Muscle-Car-Memories

The gravy train needs to stop for these losers!

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...t-funding.aspx

houtex

Bad title. BAD! *smacks nose with a folded sheet of newspaper*

And bad you for not reading further than the headline, a sensationalist creation to do exactly what you did: Get all riled up without reading it, I would guess.

Also, not really carin' for the fact you put in a link for something you gotta sign up for in some way to read. Here's a better one:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busi...ef-4349695.php

Although it too is a little sensationalist, and that's just a shame, but at least it explains what's going on better.

GM themselves do not want the money. No. And that is just *wrong* of you and the writer of the articles (or more importantly, the headline) to imply that. I'm no GM lover, but this is how bad rumors get started.

The article *CLEARLY STATES* GM would like the giverment to help sponsor/pay for the infrastructure to get more natural gas stations out there. And frankly, I sort of agree, but with a caveat or two.

GM is asking for the infrastructure for their own desires to see THEIR natural gas cars to have a better market. But the reality is this request/desire should quickly be sounded off by Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, Toyota, etc, ad nauseum. In other words, everyone but, oh, Tesla, I guess. And I'm sure they're doing so.

However, Big Oil isn't all that keen, unless they have a rather large grip on it, to have their current infrastructure in oil and gas distribution to be whittled even a little bit by the prospect of a CNG only type vehicle, and the distribution thereto, so there will be no insignificant lobbying to slow the process down, I would bet.

But this is the crux of any switch to anything other than gasoline: Distribution. It's incredibly easy to make/acquire a car that'll run on anything other than gas/diesel/wall socket. CNG, Hydrogen, a few others can be done. The problem is where do you get it that's convenient, as quick as gas fillup, as *easy* as gas fill up, as safe as gas fill up, and ditto for distribution... all those things. That's why anything other than hybrids and plug ins are simply... bad business. So you don't see them.

The Honda Clarity is a fantastic car, on the face of it. And Jay Leno along with James May made a hell of a case for why you'd want a Hydrogen (or any other kind except gas) powered vehicle for the masses... to let US run our toys on the weekends or whatever.

Here ya go:
http://www.bbcamerica.com/top-gear/v...honda-clarity/
Jay's bit starts about 5:20. And I'm in complete agreement with James May, in that I do believe that the Clarity, or one like it, is the most important car in the past 100 years... if that type of car does finally unseat the gasoline powered cars. Until then, it's a novelty item at best, much like an EV-1 or a DN-01 (Honda motorcycle... weird thing.)

This request/desire by GM is simply a natural thing. All other manufacturers who would like to make a CNG or Hydrogen or whatever fueled car will make the same noises, and do. It is a thing that the nation will have to do, not the car manufacturers, nor Big Oil, on the face of it. No, it is We The People who have to make the commitment to do it. This is how an energy policy is made when it's up against The Titanic of Big Oil and The Western Life re: Cars.

I'm not sure CNG is the way to go... but whatever the alternative vehicle fuel is, it will have to be done by USA, not a company or two. And regardless of who makes the comment about it, this is the case.

/I have no doubt, of course, that Big Oil won't be left out of the process. They know how. So they'll be the ones contracted to fix the new stuff up.

JPMotorSport

Thanks for pointing out the clarifications early on in the thread. It's important that the real story is explained before opinions are formed on incorrect data.

When a company traditionally dis-interested in changing the Postwar sprawl paradigm now understands the danger and is interested, you know something is changing.

wanted33

Yeah, giving taxpayer money for green energy has worked so well in the past. Solyndra is the first that comes to mind. I know to use taxpayer monies to further a private companies profits has become common place, but that still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Muscle Car Memories

I had read that article before posting the thread but I loved the headline....lol

houtex

Let's face it, without the giverment providing the roads, we wouldn't have the cars to use them with, would we? This is where this giverment funded fuel delivery system has to lie as well. Without it, only places such as California will have alternate fuel sources... and car makers won't rush to build alternate fuel cars.

Indeed, Solyndra is a good example of badly spent giverment money. But there are many good examples too. The Interstate system, GI Bill, FDIC, and many good public health programs, not to mention the national parks that we all get to enjoy. How many countries DON'T have these things, and are poorer for their being missing?

Which is why, on the face of it, I agree. Federal involvement in pushing the alternative fuels for our cars and trucks, which regardless of your personal issues with it, is a reality we must face. It IS a problem. Either monetary, or pollution, or spills, or.. we gotta do something, and something semi-drastic, to get off the oil, or at least, reduce it so that we can fill our Mustangs with the stuff, but use our motorcycles or commuter cars to get to work.

It sucks, but that's the reality. Oil is no longer the answer it used to be, and it is becoming a more and more wrong answer.

/Again, says the guy who's driving a Mustang GT as a daily, I get it, I'm hypocritical. I guarantee you as soon as my motorcycle is back together, Awesome is going to be getting less use, for the gas prices alone, if not to save her miles a little bit.
//Motorcycle is really easy to fix, so I don't mind puttin' the miles on it.

