General Motors Green Revolution!!

[Flopper]

Of course big oil has. And the vast majority of that impact has been positive or don't you like having auto's and planes and trains? I am also not surprised you had no idea about the original electric cars, they were around even before the ICE vehicles got truly started and were the prime competetion for ICE powered vehicles. The fact remains however, when a ICE vehicle came along that cost less than half of the electric the electric was doomed. Not because of some big plot by big oil but because a niche market can only support a very small number of employees. The auto industry grew to the size it did because they could make cars cheap enough that the average working family could afford them. If all you had were a few rich people buying a few vehicles there would have been no road construction, there would have been very little advancement in technology etc.

You have to THINK about what goes on in the world. You can't just wish it. You have to analyse all that happens and then make a decision on what will work and what won't. The Tesla won't work because it is too expensive and not efficient enough. If they ever develop the technology to actually produce the S model they may stand a chance as a BMW
analog but I still doubt it because of the inherent difficulties of EV's.

When we first started using petroleum, we scooped it up in a bucket. Then we put down wells similar to water wells pumping the oil from just a few hundred feet. We developed more powerful wells and started bringing up oil form thousands of feet. Now we have offshore drilling platforms that bring oil up from miles under the surface. The cost is in hundreds millions and the potential for environmental damage is huge. In 50 years I have seen the cost of oil go from $2 a barrel to over hundred dollars a barrel. At the rate it has increased over the last 50 years, gas will cost over $100/gal by mid century.

To me it is not a question of when we will go to another primary fuel, it's a question of how fast.

The current demand will support a per barrel price of 50 dollars. All the rest is due to commodities brokers driving up the prices. You might also want to remember that your house was worth 8,000 dollars when oil was 2 bucks a barrel. That is called inflation. That part of the equation is due to the economic philosophy's of the ruling politicians.

Yep, however .28/gal for gas which was the average price in 1958 inflated at a 4% rate would bring the price to $1.91 today. I just paid $3.74/gal. That's almost twice the inflation rate.

 

[westwall]

When we first started using petroleum, we scooped it up in a bucket. Then we put down wells similar to water wells pumping the oil from just a few hundred feet. We developed more powerful wells and started bringing up oil form thousands of feet. Now we have offshore drilling platforms that bring oil up from miles under the surface. The cost is in hundreds millions and the potential for environmental damage is huge. In 50 years I have seen the cost of oil go from $2 a barrel to over hundred dollars a barrel. At the rate it has increased over the last 50 years, gas will cost over $100/gal by mid century.

To me it is not a question of when we will go to another primary fuel, it's a question of how fast.

The current demand will support a per barrel price of 50 dollars. All the rest is due to commodities brokers driving up the prices. You might also want to remember that your house was worth 8,000 dollars when oil was 2 bucks a barrel. That is called inflation. That part of the equation is due to the economic philosophy's of the ruling politicians.

Yep, however .28/gal for gas which was the average price in 1958 inflated at a 4% rate would bring the price to $1.91 today. I just paid $3.74/gal. That's almost twice the inflation rate.

And that same rate of inflation says your 8 thousand dollar house will cost 60 grand. Last time I checked the prices havn't dropped that far so obviously 4% is not a proper rate of inflation either. So clearly those commodities brokers I mentioned have a hand in both environments.

 

[MaggieMae]

The companies should have been allowed to collapse. That way new companies would arise in their place that could rehire the workers at a competitive wage. GM is going to fail again and take much more wealth down with it then if it had been allowed to go the first time. GM hasn't repaid anything yet. They "borrowed" money from TARP to pay that first installment, so in essence the government was repaid with government money from a different account. Either way that first payment was bogus.

Letting GM collapse would not have solved anything in the immediate panic. It would have had the opposite effect of destroying hundreds of small businesses that support the auto industry as well, while waiting for those "new companies" to arise. And what was the guarantee they would? No, I think it's all too frequently forgotten how dire the situation was. There was no TIME to do any speculation that other private entities would step in and pick up the pieces, especially since the whole business climate was jittery at the time.

