"Electric cars are nice, but the market still wants some muscle"

I don't. I'm still waiitng for a decent and well priced all-electric vehicle. Been waiting for about 20 years now, you guys going to provide or not?

btw, Solar won't do it. It's still quite expensive. However, France has a 2nd to none Nuclear Power infrastructure where the literally recycle their plutonium. Sounds like it would work to me. Nuclear waste, a thing of the past.

You guys are the exception to the rule. Most people do want power and efficiency. I would have no issue buying a hybrid like the volt if it had some performance and was the same price as a regular gas powered car. I think most people would be willing to buy a Volt like car if it met those requirements. As is, their price is too high for too little performance. On the other hand, I would also love to have a high performance sports car period. The newest 550 hp Camaro sounds awesome, and I know I will want one. Unfortunately I won't be able to afford it.

What really gets me though is why Hyundai doesn't put that new 429 hp V8 in the Genesis Coupe. The Sedan is nice, and luxurious. I absolutely love their cars. But I would also love to see their sports car get the V8 too.

Steve S-828431

It does eliminate waste, it reduces it only. The CANDU reactors that Canada builds can do the same thing, as can a number of others.
BTW plans are underway to build a new nuclear plant here, and it may be running as soon as 2020, and that is one of the big problems with nuclear, other than cost, the time they take.

I agree. I guess gas isn't high enough in the US yet. The Europeans "got it" years ago.

Bring back the Geo Metro. NOW !!!!

In reality, you can grow your own Gasoline, at yield about 125 barrels per Hectare on non Food crops Domain, {Hot Arid Soils} The plant genus Euphorbia milkweed sap Latex. Can be refined in today refinery. Look at page 34, 52,53, and 660 Latex the Chapter's Plants and People, Energy and People and Latex. The book Plant Science intro to World Crops, W.H. Freeman and Company 3rd Edition. I will close saying Melvin Calvin discover reicieved a Nobel Prize for his work with Plants. If you do not want to buy this book, email me drdavi@live.com I will send you a Book report including Organic Digestors which can free you of Household Fuels without using Fresh Food crops for Fuel processing. All this systems can relese you from High Cost of Energy cheaply.

People like power but customers buy economy. That's why the V6 powered Mustangs, Camaros and Chargers far outsell their V8 counterparts. The same can be said of just about any sedan where there's the option.

For me, I'm still waiting for a hybrid premium car that doesn't look like a hybrid. If I want to drive an electric/hybrid, why does it have to look like the hideous Prius or Insight? Why can't they just make an Audi A4 with an electric drivetrain? Just because I view oil usage as a national security issue doesn't mean I want to drive an ugly car.

I agree with you. I drive a convertible and I do not want to give it up for a boxy tin can that is even more expensive.

However, I have reservations about electric. In my neck of the woods electricity is expensive. Solar is not an option to supplement and is expensive (not to mention China holds a monopoly on rare earth metals to build such things). I'm about an hour from a Nuclear plant, but you get the folks out there looking to shut it down regularly. Add to that the car prices are expensive.

In addition, my local mechanic who I've used for years was very surprised to find the electric cars very expensive to repair. His sister-in-law got into a fender bender with her Prius that caused over $2000 worth of damage (which included a battery leak). He said the same accident with my car (a Chrysler) would have only had a couple of hundred dollars worth (and no eco-unfriendly battery leak).

I was very interested in the hydrogen vehicles (Honda and GM were the ones I was reading about) and the whole Grasoline options but nothing seems to be picking up there and these eco-friendly politicians only push electric.

Wind turbines rely on rare earth metals; is expensive; is damaging to some wildlife; you need a lot of them to produce any significant power for a town/city/state; and unpopular when someone finds out it is going to be built in their back yard. Nuclear is unpopular. Solar...see Wind turbines.

I just don't see much information on innovation to get us to the next level when other countries (heck Iceland has Hydrogen buses!) are moving forward. One has to wonder why only a push for electric. Who is getting kickbacks for that?

I'll hold off on the electric cars until they improve the range and decrease the charging time. Unless you have a special power connection, the current crop of electric cars take forever to charge. Plugging into a normal household outlet the typical electric would take at least two full days to get a full charge. They are great if all you do is run around town, but if you want to go on a trip longer than 200 miles they are worthless. Also, if you are going to drive on CA freeways, you need a car with decent acceleration or you will get run over trying to get on the road. So long as these new muscle cars can get better than 30 mpg they are still a good buy. When you do the math, factoring in the price of the car, the price of gas, the price of electricity, and the life of the car (the batteries for the electrics are only going to last about 5 years in normal use), the electric cars still wind up costing about the same cradle to grave as a traditional gas powered car.

In tens totwenty years, when gas prices have doubled, these "new" muscle cars will be the next "Cash for Clunkers" program when the Federal government again pays to get low mileage vehicles off the road. The first buy back program may have made some sense, but to continue building vehicles that consume oil and emit poisons in quantities that will eventually be fatal to mankind, is the sure sign of a species knowingly running head long into extinction prematurely.

What I don't understand is why so many of these car companies refuse to put their top design people onto the electric and hybrid lines of vehicles. Why is it that all of these enviro-cars have to look like utter crap?!

Tesla gets it, Fisker gets it, Lotus gets it, Audi gets it!

Chevy? Nope

Toyota? Nope

Ford? Nope

Honda? a few concept vehicles maybe, but stuff that hits the showroom? Nope

Stop making hybrids look like little wussy, candy-colored potatoes!

There's no reason why these vehicles cannot have a sporty and awesome looking chassis.

Think sports car you fools! Take a sporty chassis, and find places to stuff the battery banks to give fantastic balance and utilize those electric motors' ability to give torque on tap! I don't need a super car, but I'd like to drive something that looks cool and handles really well!

I love having horsepower, but I rarely use most of it in my daily commutes...BUT I REFUSE TO DRIVE AN UGLY JELLY-BEAN OR HIPPY EASTER EGG!

Since I'm not comfortable dropping 100K+ on a Lotus or Tesla, give me something that LOOKS sporty and performs better than most medium-end sports-cars and I'll drop a clean 50K+ on it.

For now, BMW 3's and 5's until you other idiots can figure it out.

The price of EVs will come down. As far as power? The Tesla Roadster does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. About 240 miles per charge. Full charge for little over $4.00. The model S is a little slower. 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, 300 per charge for about $5.00.

gillanator - Yes, but the Roadster and the model S are still well out of the average American's price range. Plus, I've yet to hear how long the battery life is, and if you'll have to pay to swap out that battery once it's efficiency has dropped to useless. Also, how are they going to dispose of it safely? Lots of toxic stuff in batteries... Still a LOT of improvements needed before electric vehicles become practical.