Moustang

I don't know where you're getting these ideas, but "Big Oil" is also the "Big Natural Gas" suppliers as well. It's the same companies drilling the wells and extracting the fuel. The #1 largest producer of Natural Gas in the US is ExxonMobil.


There are many legitimate reasons for NOT switching to LPG for wide consumer use. Blaming "Big Oil" is most certainly not one of them.

This IS one of them....


(Skip to 4:45 if you want to see the big explosion)


Yes, that is an LPG fueling station going up. All it takes is a small leak and you've got a big bomb. A puncture in your tank and your car would do the same. A small leak in the fuel line while parked in your garage could level your house.




Now, if you want to talk about a legitimate, viable gasoline replacement, then money should be invested in algae based oils. They can be refined into gasoline or diesel, kerosene or jet fuels, as well as lubricant grade oils. They are 100% renewable, can be grown on wastelands and in the deserts so they don't interfere with food crops, and if you're worried about the whole carbon emissions/global warming stuff then it's also a carbon neutral fuel, adding no additional CO2 to the environment when it's burned.

It is estimated that the US could grow enough algae biofuel to replace gasoline and diesel entirely in the US using just 1/7th the amount of land currently used for corn production in the US. And again, this can be grown anywhere, on any type of useless and desolate land.

The only holdup is the extraction process. Currently breaking down the cellulose and extracting the oils is very difficult and expensive. Find a way to make it financially viable and you have a renewable source of fuel that can be grown in the US instead of imported, and can work in current cars without any modification to the distribution lines or cars themselves. Once extracted the algae oils are pretty much the same as dino oils and can be refined and distributed using the same existing facilities.

RedGT12

Let me ask a ?

What if the government didn't bail GM out?

They would have went bankrupt/ out of business, why is that the governments responsibility?

I know if I spent too much on the houses I build, nobody is gonna bail me out.
The bank is gonna look to take the house

I never paid attention to as why we bailed them out. So why did we?

steven46746

Didn't realize our taxes were needed for the transition from oil to natural gas, big oil with their record profit and all, why don't they invest some of those billions in their **** selves. We shouldn't have to pay them twice...

houtex

re: Moustang...

Yes, I know that Big Oil is also Big Nat. Gas. Which is why I bet they're involved with the alternative fuel infrastructure that GM, et. al. need to have in place to even get the cars to make sense to build. Not sure how that was not a given, but hey, there we go.

And I agree, CNG and Hydrogen are really bad substitutes, as are most other fuels, such as Ethanol, for the types of vehicles we drive. The Hybrids are the best idea, but the battery materials and building process leaves a lot to be desired...

That's the problem with Gasoline is that it is otherwise a fairly perfect fuel delivery system product. It has a lot of energy potential, is relatively safe for the average person to dispense themselves, and even in an accident, isn't prone to exploding, but just simple burning. (not saying it's not dangerous when on fire, but it isn't going to shrapnel the car... and you... in an accident.)

Most of the others are either energy deficient, dangerous in some way, or are just not available in a price that we can really afford, or is hard to come by easily for the average person. Gas is the winner in all four categories that are the most important, which is the EXACT reason it's not yet been replaced... there's no point to it.

---

re: why the giverment bailed out GM (and Chrysler, let's not forget.)

They did it because they were too big to fail *at that time*. And you can search for my posts in that time period regarding this subject... I said "let them die." I didn't get my suggestion to be the action, oh well.

There is a truth in that the largess of the companies would affect global markets. And still do. GM and Chrysler, if they were to shutter, would put a lot of directly employed people out of work.

Where are they going to get money to continue to be part of society? Ford wasn't exactly hiring. Neither were Toyota, who had idled the San Antonio plant that builds Tundras during that time. All sectors were having a hard time.

But not only is the GM employee problem a pretty huge one, the plant sell off, the equipment sell off... there wouldn't be many buyers, to be honest. And further, all the suppliers of brakes, materials, bumpers, light systems, batteries, oil, tires... on and on... they would have nearly 3/4 of the American car/truck supply dry up, instantly. Do not think that Bendix or Goodyear or many many others... heck the people who get leather from the cows even, and those farmers... could absorb such a loss of revenue and production.

And then the grocery stores where those businesses went belly up? Yep. And then the families...

Too big to fail is a cute coined term, but it is a truth. I am very curious as to whether the nation would have survived, and I am certain it would have. It would have hurt, mightily. But the loss of those two large cost saddled businesses would have meant a clean-ish slate for a replacement, singluar business, and all the suppliers would find a way to survive and then grow back.

The bottom line, though, is this. Do you keep GM and Chrysler working to keep the people working so they can contribute to the society and keep the economy working? OR... do you let GM and Chrysler go belly up, and the amazing amounts of directly affected people who would then be on the giverment tit that we, the people NOT affected directly, would then have to pay for... which is the worst option of the two?