Also, the payback is slowly getting done. The government has already sold part of its 61% stake in GM, which reduced its share to 33%. I would say if the government breaks even, it would have been well worth it.

The problem Maggie is that the collapse is going to occur. GM is too bloated and inefficient to compete with the likes of Toyota or Subaru. It is terrible that some companies would likewise go under but they too are antiquated and inefficient in many cases and will likewise fall by the wayside in due course. It is far better to let the damage occur early then wait and magnify the issue. That's why GM is in such bad straights now, they knew there was a problem and they kept ignoring it. At some point the end is going to come regardless of your good intentions. And the damage is going to be far greater because of it.

Compared to where GM was just a few years ago, I don't see how you can claim they're in such dire straits. I also don't see why you won't give them a chance to succeed, but you apparently would prefer that they go under, and take down with them every other business that relies on GM for their own success. If Ford has a bad year, will you dismiss them also as being a failure and therefore not worth salvaging? I personally want to see AMERICAN businesses stay in AMERICA. The auto industry was once the country's largest employer; now it's WalMart.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know the answer to your question Maggie. But common sense tells me that "investing" hundreds of millions of dollars to create products that do not sell - is not going to get the USA back in the game.

Well apparently even folks like Lamar Alexander don't agree.

Nissan turns over new Leaf to Sen. Lamar Alexander » Knoxville News Sentinel

Plugging in my new Leaf will give me the patriotic pleasure of not sending money overseas to people who are trying to blow us up," Alexander said.

If the United States can electrify half its vehicles within 20 years, it could reduce foreign oil consumption by about one third, from 20 million to 13 million barrels of oil per day, Alexander said, adding that the existing power infrastructure could support the goal if electric car users charged up at night while power demand is low, he said.

The fact that the Leaf will be produced in Tennessee starting in 2012 also was important to Alexander. The automobile industry has created great opportunities for jobs in the state going back to when he was governor, the senator said.

Alexander also discussed his plans for introducing legislation that would promote the sale and use of electric vehicles.

Based on the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010, the bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to support the nationwide deployment of electric vehicles and would offer technical assistance to state and communities to prepare for plug-in, electric-drive vehicles.

The act would include incentives such as tax credits in amounts up to $10,000 for electric-vehicle buyers, and it also would help build electric infrastructure such as charging stations eligible for a 50 percent tax credit. The Leaf, equipped with a lithium ion battery, can travel about 100 miles on a full charge.

As more people who can afford new ones, their old hybrids will be sold as used making those more affordable. That works the same as with any other brand.

no offense but I don't care if it was Ronald Reagan. 10K to pay to get them on the road. Wonderful. And our grid cannot possibly sppt. half the cars on the road as electric.


and these OLD hybrids need what exactly?Old is relative, I think the accepted OLD estimate is between 100 and 150k ? Toyota themselves say they built the batteries to last the life of the vehicle....150k to 200, fine lets split the difference at 150-175k ....? You have to buy the car and then, as a second owner, a huge capital cost- NEW battery's....do you know what they cost? I have found figures from 3500-7000k on Prius user sites...*shrugs* not fo me thank you. I can get a rebuilt engine and tranny for that, easy.

All good points. However, I'm simply appalled that just the attempt at innovation looking to the future brings about such dire predictions. You don't KNOW that any of that will be the case. Whatever happened to good old American can-do spirit? The doomsday people are the ones who will eventually drag down any new invention or process, as long as a *political* face can be attached to it. Sad, really.

 

[MaggieMae]

When we first started using petroleum, we scooped it up in a bucket. Then we put down wells similar to water wells pumping the oil from just a few hundred feet. We developed more powerful wells and started bringing up oil form thousands of feet. Now we have offshore drilling platforms that bring oil up from miles under the surface. The cost is in hundreds millions and the potential for environmental damage is huge. In 50 years I have seen the cost of oil go from $2 a barrel to over hundred dollars a barrel. At the rate it has increased over the last 50 years, gas will cost over $100/gal by mid century.