Also, how are they going to dispose of it safely? Lots of toxic stuff in batteries

Good point because there is definitely not toxic stuff in fossil fuels, right? And we know the folks in the gulf will vouch for how non toxic the oil drilling business is. I know a few people down there. I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you what they think of oil drilling.

As far as battery life. Not bad from what I have read. There are people still driving EVs from the California Zero emission mandate days. Some charged from those God awfully expensive solar panels that are out of everyone's price range. (BS)

Let me tell you about EV maintenance. Replace tires. Not a whole lot of regular scheduled maintenance is required. You would save money on that as well as money at the pump. I don't believe that batteries are going to be a major problem.

And if this could grow it would continue to improve. Because you're correct in that the price is still high. But it is a better technology, that happens to have a lot of money working against it in the oil industry. Oh... one more thing. Batteries can be recycled. Can't recycle gas. Can't recharge it either.

I just have a few questions for everyone saying Electric is the way to go. ( in this entire vine )

Where do you think that all of this added electricty to charge your car is going to come from?

The South West has rolling brown outs during the summer because they cannot keep up with the current demands. The Entire Country sees power lines down from any kind of weather event with downed power lines.

I know in Texas we had rolling brown outs, the week of the Superbowl due to the cold.

Exactly HOW is an already taxed electrical grid going to be able to handle all of these Electric cars that are being promoted as the future?

Look beyond what they are telling you, and look at what they ARE NOT telling you about electic cars. Point blank, the technology is NOT where it needs to be for mass electric cars..

Plugging your car into your house, means that your local power plant has to burn more coal to supply your power. You are trading one fossil fuel for another.

Oh, I'm not saying gas is clean by any means, I'm just saying electric cars aren't any cleaner. Especially when you consider where they are getting their electricity from (in the US, the majority of power is still produced from coal fired plants).

Also, you're definitely right about the electric engine being a LOT more efficient than ICEs. I'd heard that the battery life expectancy was only about 10 years, after which you'd have to shell out a good amount of money for a new battery. Hopefully they can find ways to extend that to at least 30 + years (maybe they already have).

And like others have said, temperature plays a huge roll in the range you can get from a battery.

Watch as oil goes to $4-$5 a gallon, watch for new battery technology in next quarter. Why are we so slow to develope new technologies? GREED!! does it take world war to deal with GREED? How about some new thinking? Has thinking become extinct? Buy EV's and watch the government regulate them out of business or manufacture them in China. What has happened to the american spirit? Wake up and smell the roses.

The whole electric car movement is a farce. The cars are expensive, their range is very limited, and they have to be plugged into an electric grid to be recharged, an electric grid that is powered primarily by coal fired electricity generating stations. So, for all the expense what's the net environmental pay off? Likely damn little! Another "green" pipe dream! Add to that the battery life and the battery disposal problem and you've got technology that serves no real purpose. The best car batteries right now last for 4-5 years. As for net efficiency, it all depends on where you draw the circle, and if it's all the way back to the source of the electricity, the benefit is damn small if any.

@ Jeremy-960164

The rolling blackouts and power demands are from power spikes, not aggregate increases in overall demand.

Anyway, you still have a good point.

This is why we need to build more nuclear power plants, update the power grid, and add greater taxpayer incentives for businesses, individuals and even communities to install localized power generation like wind/solar/geo-thermal/natural gas fuel cell/etc.

The nice thing about electric vehicles is that the pollution is localized at the power plant-level rather than dispersed at the consumer level. It means that as we get more efficient at generating power, the overall pollution diminishes because we aren't waiting for the capital-turnover of the average consumer (i.e. something Cash for Clunkers was partly designed to spur) which is harder to predict and more expensive to control (think of your catalytic converters, the ethinol % in gasoline, etc. Which are all designed to reduce pollution at YOUR level)

Also, battery disposal and recycling is a lot more efficient than trying to extract and burn more hydrocarbons when you adjust for risk of price fluctuation and national security interests.

Personally, I have never seen the appeal of gas-guzzlers. Bigger isn't always better. I have always purchased my cars based upon price and fuel economy, so I have owned smaller sedans and compacts (like my current Saturn Ion 2). I get good gas mileage and it doesn't cost me a week's pay to gas up. Once something like the Tesla is in a price range I believe is affordable (likely 5-10 years) I will buy one. till then, the price of hybrids continue to come down. While not the best solution, they at least help to start getting us off fossil fuel dependency.

First, electric is not the answer...technology isn't there, batteries are inefficient and have a worse carbon footprint to produce than a gas powered car does to run, and the electricity will mean either a)burn more coal or b)build more nuclear plants. Second, domestic car makers haven't invested R&D into electric because there is no market. Nobody wants these things, they are underpowered, over priced, and rarely hit the fuel economies the mfg'r claims. Domestic companies have been investing in making current gas engines more efficient. V6 Mustang is a prime example, it outperforms most domestic and European counterparts in every sense of the word, performance, fuel economy, and base price. You'll never find a 30+ mpg, 305hp automobile under $20k at a Bimmer dealership.

Electric cars are simply not the answer. Wait a few years and you will see these cars fall to many other better ideas. To me, electric cars are just plain stupid. There are MANY reasons why it's a stupid idea and I could give you all of them....not enough room here.

The article is somewhat misleading, there are electric muscle cars; refitted Ford Mustangs (http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1408), or Tesla's (http://www.teslamotors.com/), just a few examples.

Geo nobody's going to pay $100,000 to retrofit a $27,000 vehicle just to get the same power it originally had...that's kinda what everyone's complaining about....too pricey, little benefit.

Lets see you granola eating berkenstock wearing yuppies drive your electric cars across the country ... didn't think so .

The push to all electric vehicles is another of Barry Odchebaga's hidden agendas- this one also helping to fill BigMouth/BigAzz Al Gore's pockets along the way. You know Al- The guy who uses a 3 caravan SUV to haul his butt from personal appearance to appearance- and has the house with the enclosed pool structure that alone uses more energy in a SINGLE MONTH than the average American home uses in an ENTIRE YEAR-?

20 years from now I can just hear all the Dem/Libs crying about all the electric car batteries littering the nation's landfills.

Rule of Thumb with Obama- do the exact opposite of what he's spouting/preaching.

The GM Volt ranks 12th on the greenest car list yet it is subsidized with a taxpayer funded $8,000 tax rebate, while buyers of greener cars get nothing. More bailout anyone?

"Leaf and Prius stomp the Volt on greenest car list"

"I find it kind of laughable," said GM spokesman Rob Peterson when told of ranking and the rational behind it."

