Hydrogen fuel celled cars.

ok alamein,
You are losing considerable amount of credibility with these shots at F_alk. I’m really missing the whole nazi/F_alk/Jewhating connection here. Either demonstrate your point more clearly, or you run the risk of sliding into my “to be ignored” books (not that you necessarily care . . .).

Also everyone - with respect to my comments about “roadblocks” by car manufacturers, you seem to either have taken this out of context, or i have not made my point more clearly. I was simply suggesting that gov’t should do what is necessary and work in partnership with the auto corporations to cut any needless red tape, and possibly make life a little easier on them with respect to the necessary conversions.

@alamein:

F_ALK - just like a naazi to twist my words around.

Assume a harsher warning from me here than the one CC gave you.

MY PROOF THAT THERE IS NO CORPERATE BOOGEY MAN- dragging his heels on hydrogen cars to force you to buy oil.

The fact is: the income gap widens
You yourself say, that the government (in a position of at least some power) will not give back any income or influence they have, unless forced to.
Now, in the US you can easily see that corperations have more influence and money than the government.

Why the hell should they be “better humans” than the politicians?
Why should they be better than us “normal humans”? Us, that’s the ones who can’t get communism to work because, we are too greedy and egoistic.
There is no conspiration theory…… it is all logic and clear.
To get more money, you do everything in your power… that’s what coperations do. Problem is, that ethics does not count anything anymore, expect to pretend to be ethical to sell more and earn more.
to me it’s totally logical bahavior. Disgusting, but logical.
a small PS: why is the coperate bogeyman a conspiration, but the Saddam Hussein bogeyman is not? The amount and validity of “evidence” is pretty much the same.

when the environmental lobbies first gained enough influence in congress to inact environmental laws …
now had they not been serious about refining the technology to be more eco friendly this trend would have continued - right?

No, because the environmentalists pushed on… and after one technology has been optimized (which means they could not get out more of it for a decent amount of costs), the car companies had to change they way to keep their profits.

but it did not. along came improvements in fuel metering and delivery, and gas mileage went up- …
there is no conspiracy, no legislation is needed, the changes will happen soon enough.

There was no legislation in the first place? No legislation that kept pushing?
Why are suddenly all these SUVs so hip? Because the legislation makes them hip… big cars with little tax… isn’t that so (the low tax) ?

that’s the problem with young people you always want things your way now.

Not refering to me anymore now?

… I drive from xenia ohio to pittsburg pen … why should I give that up because someone not quite half my age feels the world will explode tomarrow if I don’t buy a hydrogen mini cooper?

If you pay for it, it’s fine…. but you have to pay for all the hidden costs as well, not only for the obvious, like gas or insurance.

you kids have no Idea how long your life is. …

I have… and i see that each generation has only borrowed this planetr from the next generation. We are responsible for what we leave for our kids and grandkids.
You refer to Darwinism in economy quite a lot… then go back to the roots of it: The only aim of each species is to keep existing. So, our only goal should be, that our species can exist on for many many generations.
But, at the moment, it looks to me more like the following metaphor:
A bunch of bacteria infected a human. They multiplied and multiplied for many generations, being quite happy with that.
At some stage, the human starts to sicken… the bacteria keep multiplying, because that’s what they have done for generations, and that’s what was successful for those many generations. Still, if they multiply once more, the human will die, and all of them will die as well…
but… why change this very successful strategy, that has worked so wonderfully for so many countless generations… “it’s only some weirdos who want to create panic” the bacteria thought and multiplied once more…

like that old saying- “you can’t rush progress” and you can’t. the technology will come out and be progressively developed so that everyone gets the oportunity to benefit from it. not just a select few.

Can everyone afford the best medical health care? Or only a selected few?
Can everyone benefit from the surveillance (like the one the US, UK, Australia and some others did on central europe, stealing patents?), or just a selected few?
You call me follwoing a conspiration theory, i call you naive and giving away the bit of influence everyone possesses by your own choice.

and F_ALK- the idea that if we had a few visionaries to raise taxes and force people to convert is a bad Idea. once you give the government a precident they will keep it. do you think they’ll give that money back once the technology is out there. no- it will pad their wallet and benefit the social programs of their constituates. see federal income tax. IE… originally a temporary tax to pay for WW2. hmmm. and then what else will they force on us? GPS sensors- “well if you ever come up missing we can locate you instantly”, pretty soon we’re all doing government prescribed exercises, and living and working in ghettos.

So, here again… why is the government worse than CEOs? Why are CEOs not as greedy, when they are as human?
How does everyone benefit from GPS and not just a selected few?
You seem to be as suspicious of the government as i am, but you are blind towards the corperations, which i eyes as suspicious as the government (with the one difference, that i have to buy my votes for or against CEOs (by buying shares), whereas for the government i own a vote).

oh yes, and the germans found a way to easily Identifly the jews for racism, they made them sew a big yellow star on their clothes. that way you could easily Identify who you hated. you have to have some way to easily Identify who you hate.

The star was a later stage. Read some of the history books, i really recommend “History of a german” or “From Bismarck to Hitler” by Sebastian Haffner.

From a later post, you said:

Isaid I was not a racist because I didn’t hate anyone based on a particulaly identifiable trait. he replied that the jews had no identifiable triat and the nazis really hated them. I was merely commenting that they over came this by making them wear the stars.