To me it is not a question of when we will go to another primary fuel, it's a question of how fast.

The current demand will support a per barrel price of 50 dollars. All the rest is due to commodities brokers driving up the prices. You might also want to remember that your house was worth 8,000 dollars when oil was 2 bucks a barrel. That is called inflation. That part of the equation is due to the economic philosophy's of the ruling politicians.

Yep, however .28/gal for gas which was the average price in 1958 inflated at a 4% rate would bring the price to $1.91 today. I just paid $3.74/gal. That's almost twice the inflation rate.

Back in those days, the bidding wars were among the gasoline stations, not the commodities traders.

 

[Zander]

Letting GM collapse would not have solved anything in the immediate panic. It would have had the opposite effect of destroying hundreds of small businesses that support the auto industry as well, while waiting for those "new companies" to arise. And what was the guarantee they would? No, I think it's all too frequently forgotten how dire the situation was. There was no TIME to do any speculation that other private entities would step in and pick up the pieces, especially since the whole business climate was jittery at the time.

Also, the payback is slowly getting done. The government has already sold part of its 61% stake in GM, which reduced its share to 33%. I would say if the government breaks even, it would have been well worth it.

The problem Maggie is that the collapse is going to occur. GM is too bloated and inefficient to compete with the likes of Toyota or Subaru. It is terrible that some companies would likewise go under but they too are antiquated and inefficient in many cases and will likewise fall by the wayside in due course. It is far better to let the damage occur early then wait and magnify the issue. That's why GM is in such bad straights now, they knew there was a problem and they kept ignoring it. At some point the end is going to come regardless of your good intentions. And the damage is going to be far greater because of it.

Compared to where GM was just a few years ago, I don't see how you can claim they're in such dire straits. I also don't see why you won't give them a chance to succeed, but you apparently would prefer that they go under, and take down with them every other business that relies on GM for their own success. If Ford has a bad year, will you dismiss them also as being a failure and therefore not worth salvaging? I personally want to see AMERICAN businesses stay in AMERICA. The auto industry was once the country's largest employer; now it's WalMart.

I'd love to see them make it too Maggie. But when GM is building electric cars that will never make a profit, ostensibly to please their Government share holders, - it is going to be very difficult.

Ford is a better managed, smarter company that also has superior products. They are not dumping billions into all-electric cars that nobody is buying......

 

[Sallow]

Red Hat is not Linux. Sorry. But please do continue to make a total and complete ass of yourself, you do it very well!

Red Hat is one of a large number of Linux distributions. Red Hat IS a linux operating system as is SUSE, Gentoo, Ubuntu and dozens of others.
The Linux kernel and most software written for the OS is free. Red Hat (and other distributions) generates income from supporting users and developing computing environments for specific tasks.

You made my case for me. Red hat is one of many Linux distributions. Their software uses a Linux kernel. They are still not "Linux"- Linux is a non-profit organization. Red Hat is a for profit company. Thanks!

Your point is incorrect. And if it was..then Linux isn't even Linux. It's UNIX.

And heck..lets go to the video tape for the type of semantics you are employing..

 

[Sallow]

I'd love to see them make it too Maggie. But when GM is building electric cars that will never make a profit, ostensibly to please their Government share holders, - it is going to be very difficult.

Ford is a better managed, smarter company that also has superior products. They are not dumping billions into all-electric cars that nobody is buying......

Ford is "better managed" because it takes a world wide view on sales. They build fuel efficient cars, many of which are not sold in the United States, that are wanted by people overseas. GM..wasn't doing that in the same numbers. They were building cars for "soccer moms". But even the "better managed" Ford was pleased GM was saved because "the better mangers" of Ford felt it that if GM collapsed..they might very well follow.

