. "We're back in the game."
Ener1's financial collapse prompted a comparison to the doomed solar energy company Solyndra from Rep. Cliff Sterns, R.-Fla., who has been one of President Obama's most vocal critics concerning the green energy loan guarantee initiative. Solynda received more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer money as a loan guarantee from the Energy Department in 2009, two years before it collapsed in August 2011.
Full Coverage: Solyndra
Like Biden at Ener1, President Obama toured a Solyndra plant in California in May 2010 where he touted its potential.
"As with his comments touting Solyndra, Biden's remarks on Ener1 show how wrong the Obama Administration has been with these loan guarantees and grants," Sterns said on his website. "Instead of producing thousands of 'clean energy' jobs, the Administration's loan guarantee and grant programs are yielding another bankruptcy and the squandering of taxpayer dollars."
Solyndra is now the target of a federal criminal investigation aimed at determining whether the company was awarded the massive loan thanks to undue political influence, despite what critics said were visible signs the company was already in financial trouble.
A spokesperson for the Energy Department did not immediately return requests for comment on this report.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ener1...les-bankruptcy/story?id=15456414#.Tyo6LsgmVBk
so silly putty you were saying?liberal moon bats never have a problem spending money as long its not THEIR MONEY