So do we Rob, so do we.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/15/autos/aceee_volt_green/index.htm

@MmmMmmBeer

Today's standard gas-powered cars were the same way in the early years of their infancy, it is a brand new technology, give it another three to eight years, or more or maybe even less depending on what congress does as far as pushing for innovations, and they will get there eventually as the technology catches up.

Just because it is too expensive for most buyers at the moment doesn't mean we should bunk the tech all together and bury it. If we had that mentality in the 80's the modern computer would not exist as it does (the new I7 processors launch day price was 1000 bucks).

Geo, why waste time money and resources researching a technology that doesn't fix the current problems? I agree this tech is in its infancy, but it doesn't appear to have added value compared to products currently on the market. It is not truly a clean/green technology, even after 3-5 years development perhaps the price should go down but the carbon footprint to make, re-make, and dispose of batteries will never go away. Then of course there's the issue of where does the power come from in the first place?

This is not a technology big auto makers should be sinking dollars into. When the first car came out, it was a leap and bound above the "horse drawn carriage" of the day. The electric car technology isn't...it's a throwback to designs that were scrapped in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Let Tesla and other small companies spend their R&D to make overpriced products (much like the garage geeks making personal computers in the 80's). The rest of us will enjoy our affordable, standard issue models that continue to increase in efficiency year after year.

Now if we could get a nuclear reactor running off banana peels a la "back to the future" style, that's a technology the big auto makers should get behind!

electric cars wont catch on for quite a while due to 1 simple reason- price.

electric car ( or hybrid for that matter) in most peoples minds is equated with economy. that last about as long as it takes them to look at the sticker on the window. a new prius costs 24 grand for the bare bones base model. 24 grand is hardly an economy car. the all electric cars are even worse.

when they can build an electric car that will get be back and forth to work without needing a recharge for the day ( 100 miles round trip) while i blast the radio, and a/c running full blast for under 15,000 then i would consider one.

the reason people buy the v6 versions of camaros mustangs etc has nothing to do with mileage. its the cost of the car. v6 camaro starts off at just over 20 grand or so. the SS starts off at 45 grand. same deal for the mustangs. that and the insurance is twice as high. no one buying one of those gives a rats ass about mileage, if they did they'd go buy a little economy car.

in the end, just like everything else int his world, it all comes down to money.

TESLA ROADSTER!!!!

no one wants a fruity looking electric car OR the new Acura TL with the SMILE on it.....

the soccer mom'g of the world will NEVER get me into a fruity car with no power. I will pay whatever gas costs to drive Horsepower there is no other option.

LMFAO!!!

Let's see here: Our "Green" president Obama takes over GM and spends about $56 billion of taxpayer money so that this company can build 550 HP camaros? LMFAO!!

Liberals!! LOLOL!!

edward

There have been plans to build new reactors in many states for about the last 40 years! The main problem is that environmental groups do everything but shoot the messengers in order to stop them from being built. They have lobbied through so much regulation restrictions and environmental impact studies that it takes ten years just to battle through the first round of procedures to get a new plant design anywhere near consideration to be built. Most energy companies end up saving the legal fees and build gas overload plants to supplement the existing nuke plants and coal plants.

Electric cars are good for the environment and maybe in a few years they will be more affordable/practical. However, muscle cars or any car that can go 0-60 in under 5 are like cigs, highly addictive. They have to make electric cars sexy if they want to sell mass quantities of them. Just because its green friendly doesn't mean it has to be ugly an slow.

"Elictric cars are good for the enviroment"

LOL, How are electric cars good for the enviroment? You have blow the tops off mountains to mine coal and then burn it to make electricity. Environmentalists aren't shutting down coal plants because they are "good for the environment". You also have to mine the elements for the batteries. Then later you have a battery disposal problem.

Right now electric cars are a huge lie!!! Just like Al Gore.

I'd like to see one of you "progressive" electric car "snobs" get stuck overnight in winter storms like we had last week. Betcha the heat from your dead battery would keep you alive, huh?

With federal and state assistance a Nissan Leaf costs about $20,000 in California. If the same is true for future Ford Focus EVs and Chevy Cruze EVs, then people will buy them.

I'd like to see one of you "progressive" electric car "snobs" get stuck overnight in winter storms like we had last week. Betcha the heat from your dead battery would keep you alive, huh?

So what is your point spider? If someone wants to own an EV you wish harm on them? What is the reasoning behind that? What an intellectually bankrupt post.

SJC-1437429

"With federal and state assistance a Nissan Leaf costs about $20,000 in California."

Or for about half that you can get a conventional car like the Nissan Versa which gets around 40 mpg highway and can actually be driven on road trips without recharging for hours every 100 miles or so.

I keep hearing that electrics will be great when the technology matures. The problem with that statement is that, until 1912, the electric car was the dominant automobile. The Electrochemical reactions of secondary battery chemistry was all understood by 1900. Edison and Tesla had figured out DC and AC electric motors by 1889. All of this is VERY mature technology. It isn't going to get much better. What knocked the electric car out of its dominant position in 1912 was RANGE. It didn't have it then, and it doesn't have it now. When the gas engine car got the electric self-starter so it didn't make a habit of breaking its owner's arm, then all of its other advantages over the electric car came to the fore. Primary among those advantages was RANGE.

I keep hearing about the distance that someone can go in an EV. Or I guess I should say the distance someone cannot go in an EV. But like so many families we have more than one car I drive a 54 mile round trip to work every day. My car has almost all work miles on it. It is a perfect candidate for an EV. I do have solar panels and am looking at purchasing batteries. But for anyone who is in a situation of owning more than one car and using one of the cars for local work travel is really in a good position to consider an EV. What I don't understand is the venom spewed by those who obviously don't want an electric car. The only thing is I'm not aware of anyone who is insisting on them to have one. We just want some decent EVs to be available. And it seems as though many of the EV opponents don't want anyone to have one. Go figure.

Put chargers at places of employment and commuters can use them now. Commuters are the ones that use lots of fuel putting lots of miles on cars. Clean up the air, reduce the fuel bills and have less imported oil in one shot.

If demand goes down, they will just reduce production to keep costs high. No matter what we do, they have us by the you fill in the blank.

This country the U.S.A. sits on some of the worlds largest reserves of oil, BUT ????????????????/ Also stop giving our oil from Alaska to japan. make them buy their oil on the world market.

Using the latest numbers for the total proven U.S. oil reserves and the current rate of oil usage, even if we depleted 100% of the proven U.S. oil reserves it would only last us 2.78 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States]. That's not much of a long term strategic plan. The honest truth is that we're not going to "drill baby drill" our way out of this one.

Richard-1971294

If demand goes down, they will just reduce production to keep costs high. No matter what we do, they have us by the you fill in the blank.