 

[Trajan]

I'd love to see them make it too Maggie. But when GM is building electric cars that will never make a profit, ostensibly to please their Government share holders, - it is going to be very difficult.

Ford is a better managed, smarter company that also has superior products. They are not dumping billions into all-electric cars that nobody is buying......

Ford is "better managed" because it takes a world wide view on sales. They build fuel efficient cars, many of which are not sold in the United States, that are wanted by people overseas. GM..wasn't doing that in the same numbers. They were building cars for "soccer moms". But even the "better managed" Ford was pleased GM was saved because "the better mangers" of Ford felt it that if GM collapsed..they might very well follow.

so its better managed ..thank you.


GM still owes us beaucoup dollars, spent much money on re-tooling a line and building a car that is far out of the mainstream it simply won't sell as it is not even in the range of 75% of the country and it doesn't even have the have the appeal of say a Tesla to attract the philanthropic "I'll throw away money to look green" set....*shrugs*.

Ford rolled the dice on taking their own loans to make their own changes....so, looks like the rolled well.

and please please please, lets stop playing hide the salami as to why any of this is even happening, Wagner had the Volt scheduled for the abyss, that is they knew it was not ever going to be truly viable, those plans were quietly scuttled, it lived on due to the GUBERMINT wanting it so.......PLUS la GM goping out of bus etc....GM would have gone into Chapter 11, ( reorg.) AND the UAW would have had to take a powder THAT is WHY obama stepped in, lets not pretend other wise.

The Volt etc. is just part of a cascade of bad decisions from the start, that keeps rolling downhill.


Why on the world would we bail out a private entity like Cerberus to keep afloat Chrysler? hummmm?

 

[westwall]

Letting GM collapse would not have solved anything in the immediate panic. It would have had the opposite effect of destroying hundreds of small businesses that support the auto industry as well, while waiting for those "new companies" to arise. And what was the guarantee they would? No, I think it's all too frequently forgotten how dire the situation was. There was no TIME to do any speculation that other private entities would step in and pick up the pieces, especially since the whole business climate was jittery at the time.

Also, the payback is slowly getting done. The government has already sold part of its 61% stake in GM, which reduced its share to 33%. I would say if the government breaks even, it would have been well worth it.

The problem Maggie is that the collapse is going to occur. GM is too bloated and inefficient to compete with the likes of Toyota or Subaru. It is terrible that some companies would likewise go under but they too are antiquated and inefficient in many cases and will likewise fall by the wayside in due course. It is far better to let the damage occur early then wait and magnify the issue. That's why GM is in such bad straights now, they knew there was a problem and they kept ignoring it. At some point the end is going to come regardless of your good intentions. And the damage is going to be far greater because of it.

Compared to where GM was just a few years ago, I don't see how you can claim they're in such dire straits. I also don't see why you won't give them a chance to succeed, but you apparently would prefer that they go under, and take down with them every other business that relies on GM for their own success. If Ford has a bad year, will you dismiss them also as being a failure and therefore not worth salvaging? I personally want to see AMERICAN businesses stay in AMERICA. The auto industry was once the country's largest employer; now it's WalMart.

Because they havn't done anything to chnge the way they do business. All they did was take out a third mortgage. Or maybe it's the fifth?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'd love to see them make it too Maggie. But when GM is building electric cars that will never make a profit, ostensibly to please their Government share holders, - it is going to be very difficult.

Ford is a better managed, smarter company that also has superior products. They are not dumping billions into all-electric cars that nobody is buying......

Ford is "better managed" because it takes a world wide view on sales. They build fuel efficient cars, many of which are not sold in the United States, that are wanted by people overseas. GM..wasn't doing that in the same numbers. They were building cars for "soccer moms". But even the "better managed" Ford was pleased GM was saved because "the better mangers" of Ford felt it that if GM collapsed..they might very well follow.

so its better managed ..thank you.