And that is why they bailed them out. The lesser of two evils is the choice here: bail 'em, it's not even close to the same ballpark between the two.

---

As to why wouldn't big oil do it themselves?

Well, why WOULD they? There is zero incentive to make any change not mandated... the car companies are STILL making gas cars, even if they're hybrid. And we're still consuming a large amount of plastics and other petroleum based products... they're fine where they are. No sense in turning a ship just yet.

So yes, unfortunately, you have to incentivize them to take a left or right, even if it's just a little vector's worth. They have no other reason to even invest time in researching it right now.

--

No, I'm not a know it all. This is just logic doing it's thing, people. Logic rocks, and science rules. This is an excersize in the science of economics vs environment, and the environment loses every. single. time. Unless the giverment says "whoa, no, you can't be doin' that."

RedGT12

Nicely said,

wanted33

I think we're on the same page, however the things you mentioned, GI Bill, Parks, etc. are for the taxpayer. It's difficult or me to understand how giving a private corporation money to build a product to further their capital gains is good for the taxpayer. I understand the need for alternative fuels, but in my little mind this needs to be market driven. In this instance the Gubment as always is getting the cart before the horse. GM should use their capital to build whatever they want, then convince the consumer they need their product. Not the Gubment helping them to create a product that only a few will want.

I hope this makes sense. At times I'm not very good at putting my thoughts to words.

houtex

Well, that's the thing, it IS for the taxpayer... in a long term. For two reasons:

Do you see what's going on with China and it's air, water, etc? That's one.

Do you see where Oil is already costing us 3.50 per gallon for gas today? Yeah. It ain't going down anytime soon.

So to save the taxpayer, the taxpayer needs to get paying. It's a vicious circle. And it is NEVER gonna be changed as long as the car companys have not enough reason to make the alternate fuel cars. As long as there's not cars, there won't be alternate fuel.

Unless someone comes in to skew the incentive, i.e. "market". Make the market move by making someone MAKE a first move...

Goodness, that's a lotta 'make's...

Point is, the oil/gas/car market is a stagnated, yet stable, environment. As long as we can continue to buy a cheaper gas car than we can a hybrid, or any other alt fuel car, then we are going to do that. As long as we CAN NOT get hydrogen or CNG at the same prices and performance and ease of use and acquisition, we ARE NOT going to do that.

And I'll go a step further... I firmly believe that in addition to the giverment having to bump things along on the delivery infrastructure front for any alt fuel... there will have to be comprehensive BAN ON ALL GAS VEHICLES without a **** good reason to continue to need them.

Which is ridiculous, right? Well... Prohibition would like a word with ya. Thank goodness for the Repeal, right? But it DID happen. It CAN happen.

And unless they want to keep on with the gas cars, it WILL happen. You'd have to do like the cigarettes, though, in making it seriously prohibitive to have a gas car, so the masses will finally shrug, sigh, and say "Fine. Gimme the Clarity already." Or whatever the thing is.

But that's a guess, that banning/taxing thing. It's not a guess on the incentive to build alt fuel infrastructure, it's the only way to move the target unless a GIGANTIC breakthrough happens. Something on the order of an alt fuel that has all the factors of gasoline, except one. It costs 10 cents per gallon to buy. THAT will get a car maker to be flooded with 'get me a car yesterday!', and people would probably also pay $25000 for a Scion IQ that ran on that stuff (about a $9000 markup), for that kind of fuel savings per year. I know I would seriously think about it, or something like it. And if that happens, guess what the Big Oil would do? Yep... build the infrastructure. There's gold in that thare $.10/gal stuff!

Hell, building quick charge (5 minutes for a full charge) EV stops all along every road within the 150-200 mile range between would be the right thing to do, and we could all drive Leafs or something, and cost us so little to charge, the giverment would just make it a thing we get as part of paying our taxes(*). As long as the car can take a charge that quick, of course.

Or, maybe, even putting induction into the roads so the car is always charged all the time. Put all the smart, clean energy into the grid instead, and we never stop at a station... oh wait. The horrors of the local combination convenience store/gas station becoming a thing of the past... better not do those electric things... forget I said it...

Anyway, I've been rambling in this thread enough. Point is, there's no incentive, so they won't. That's where the giverment comes in. Make it worth their while to do it.

Ask a farmer why he gets giverment money... because sometimes, he don't wanna be a farmer, but the majority reason is sometimes the crops don't work, are eaten/damaged by pests or weather, or other factors that make it hard to be a farmer. So they get money to do it so they don't go away. Similar idea with the delivery infrastructure.

/(*) Oh, who'm I kidding. They'd make us pay 250% more than it costs to do it, AND make us pay our taxes.

wanted33

If only they would let us run the Gubment for one day.......

RedGT12

As much as that would be nice to straighten out few things.
But it'd be scary to see some people have the authority and do things.
Let alone it already being scary with these screw ***** in office

houtex

I know... could you imagine ME running things?!

That's scary right there, lemme tell ya.