Indeed, but only within certain tolerances. While the oil companies have certainly got quite a bit of control over prices thanks to 30years of virtical integration, if demand for oil drops sharply enough, the companies will have to switch their business plans to volume rather than pricing. Remember, they still have billions invested in infrastructure and manpower that needs to be supported. Selling at a high price in the face of falling demand is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

stanley garland

This country the U.S.A. sits on some of the worlds largest reserves of oil, BUT ????????????????/ Also stop giving our oil from Alaska to japan. make them buy their oil on the world market.

It wouldn't work. Here's why. Restricting the sale of oil onto the open market, in this case, preventing oil-extractors/refiners from selling onto the open market at market-price would greatly hurt their profits if the only market they can sell to is the US domestic one.

Forcing them to do so anyway without changing anything else would yield 3 problems

1. Oil not sold onto the open market is not as competitive due to the fact that there would be fewer customers for the domestic oil to pay its expenses and earn a profit from. Thus, domestic oil would be more expensive than what the open market charges
2. If domestic oil isn't competitively priced, consumers will purchase international oil in greater quantities. If the US government decides to restrict trade on foreign oil imports to allow domestic oil to be more competitively priced, consumers will be forced to pay a higher price when international oil is cheaper...next, we hit problem 3
3. Restricting imports on oil will cause a trade war with the producing countries. They will do several things. First will be to denominate oil in a different currency which will murder the US$ and kill our capital markets; Second, these countries will stop buying products from the US, which includes military contracts, high tech equipment, etc. Third, these oil producing countries will lobby with their major customers to participate in the trade war, which will mean that even more US citizens lose their jobs from declining US exports and fewer foreign companies outsourcing to the US in many different industries.

But wait, that's not all! If the US decides to not restricting the import of foreign oil, but still requires that oil domestically extracted not be sold onto the open market, there will really only be 2 viable options, and both will be extremely expensive!

1. Nationalize US-produced oil. Considering the decades of infrastructure closures (e.g. US refineries, etc.) and the massive EPA regulations that prevent new ones from opening; the remaining refineries are extremely valuable. The US government would need to pay top-dollar to buy all of the necessary facilities to produce National Oil. Considering how bloated and inefficient our government is, I can only imagine how much more expensive it will be to extract/refine/retail compared to the private sector
2. We don't nationalize domestic oil. Instead, we subsidize it. Well, again, considering the above, that domestic oil restricted from sale onto the open market is by definition more expensive, the US government will need to pay the difference. These payments WILL COME FROM DEBT or HIGHER TAXES. Either way, we will all end up paying for the oil, maybe even more considering the corruption already seen with oil subsidization, but now we will also have either higher taxes or more debt, OR BOTH!

It's a big mess.

But I do have some solutions.

Well....I'm up for hearing your solutions. Seriously. Really.

It does not mean ANYTHING OPEC sits down and sets prices, if there is less demand they will raise the prices regardless. They are NOT gov't controlled they are $$$ controlled.

silverfox-1007803

Well....I'm up for hearing your solutions. Seriously. Really.

The simplest solution would be to break apart some of the very large, vertically integrated oil companies (those that own the wells and the refineries. The US currently has a massive glut of unrefined crude in storage and literally sitting in the holds of tankers, waiting for the prices to go up enough before refining them.

Restricting supply is a sign of monopolistic price influence.

However, if there's more competition, others will leap into the market, and drink the milkshake (so to speak) of the company that sits by trying to prop up the commoditiy's price.

Next step is to lift a number of the EPA bans that prevent new refineries from opening. This would allow private companies to step in and make a profit.

In general, it's because of a lack of competition, not a lack of oil why the US sees such huge prices at the pump.

I could next go into how to stabilize prices of the commodity, but that's a very long story about regulation and the tracking of derivatives/futures purchases by non-producers.

bspurloc

It does not mean ANYTHING OPEC sits down and sets prices, if there is less demand they will raise the prices regardless. They are NOT gov't controlled they are $$$ controlled.

Take a look at this from a macro economic and accounting perspective for a moment, it may be enlightening for you.

Ask yourself, how does OPEC raise prices?

They do so by restricting supply.

How do they restrict supply?

They have an agreement with the other member Emerate countries to slow down or even shut down some of the pumps that they use for extracting crude out of the well.

But guess what, they can only do this up to a certain point. There are many factors that limit the strength of this cartel, but I'll list the strongest among them.

1. Since each Emerate does not share in the profits of the others, they each uniquely share the burden of slowing/shutting down their production. This means that each country has a different amount of expenses on their equipment, and different labor costs, which means that each has a different profit margin on their crude. So when they have to reduce supply, which will raise the price of oil in aggregate, they now have barrels already extracted in storage and barrels of newly extracted oil for which they need to find customers willing to buy at the higher price. Higher prices limit the size of the demand for the product, particularly with commodities.
2. Not all refiners are created equal. Some are far more wealthy than others, some have more refined oil on hand or in storage to wait out price fluctuations, and others are poorer and will cut back on production to match against higher prices. If the price of crude goes up, the wealthy that lack reserves will keep buying at the new price...no problem for OPEC. The wealthy with reserves will slow/halt buying of crude and start selling reserves. The poorer refiners will slow buying altogether and be forced to wholesale/retail at whatever prices the wealthier refiners have dictated in the market through their higher volumes. But the gist...OPEC has fewer customers to buy the more expensive crude
3. OPEC members don't always cooperate. Since each have different costs, each have different political issues, and each have different profits from oil production, they will only abide by the supply restrictions to a certain degree. If they start losing too much money and or the price of oil starts to climb dramatically, there's a great profit incentive to the first that are willing to step up supply and reap the rewards (Venezeula did this many times over the past 50 years to OPEC).

While I despise OPEC and their manipulation, our best bet to breaking the cartel is to reduce our demand on oil in general to the point where manipulating supply only reduces one's profitability because there are suitable alternatives in the market.

If you want a muscle car or SUV fine. But be warned you will soon be paying $4 to $5 a gallon and even more in the future as the trend will be for ever upward so if you want to spend your money or should I say waste your money on this go ahead who cares.

@ Witchking

Agreed! I think it's hilarious to watch a ton of people buying up the huge urban assault vehicles again! They never learn!

"U.S.A. sits on some of the worlds largest reserves of oil"

The U.S. has 3% of the world's oil reserves and Saudi Arabia has almost 30% with only 10% of the U.S. population. The U.S. also uses 25% of the oil the world produces every day with less than 5% of the population.

yeah yeah, the bigger the truck, the bigger the mouth, the smaller the 'oh yeah!'