GM still owes us beaucoup dollars, spent much money on re-tooling a line and building a car that is far out of the mainstream it simply won't sell as it is not even in the range of 75% of the country and it doesn't even have the have the appeal of say a Tesla to attract the philanthropic "I'll throw away money to look green" set....*shrugs*.

Ford rolled the dice on taking their own loans to make their own changes....so, looks like the rolled well.

and please please please, lets stop playing hide the salami as to why any of this is even happening, Wagner had the Volt scheduled for the abyss, that is they knew it was not ever going to be truly viable, those plans were quietly scuttled, it lived on due to the GUBERMINT wanting it so.......PLUS la GM goping out of bus etc....GM would have gone into Chapter 11, ( reorg.) AND the UAW would have had to take a powder THAT is WHY obama stepped in, lets not pretend other wise.

The Volt etc. is just part of a cascade of bad decisions from the start, that keeps rolling downhill.


Why on the world would we bail out a private entity like Cerberus to keep afloat Chrysler? hummmm?

Obama kept GM afloat to stop an inevitable layoff of thousands of workers and to keep a mainstay of American superiority alive. So what if it went through rough times, and so what if it was all their fault? Blaming the perpetrator doesn't keep food on the table. Subsidizing production of the Volt was an afterthought.

And by the way, kids, it isn't just GM that's getting into electric cars. Ford will roll out one of its own in the next year, Mitsubishi has its i-MiEV electric car, Subaru's Stella EV is going on sale this summer, Daimler has invested in the Tesla Roadster, and while discussing this an hour or so ago, I was told that even the Hummer may be retooled for a battery. So apparently somebody other than the naysayers on this board think electric cars will eventually be profitable.

 

[Sallow]

Ford is "better managed" because it takes a world wide view on sales. They build fuel efficient cars, many of which are not sold in the United States, that are wanted by people overseas. GM..wasn't doing that in the same numbers. They were building cars for "soccer moms". But even the "better managed" Ford was pleased GM was saved because "the better mangers" of Ford felt it that if GM collapsed..they might very well follow.

so its better managed ..thank you.


GM still owes us beaucoup dollars, spent much money on re-tooling a line and building a car that is far out of the mainstream it simply won't sell as it is not even in the range of 75% of the country and it doesn't even have the have the appeal of say a Tesla to attract the philanthropic "I'll throw away money to look green" set....*shrugs*.

Ford rolled the dice on taking their own loans to make their own changes....so, looks like the rolled well.

and please please please, lets stop playing hide the salami as to why any of this is even happening, Wagner had the Volt scheduled for the abyss, that is they knew it was not ever going to be truly viable, those plans were quietly scuttled, it lived on due to the GUBERMINT wanting it so.......PLUS la GM goping out of bus etc....GM would have gone into Chapter 11, ( reorg.) AND the UAW would have had to take a powder THAT is WHY obama stepped in, lets not pretend other wise.

The Volt etc. is just part of a cascade of bad decisions from the start, that keeps rolling downhill.


Why on the world would we bail out a private entity like Cerberus to keep afloat Chrysler? hummmm?

Obama kept GM afloat to stop an inevitable layoff of thousands of workers and to keep a mainstay of American superiority alive. So what if it went through rough times, and so what if it was all their fault? Blaming the perpetrator doesn't keep food on the table. Subsidizing production of the Volt was an afterthought.

And by the way, kids, it isn't just GM that's getting into electric cars. Ford will roll out one of its own in the next year, Mitsubishi has its i-MiEV electric car, Subaru's Stella EV is going on sale this summer, Daimler has invested in the Tesla Roadster, and while discussing this an hour or so ago, I was told that even the Hummer may be retooled for a battery. So apparently somebody other than the naysayers on this board think electric cars will eventually be profitable.

China's set out to roll out an electric car pretty soon as well. They've already invested buckets of money on high speed rail and maglev trains. They are fully embracing new tech and moving at lightspeed to modernize their infrastructure.

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem Maggie is that the collapse is going to occur. GM is too bloated and inefficient to compete with the likes of Toyota or Subaru. It is terrible that some companies would likewise go under but they too are antiquated and inefficient in many cases and will likewise fall by the wayside in due course. It is far better to let the damage occur early then wait and magnify the issue. That's why GM is in such bad straights now, they knew there was a problem and they kept ignoring it. At some point the end is going to come regardless of your good intentions. And the damage is going to be far greater because of it.

Compared to where GM was just a few years ago, I don't see how you can claim they're in such dire straits. I also don't see why you won't give them a chance to succeed, but you apparently would prefer that they go under, and take down with them every other business that relies on GM for their own success. If Ford has a bad year, will you dismiss them also as being a failure and therefore not worth salvaging? I personally want to see AMERICAN businesses stay in AMERICA. The auto industry was once the country's largest employer; now it's WalMart.

Because they havn't done anything to chnge the way they do business. All they did was take out a third mortgage. Or maybe it's the fifth?

How can you possibly claim they haven't changed the way they do business? They've sold off sister companies, no longer build lesser popular models such as Pontiac and Opel, the UAW has made serious concessions, management has completely turned for the better, and their obligation to the US government has gone from $95 billion to $17 billion in less than two years. Today, GM's stock has traded higher than Ford's. Go figure.

F: Summary for Ford Motor Company Common Stock- Yahoo! Finance

GM: Summary for General Motors Company Common S- Yahoo! Finance

 

[MaggieMae]

so its better managed ..thank you.


GM still owes us beaucoup dollars, spent much money on re-tooling a line and building a car that is far out of the mainstream it simply won't sell as it is not even in the range of 75% of the country and it doesn't even have the have the appeal of say a Tesla to attract the philanthropic "I'll throw away money to look green" set....*shrugs*.

Ford rolled the dice on taking their own loans to make their own changes....so, looks like the rolled well.

and please please please, lets stop playing hide the salami as to why any of this is even happening, Wagner had the Volt scheduled for the abyss, that is they knew it was not ever going to be truly viable, those plans were quietly scuttled, it lived on due to the GUBERMINT wanting it so.......PLUS la GM goping out of bus etc....GM would have gone into Chapter 11, ( reorg.) AND the UAW would have had to take a powder THAT is WHY obama stepped in, lets not pretend other wise.

The Volt etc. is just part of a cascade of bad decisions from the start, that keeps rolling downhill.


Why on the world would we bail out a private entity like Cerberus to keep afloat Chrysler? hummmm?

Obama kept GM afloat to stop an inevitable layoff of thousands of workers and to keep a mainstay of American superiority alive. So what if it went through rough times, and so what if it was all their fault? Blaming the perpetrator doesn't keep food on the table. Subsidizing production of the Volt was an afterthought.

And by the way, kids, it isn't just GM that's getting into electric cars. Ford will roll out one of its own in the next year, Mitsubishi has its i-MiEV electric car, Subaru's Stella EV is going on sale this summer, Daimler has invested in the Tesla Roadster, and while discussing this an hour or so ago, I was told that even the Hummer may be retooled for a battery. So apparently somebody other than the naysayers on this board think electric cars will eventually be profitable.

China's set out to roll out an electric car pretty soon as well. They've already invested buckets of money on high speed rail and maglev trains. They are fully embracing new tech and moving at lightspeed to modernize their infrastructure.

China is surpassing the US in every area of technology. And we just sit back and let them.

 

[Trajan]

Ford is "better managed" because it takes a world wide view on sales. They build fuel efficient cars, many of which are not sold in the United States, that are wanted by people overseas. GM..wasn't doing that in the same numbers. They were building cars for "soccer moms". But even the "better managed" Ford was pleased GM was saved because "the better mangers" of Ford felt it that if GM collapsed..they might very well follow.

so its better managed ..thank you.