GM builds a Sierra Pick up Hybrid 20MPG

Why bother when you can get a diesel pickup with much more power that can get 30mpg?

Dullknife. Visit your local Chevy or GMC dealer. Hybrid Pickups and SUV's have been available for a while. They don't get too much press because they don't fit the greenie mindset. They still get you a 25% improvement in fuel economy.

And in some cases more torque as well thanks to how electric motors operate

There is no set of circumstance that would cause me to buy a GM vehicle, or stock.

When it comes to powered vehicles, I think the Amish way is the way to go. Plus, if you try to drive your standard gas guzzler over a cliff, that stupid buggy will go over the cliff, with you in it. But one of your Amish vehicles will rear back and say (figuratively), "Who, Me?!?!?" Something along this line was neatly illustrated in Arnolds movie, "True Lies." The Amish vehicle is a little slower than your standard gas guzzler, but it's a lot cheaper. Besides, it can love you back! Live long and prosper!!!

Matilda Tuscany

The Amish vehicle is a little slower than your standard gas guzzler, but it's a lot cheaper. Besides, it can love you back! Live long and prosper!!!

That, and the liklihood of finding gas and open roads after the outset of the zombie apocolypse is highly unlikely. Better company, awareness, and offroad potential from horse drawn and horseback.

/BTW, my family owns horses, NO, they are not cheaper to maintain than cars.

Did you ever pay attention to what pulls those big 100 coal car unit trains? It is a hybrid. Diesel running the generator, electric motors at the wheels. Hybrids can pull big loads, if they are designed to do that. They are heavy, they are awkward, they are bloody expensive, but they have lots and lots of torque.

Matilda Tuscany

"The Amish vehicle is a little slower than your standard gas guzzler, but it's a lot cheaper. Besides, it can love you back! Live long and prosper!!!"

The horses have far worse emissions, just spend a while behind one.

JohnCarter-428979

"Did you ever pay attention to what pulls those big 100 coal car unit trains? It is a hybrid. Diesel running the generator, electric motors at the wheels. Hybrids can pull big loads, if they are designed to do that. They are heavy, they are awkward, they are bloody expensive, but they have lots and lots of torque."

A diesel electric is not the same thing as a Prius hybrid, a Chevy Volt is closer but still far from the same thing.

Ever notice how hard it is to find those nice little cars that get 40 mpg? I've been looking for a Geo Metro for a long time now and still haven't come across one.

Steve, try a VW Golf TDI, or a Mazda2.

THE FORD FIESTA & CHEVY CRUZE ECO non hybrid get 40-42 mpg. " ALSO " In Europe FORD Fiesta & CHEVY Cruze both diesels that get 65/66 mpg.

Chris - most of those Chargers, Mustangs and Camaros you're seeing on your way to work are the high-sales-volume, less powerful, more fuel efficient V6 models. Ex: The Mustang V6 gets better gas mileage than a Scion tC.

most Americans aren't stupid enough to get eyeball deep in debt for a non fuel effiecent vehicle.

Yeah - whoever thought Americans - even women - could be convinced to buy body-on-frame trucks and oversized crossover SUVs was seriously deluded. You never see SUVs on the roads...

Ford didn't take bailout money because Alan Mullaly saw the writing on the wall and leveraged Ford to the eyeballs when credit was still cheap. The fact that they're making great vehicles now is almost irrelevant, given the vast numbers of so-called Americans who refuse to consider buying American cars.

Asterisk - yeah, but those things STILL make over 300 hp and are extremely fun to drive! And I still see quite a few Camaro SS's and Mustang GTs running around.

#5.6 The Americantrash who refuse to consider buying American auto's are destroying our country.

When the american automakers can build with the same quality, I'll drop by. I bought a Pontiac in 2005. It was a piece of garbage that can't compare to a Toyota. Besides the fact, half the "foreign" cars are built in the US by american workers.

5.6 & 5.8

I understand what you are saying, but it's a free country and people will buy what they want. They are not obligated to buy anything American-made. If we only bought domestic products our country would cease to exist in any meaningful way, almost everything technology wise comes out of Japan, Taiwan, and China.

Geowil: I understand what you're saying, but it's akin to a parent saying "well, my kid isn't under any legal obligation to clean his room, so who am I to tell him he should?" You don't buy American because you're compelled by law; you buy American because it's the right thing to do (and in this day and age, doing so brings no appreciable penalty). As to your overall globalism argument, it's true to a point, but only where trade is balanced. Don't lose sight of the fact that we invented most of the technology being knocked off and palmed off on us by Asian competition. The only reason we're no longer leaders in those fields is that the short-sighted American public will screw itself in order to save a couple bucks, rather than paying the slightest attention to the "made in" label.

dawn: Did you do any research prior to buying your Pontiac? Was it a particularly reliable model? If you didn't get your facts straight, you do assume a part of the fault for your troubles. My parents have always bought American, but they've always researched thoroughly before doing so, and bypassed the American models with lesser reliability ratings. I've owned foreign and American cars both, and noticed no difference in reliability. The best car I've owned was a 1999 Ford; the worst was a 1989 Honda. Personal anecdotes are basically meaningless in a larger discussion; what matters are overall market statistics, and those show relentless gains in quality by all 3 American manufacturers, over the last 5 years, especially Ford.

Yes, we should always have built perfect cars, but bear in mind too that the Japanese built a reputation of great quality for the money by selling cars here for less than they cost to produce. That's a predatory trade practice (called "dumping" - look it up), which is illegal for good reason: it's one country's effort, usually state-subsidized, to undermine a particular industry of a rival country. So the Japanese weren't selling great $8000 cars in the '70s to combat our $8000 cars; they were selling $12,000 cars for $8000 in violation of international law. Remember the American TV industry? I do. Killed by dumping, with the imprimatur of the US Supreme Court (one reason I will never respect the name of Justice Byron "Whizzer" White).

Also, dawn, what matters to the national economy is where the money goes, not where foreign-made subassemblies are screwed together. Follow the profits; if they don't end up in the USA, you're exporting your hard-earned, and you're never going to get it back. If we weren't buying foreign cars partly assembled here, we'd be buying American cars, built by the same workers, but doing infinitely less damage to our economy.

But don't get me started...

When the american automakers can build with the same quality, I'll drop by. I bought a Pontiac in 2005. It was a piece of garbage that can't compare to a Toyota.

Don't count them out next time, as their recent trend shows that they are increasing their quality, while Toyota has been decreasing its quality (for example, compare interiors since '95).

Besides the fact, half the "foreign" cars are built in the US by american workers.

I can't speak to all makes and models, but I know for a fact that the Prius you have was made in Japan.