GM still owes us beaucoup dollars, spent much money on re-tooling a line and building a car that is far out of the mainstream it simply won't sell as it is not even in the range of 75% of the country and it doesn't even have the have the appeal of say a Tesla to attract the philanthropic "I'll throw away money to look green" set....*shrugs*.

Ford rolled the dice on taking their own loans to make their own changes....so, looks like the rolled well.

and please please please, lets stop playing hide the salami as to why any of this is even happening, Wagner had the Volt scheduled for the abyss, that is they knew it was not ever going to be truly viable, those plans were quietly scuttled, it lived on due to the GUBERMINT wanting it so.......PLUS la GM goping out of bus etc....GM would have gone into Chapter 11, ( reorg.) AND the UAW would have had to take a powder THAT is WHY obama stepped in, lets not pretend other wise.

The Volt etc. is just part of a cascade of bad decisions from the start, that keeps rolling downhill.


Why on the world would we bail out a private entity like Cerberus to keep afloat Chrysler? hummmm?

Obama kept GM afloat to stop an inevitable layoff of thousands of workers and to keep a mainstay of American superiority alive. So what if it went through rough times, and so what if it was all their fault? Blaming the perpetrator doesn't keep food on the table. Subsidizing production of the Volt was an afterthought.

And I did state that they could have went chapter 11 MM.

And by the way, kids, it isn't just GM that's getting into electric cars. Ford will roll out one of its own in the next year, Mitsubishi has its i-MiEV electric car, Subaru's Stella EV is going on sale this summer, Daimler has invested in the Tesla Roadster, and while discussing this an hour or so ago, I was told that even the Hummer may be retooled for a battery. So apparently somebody other than the naysayers on this board think electric cars will eventually be profitable.

The Escalade has a hybrid model too, for 70k...22 mpg city.....unreal.


Hey theres lots of hybrids out there, and none are like the Volt.


heres a list of the top like 50 hybrid cars-

I think we can make an educated guess and look at sales so far and see where this is going, and it aint going to go Volt. *shrugs* it is what it is.

Hybrid Sedans | Hybrid Cars

 

[westwall]

Obama kept GM afloat to stop an inevitable layoff of thousands of workers and to keep a mainstay of American superiority alive. So what if it went through rough times, and so what if it was all their fault? Blaming the perpetrator doesn't keep food on the table. Subsidizing production of the Volt was an afterthought.

And by the way, kids, it isn't just GM that's getting into electric cars. Ford will roll out one of its own in the next year, Mitsubishi has its i-MiEV electric car, Subaru's Stella EV is going on sale this summer, Daimler has invested in the Tesla Roadster, and while discussing this an hour or so ago, I was told that even the Hummer may be retooled for a battery. So apparently somebody other than the naysayers on this board think electric cars will eventually be profitable.

China's set out to roll out an electric car pretty soon as well. They've already invested buckets of money on high speed rail and maglev trains. They are fully embracing new tech and moving at lightspeed to modernize their infrastructure.

China is surpassing the US in every area of technology. And we just sit back and let them.

No, they're not. They are building EV's with technology they have stolen from elsewhere. The Chinese don't "invent" anything. They steal from everyone. There is one way that an EV would be a viable vehicle and that is if they could figure out what Tesla was working on where he wanted to basically use Earths magnetic field to transport electricity. I say let's give some electrical engineers a couple of billion dollars to see if that system would work.

You want high tech then work on high tech. These people are spinning their wheels with the EV tech they have now. It is wasteful, horribly damaging to the environment, grossly expensive and for those who love talking about "peak oil" peak lithium for the batteries is a very real concern.

Maggie, never let our concerns about efficiencies convince you that we are anti technology. We are far from that. The problem is EV's are not high tech, they are comparatively low tech. The problem is the true believers don't really know what high tech is. We do.