JP a 350ci chevy engine will fit nicely in a astro van.!! Makes for a good vehicle..!! The little engine works well in a S-10 also.. Wish GM would have offered this option from the factory... With the low weight of the small car the fuel mileage and equipment longevity went up.. Bet an LS engine would do a fine job also..

I've always wanted to put a Hemi in a PT cruiser.

Robin: sounds like you'd end up with a car that's a blast to drive in a straight line, but that won't go around corners worth a poo. All that added weight over the front axle in a front-drive vehicle would lead to unbelievable understeer (and all that power going to the front wheels would probably give you torque steer from Hades). Nonetheless, it would be a hoot to drive on straight roads; I hope you get to do it one day.

Your twisten hard on a lite uni-body Mr. Steele..!! I'd like to see it in action.. From a distance..

A PT Cruiser needs something more than what it has. I had one as a rental once and it scared the hell out of me. Couldn't get out of it's own way.

a freind of mine does have a 400 hp minivan. 89 chrysler with the original 2.5 turbo. complete with roof rack and wood grain trim down the sides. the look on people's faces is priceless when he goes rippping past new ss camaros, mustang gt's and vettes at the track.

durring normal driving he turns the boost back down and can get almost 30 mpg, and still have enough power to tow another vehicle. just go to youtube and search for turbo minivan, you'll see several videos of what im talking about.

Dave, I didn't want to get too technical, but you're really talking about a TCI roller with the PT cruiser body on top. More of a vision than a plan to be honest.

Batteries have improved vastly. No, not the old regular ones, they actually have very good batteries out there. On the commercial level, they also have electric SUVs and trucks that work fine, they just won't sell them to the public.

The reason why they won't sell them to the public is that those batteries are insanely high priced. Until the cost of high tech batteries goes down there will never be an electric car revolution.

The reason they don't sell them to the public is that the batt.s they use have a significant fire hazard. You are all being lied to about the oil reserves. Anything to artificially raise prices. Did you notice how energy costs went thru the roof when Enron came in? Those guys are proven criminal, frauds, liars. They go to jail, their crimes become the law of the land.

You are all being lied to about the oil reserves.

<citation needed> If our information is bad, I'd like to know the details. What is the lie, and where is the evidence that it is untrue? From what I've seen Middle Eastern oil reserves are historically drastically overestimated, and with China's consumption increasing at the rate it is, even Canada's filthy oil sands will be depleted before we have truly viable alternatives in place. The US can't meet its own demands, and that's before we even consider the nightmare that is Venezuela. I'd love to find out those are all illusory crises. May we see your sources?

When you find them, let us know. The fact is the decline of oil is a similar issue to global warming. Rich people who own the mineral rights, the press, scientists, etc, who are lying about the amount of oil to inflate the prices, and hoard money as the world starves. Google a cubic mile of oil for a start, meanwhile, it nice to see that you are magnanimous enough to love the robber barons. We've started running out of oil since Bush 41 took office, there was plenty before that.

it nice to see that you are magnanimous enough to love the robber barons.

Where do you get THAT? That argument presupposes that I choose to believe oil is in finite supply, in spite of evidence to the contrary. I see no evidence to the contrary. In fact, since the preponderance of evidence I've seen indicates that the supply of oil is limited (and you have yet to lay your cards down as I requested), I'm choosing to conserve, rather than driving the V-8 muscle car the robber barons and I would both love me to drive. I'm also on this board defending the Chevy Volt as a viable alternative to purely gas-powered cars. This does not add up to a "pro-robber-baron" stance.

I do agree that the issue is similar to climate change, but I gather you and I differ on what that means in terms of accepting scientific evidence to show we humans need to change our ways.

@Phil Johnson

Quite true about the batteries, but like anything, the price will go down the moment it becomes a standard thing in all vehicles. The technology will get better too.

As for the potential fire hazard, I hadn't read that but from what I know about how they work, that seems to be a possibly correct assessment.

But then again, my computer is a fire hazard and gasoline is explosive.

Not since the new Wranger came out in 2007.

You betcha. The cost of an electric car needs to be sub 15k not 35,000+

That's my main gripe with electric cars, range for the money. If we could just buy something like the Gee Whiz in the US it could be a great cheap commuter car.

I think GM has a good idea with the Volt but the price needs to come down.

Nah... the Volt is not the way to go. GM hasn't been very forward with it's actual range. Plus its not a true electric car since it has a small gas motor. Tesla has the real deal, but way too far out of the price range.

Actually, the Volt is the best of both worlds. The motor is only there to extend range; under most circumstances it's electric-only, and for typical commuting, you could go months without ever turning the gas motor over. In fact, it's programmed to remind you to run the engine periodically, to counter the problems of fuel sitting unused for long periods in the gas tank. The Leaf has it all wrong (and the Tesla is a pipe dream for most folks); the Volt is the way to go. Go USA!!

Exactly Dave - Volt is a great start until they can improve battery life and drastically reduce charging time. Leaf - yeah, you might be able to go 100 miles in Nebraska without any wind, but then what? Sit for 8 hours and charge? right...

I agree that the Leaf isn't the way to go, but the Volt still doesn't have the range that most commuters need on a daily basis... and that is running on bare basics. The charge time is way to long was well as Brokinarrow mentioned.

Derek, I don't have data in front of me, but it's my understanding that the Volt has ample electric range for most commutes, and the extended range with the gas engine should be more than enough for anything but big triple-digit distances. Do you have a source showing that the combined electric + gas range is insufficient for commuting?

Between electric & gas the Volt is rated for 300 mile range per tank.

Since the Volt can run entirely from its gas engine, its range is unlimited like any normal gas car. It has a 40 mile electric only range, not enough to handle half of my daily commute, but fine for those who live in urban warrens close by their assembly line jobs. Its price and performance (lack of) rule it out for most people. Its also ugly.

OMG yes the Chevy (re)Volt(ing) is ugly! So is the Toyota "Easter Egg" Prius

WTF is wrong with GM and these other companies?

Make some hybrids and EV's that look like Lamborghinis and Ferraris!

I don't care if a Kia Rio can outperform them even on the quarter mile...just make a decent looking vehicle in the category of cutting edge!

See, this is the thing that bugs me about sci fi. Every time there's a show that goes into the "near future" of our world, we always imagine that the cars are going to look really awesome!

What do we get instead? The reality is that the non-cutting edge cars look relatively decent, and the stuff that uses really new and sometimes exotic technology and functions (i.e. hybrids, EV's, etc.) look like crap!

For the love of God you idiot car companies, I hate you all! I HATE YOU

[/end rant]

/takes meds

The original Volt concept car was drop-dead gorgeous and I actually wanted one. Something happened to it on the way to the production floor and it became just another ho-hum car. Typical, I suppose...

The problem from what I see is that their concept car designers never talk with the engineers and designers of the production vehicles, so the concept designers make body designs that would be really expensive to fabricate en masse for a production model, so what ends up happening is the production engineers have to take the concept design and basically make a bunch of compromises to ensure that GM gets the margin on the car that they desire.

The sad thing is a lot of the so-called small cars don't get significantly better than a substantially larger vehicle. Most people will choose a full-sized car that gets 30 mpg versus a small compact that might get maybe 3 mpg more. Most of the high mileage cars are no longer built or imported here because of insane US safety regulations. The way I look at it even the most tiny of tin can cars is safer than a motorcycle. Other nations make exceptions for tiny cars and perhaps it is time for the US to do so as well.

"patriot" You are most misinformed. Egypt imports most of their oil, they produce very little. Why don't you read first, then write.

Phil,

When gas hit $5.00 per gallon later this year, electric cars will come into play.. I guarantee I will be parking my 71 350 Chevy El Camino alot more than I already do...

Robin Steele

"patriot" did not say anything about their oil exports, which they do have BTW, oil, gas, and coal are all exported from Egypt. However what would have an impact on prices is that running right through Egypt is this little water way we call the Suez Canal, and should that get blocked or closed the price of oil will rise.
So maybe patriot has been reading after all.

The bigger concern than the Suez Canal is that the example set by the people of Egypt will continue to expand to other countries, as it has to Lybia and Iran already. If uprisings in those and other countries expand, it could lead to destabilization and a huge spike in oil prices in the near term. At least for Brent crude. The reserves in America are still at record levels, which is why our futures are trading so much cheaper than the ones in the European market.

Type Bakken oil into google.

clbrown

Type some day in the future into google. Oil and gas under the ground is great, but hardly anyone uses it under the ground, so it must be brought up, in someones backyard, that is when NIMBY will be awakened, then it needs a pipeline to get it to the refinery. Neither of those is about to happen anytime soon.

I've actually done the math. Even if gas increases in price by $2 a gallon, that's only $2400 a year for the average American driver. That means it would have to be that much higher for 17 years before the savings could justify buying a new Volt instead of a nice gas car of similar size and performance.

I'm right there with ya. I say if I can afford the gas....then mind your business and stay out of mine. I have a Mustang GT that's getting 23mpg after some mods and a custom tune....that's pretty freakin good I think.

I use a turbin engine to tool around town. I use up anywhere from 3 to 5 gallons just to get around my suburbs! But I have great offroad abilities...It just sucks when I slip a tread.

Why would they care. It isn't like Honda is the only company in the world that has the technical expertise to build a hydrogen powered hybrid. That car has a very limited appeal to tiny sliver of buyers. Car companies build vehicles to make money, they don't care what those vehicles run on. It so happens that gas engines still appeal to about 99 percent of buyers. Until people start buying electrics and hybrids by the hundreds of thousands don't expect a huge push by automakers to build those type of vehicles.

At an estimated current cost of up to $140,000.00 per vehicle for the FCX Clarity and the fact that most hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels it begs the question why not just convert existing cars to natural gas. Sorry but the FCX will likely go the way of the EV1 & for much the same reason.

Honda produces another Civic on the line in Indiana that does run on Natural Gas, right now it is only sold in a few states, and I think only to fleet customers.

Fuel cells don't BURN hydrogen.... it goes through a chemical reaction to produce electricity and comes out as water vapor...

Phil, you're right but the switch away from fossil fuel has to start somewhere. Remember back in the 70s when the OPEC-engineered "oil crises" hit and the federal government created all those emission laws? American car companies were thrown into a situation where they were forced to build cars they didn't really want - or even have the know-how - to build, and they did a horrible job all the way up thru the 1990s.

By the 90s American car companies were in the rear because most people were now driving cars that Americans never would have even considered buying 30 years earlier. Even then it took Detroit a while to catch on, but look: now even Chevy is coming out with an electric vehicle.

Don't blame the American auto industries' disinterest and slow ability to react on newer technologies. Something will eventually replace fossil fuels, whether America is in the lead or not. US companies appear to be taking notice, and that's good for everyone. I just hope they stick with it, catch up, and take a leading role instead of being followers like they have been for the past 40 years.

There is one the Tesla-problem is is 90k.There will be more but the sad fact is gas might have to go up a lot to push the market in that direction,Other problem with electric cars is the body of the car needs to be lighter to offset the weight of the batteries(more composite/carbon fiber parts).There is one company in Japan hoping to bring down the enormous cost of these parts for Honda and Toyota through more streamlined less labor intensive manufacturing of them,

There's also Tesla's Model S which is priced in the market against BMW's (around $50k) and the like. That car looks hot, and goes 0-60 in 5.6.

Picture

Tesla Model S

"Best performing car on the internet"

hehehe...I'll believe it when I see them actually selling the production models.

Is its concept design gorgeous, oh hell yeah! It looks like a Mazeratti and Jaguar combined...sleek and gorgeous...here's to hoping they keep their promises on performance and price point

Amen......except for that Camaro part ;) I've had a 93, 99 and now an 09 Mustang.....the first 2 are still kickin with their new owners and my 09 is my therapy. No matter how bad your day at work is...if ya drive home with the top down and a sweet sounding exhaust...ya can't help but smile.

You're right it's not, but it's being used in a very new way. For example, in the past very few cars other than deisels and luxury/sports cars used turbocharging. But now it's even being applied in inexpensive volume models like the Chevy Cruze. That's a very novel use of the technology, which kind of in a way sort of makes it new, just for arguments sake...

apparently you forgot about chrysler in the 80's and early 90's. they offered a turbo on every model of car they built.

And the Chevy Corvair in the 60's.

I have a gas a gas guzzling SUV for what your talking about which happens few and far in between daily work excursions. So an electric car for the other 98.99% of the time would be just fine with me. So taking vacations is not a reason to own one all of your driving time........

You will need a gas powered car for the above mentioned trips. However, I agree that that is less than 5% of my driving time. GIVE ME an affordable electric car and I will drive that the other 95% of the time. GLADLY!!!!!

superlogi

The filling station is like anything else in your house, it is paid for by your electric bill. The cost to buy and install it, just like your AC is one you have to cover.

Are you talking about the koch bros., big oil that supports the gop trashbaggers.

Everett W Springer

Because they are sold out right now, that is what happens to new items when they hit the market.

I hope others feel the same way. If enough people buy EVs, it will send a message to OPEC that the Open Fuel Standard, bio fuels and synthetic fuels are not far behind and their days are numbered.

I like muscle but I will forego that if a respectable electric car is made.

You may not have to forgo fun to drive an electric. One point I haven't seen in the article or these comments* is the fact that electric motors, by their nature, provide gobs of torque, which translates into a lot of fun for the energy expended. Read a review of the Tesla, and you'll see that electric cars (granted, judging by one exotic, low-volume example; two, if the Fisker Karma is ever produced) can be a whole ton of fun. An added bonus is that the motor is relatively small and light, and the batteries can be placed lower in the chassis. Lowering the center of gravity is second only to lowering weight in terms of the driving enjoyment provided. Electrics do truly have the potential to be very entertaining cars for enthusiasts.

*comments on #20 do make this point nicely

It may relieve your mind to know that less than 11% of the oil we import comes from the Persian Gulf. The vast majority of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico. Persian Gulf oil mainly goes East, to India, China, and Japan.

Of course the majority of our oil demand is still filled from domestic sources. With the opening of the Bekken field, and resumption of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, there is no reason for us to import any oil at all from the Persian Gulf (except that it is so darn cheap). At a wellhead cost of $2 a barrel, Saudi crude is still the cheapest oil on the planet.

Standard production contracts split such that the production company gets 7/8ths while the royalty holder gets 1/8th. Even an 1/8th of billions of barrels has made the Saudis very rich, but it has made the production companies (the Seven Sisters) even more rich.

That is more than 1 million barrels of oil every day from the middle east and hundreds of billions of dollars going out of the country to buy oil every year. 1/3 of our imported oil comes from OPEC and they have not produced any more than they did 35 years ago.

CNG for local trucks, DME for long haul trucks, the Open Fuel Standard for cars, there are lot of things we CAN and SHOULD do but we will not. The situation is so huge and we are so dependent on oil, many people think that we can do nothing. We can do a lot, but everyone has to work together to make it happen.

The performance of electric motors is true but at the expense of battery life. Watch Top Gear's test of the Telsa, they managed to kill its batteries after something like 5 miles of hard driving.

You are correct. Electric motors generate 100% torque and HP at all RPM. I have a friend who worked on the Tesla Roadster and she said that she realy can't describe the launch off the line without comparing it to one of magnetic launched roller costers. She said as a driver it is hard to keep your hands on the wheel when launching in race mode. As development moves forward the prices will drop and the range will increase and the price will drop. Just like with all technology, the first ones out are not as refined as they will be in a few years.

Corvettes still use leaf springs in the rear, I know that's unrelated, it just disgusts me

That just proves you don't understand the principles of high performance suspensions.

They'reAllTheSame

Corvettes still use leaf springs in the rear, I know that's unrelated, it just disgusts me

Bugs me too! It's so inefficient both on weight, usage of space and performance. They do it because it's cheap...and the fact that it remains a feature in all Corvette models to this day is testament to the fact that GM cuts corners to prop up margins at your expense.

...Enjoy the oxcart technology fanboys

Watch Top Gear's test of the Telsa, they managed to kill its batteries after something like 5 miles of hard driving.

I watched it back in 2008 when it aired. You are confusing screen time with driving time. They were driving on a race track, racing it against the Lotus Elise (Tesla won), at top speed (120mph).

While you comment was technically true (it cut out after 5 minutes of screen time), it is quite misleading. After all, it would be difficult to drive it at the top speed for prolonged periods of time unless you are on a track.

Hopefully their reliability has increased, because they had a lot of problems.

That was my concern, the performance is great but at that price it shouldn't have all these problems.

What we need is better driver training and retesting at license renewal.

Driver training only goes so far when the average mass of vehicles on our roads skyrocketed with the advent of fashionable "gotta have it" SUVs. We need higher crash standards to deal with the monsters so many people drive on a daily basis. Driver training can help you avoid collisions, but nothing can save you from getting rear-ended or T-boned by an inattentive driver. If that driver is, as the odds say is likely, in a 2-3 ton SUV, you'll be damn glad your vehicle meets current impact standards. If you survive at all, that is. We can't effectively train drivers to pay attention; we can make vehicles safer.

I think what we need are tiered licenses.

All too often I see tiny little teenage girls and angry, oblivious soccer moms climbing into some giant SUV. They almost all have nasty dings, and I'm sure not even half of them bother to leave a note on the poor victims' cars they back into or scrape!

Similar to how different class licenses work, my suggested tiers would limit the maximum volume, weight, horsepower of a car that a person is allowed to drive, unless they take additional tests and pass far more rigorous courses.

This way, otherwise incompetant and unskilled drivers will be relegated to compacts that don't take up lots of room and don't have a lot of horsepower.

Save us all a lot of headaches.

That, or we could, you know...treat having a driver's license as a privilage as opposed to a right!

If we do it right and get the panels on a grid with all other power generators and they will work out fine. It will happen.

Even stand alone systems are doing well if a person can afford to put them in with private funds. If the panels are coupled with a small wind turbine and alternative heating system in cold climates, rural people are making a go of the technology.

...like conservation?We could save enough energy by reducing our use to pay for the research needed to improve solar and develop other sources of energy. As it stands now electric car = coal powered car in most of the USA. If commercial interests were left out of the equation there would already be clean renewable energy sources aplenty.

Nuclear is a proven, and now safe, method of cheap, efficient power. We are crazy to not be building plants left and right. The problems that the fear mongers use are a thing of the past.

What we need to do with nuclear is to develop and Type License standard modular reactors, start up a factory to crank them out, and plug them in when and where needed with no further paperwork. The Navy has suitable designs with a half century of safe operation history.

@ JohnCarter-428979

I think Mitsubishi's already on this one...too bad that the US as such ridiculous energy policies it would never happen here.

MHI_pebblebed_modular_reactor

We do not need more research, we know how to produce renewable energy now. It is lack of deployment in a country where the development capital is controlled by the rich and powerful who don't want renewable energy developed.

My thoughts exactly! Pony Car? There's only one..

(and it's NOT a Caamaro DUH!)

"the Germans....Pearl Harbor...?"

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that was offended by that! :)

Yeah, it is real macho to drive a gas guzzler and send someone else's kid to die in the middle east for oil.

Transmission...transmission...transmission!!! You would think being in business all these years, this component would be fairly well knocked.

Pizzed in NJ
"Except who in their right mind would buy a high powered Chrysler product? Ask any Law Enforcement bureau or police force. Dodges sit out in the repair yard needing continual structural repairs because they are junk. It's all motor and hype!"

Most out here use Chargers & they run circles around the Crown Vics.

Pizzed, you are right....that is one ugly car. I thought for a minute they'd forgotten to attach the grill, or something.

If you want to see ugly look at a Mazda 3, but at least it has a smile.