Ok, so you really belive the hate started with the invention of the star? Or with the forced second names? No. It started before that. And it was not about any recognisable traits…

the naazi thing was only a poke at fun.

Sorry, there is one thing i do not at all understand any fun about. I would without any hesitation take the ban from this board if you do that once again.

Its not the auto industry holding fuel cells back. Its the oil lobby and Auto industry unions.

@alamein:

and you’ve got some of the replies jumbled together.

that can ahppen if you have to watch the number of your replies :9

once again my point was lost.

yup, it seems like i misunderstood you there…. but then, when you notice i drift off, why do you drift with me in the first place and don’t clear up my possible misunderstanding (see the copererate bogeyman).

I too care about the environment as a matter of personal responsibility.
…I’m not anti environment - but because I disagree with your methods you insinuate I am.

Not really….
I just wonder how you can say these two points:
(1) Mankind is “selfish”, as i deduce from your statements about life and the “law of the jungle”. They are more often animal than “humanistic”.
(2) To promote the “better for all” we don’t need laws, but it is everyones responsibility.

These two match pretty fine on the first thoughts.
But:
If i am concerned only about me, and everyone else is as well (especially those who hold the power!), why should anything i do help the rest, make life better for the rest? The others are my competitors, my “natural enemies” when it comes to achieving any goals. I don’t want to do any good for them, i want to do “good for me”. Therefor, those in power can use (and do use) their power, to stay in power an accumulate more of it, to be “More successful”. Laws, that could channel or limit their activities, are of course nothing they want. These laws would not help them in their aim of “getting more”, but be “contra-productive” to them.
The weak on the other side… they also want more power, and if they join in this fight “each vs. each”, they are easy tools for the powerful, and will do a lot for simple promises given by the powerful (like “promotion in their job” or even “keeping their job”). On teh other hand, if they join together, to follow a common goal, and add up their little powers to a single bigger one… well, that could be a threat to those in power, and has to be fought.

I don’t know if you have read about gaming theory (you might have seen “a beautiful mind” though, that’s just the topic)… but there it is proven, that cooperation between individuals is much more powerful than these individuals each fighting for their own goals.
I really recommend to read a book on this, if you want me to look up a good, i would not hesitate to do that.

So, in short: you say “good for one leads to good for all”, i say “good for all includes good for one”.
I hope you can agree that what is good for all must be good for one. If it was not, it wouldn’t be good for all. But to prove that things that are good for one lead to things that are good for all… that will be a hard task, especially if the aims of the “ones” are selfish.

just like when you said I have racist tendencies

i say everyone has racist tendencies… i agree with you that basically mankind is “selfish”, “evil”, whatever you want to call it… but we have the brains to overcome that (although we don’t use it unfortunately).
(I also say everyone has prejudices… and was attacked here severely for that… but not to have prejudices means that you have been everywhere and talked with everyone and saw everything. As soon as you hear someone saying something, as soon as you have to “believe”, that soon you have prejudices…)

… or even though I am extremely anti government you accuse me of being brainwashed by their propaganda. come on now.

where did i call you brainwashed by the government? It’s more “brainwashed” by the powerful (that’s not necessarily the government). In my previous post i called you suspicious of the government, how could i call you brainwashed by them?

…
please bear in mind that I have listened to all of your arguments, and where applicable acknowledged my mistake.

Yes, and i listen to yours, and think about them. Problem is, not all are not really new to me.
As well, we communicate just by what we write and read. It is very easy to have misunderstandings here…. and once you settle you own opinion (or prejudice, as we have never seen each other but rely on this limited channel of communication)… i know how hard to it is to change…
i had some trouble with CC at the beginning… I came to learn that there are points where i think others are utterly wrong, just to agree wholeheartedly on something else… but that takes time and more than a handful of posts on one topic.
Remember you once said i would hate you…
just ot clear up some points. i never accused you of being anti-environmentalist, i was suprised to read your posts and see your opinion. But to me, it looks like you took my reply to negative: All i wanted was to point out that we disagree about the “ways” and which would workl, not the “aim” that seems to be the same for us.
And i still disagree about the ways with you, i hope thsi point made it clear that it’s (more or less :) )just about that

@F_alk:

i had some trouble with CC at the beginning… I came to learn that there are points where i think others are utterly wrong, just to agree wholeheartedly on something else… but that takes time and more than a handful of posts on one topic.

with me? but but but,
i thought everyone liked me, and agreed with everything i had to say :cry:
THERE!!! See what you’ve done? You’ve gone and made CC cry again.
Gee . . . if you “had some trouble” with me, i’m thinking Fin damn near had a coronary. Yikes.
Stupid Christians . . . .
:P

I’ve finally got around to reply to you (granted it’s at 5 am, but still . . .@TG:

From USA,

1. It’s the right thing to do in the efforts/battles to be more environmentally sound. Gov’t must set an example in this regard. Particularly if they are going to support Kyoto (Canada) - they need to be more forward looking then simply applying fines and penalties. They must lead the charge to cleaner air.

Yes, I’m for the environment (just as long as TM doesn’t find out)… however there is a BIG Difference between task that should be done in the public and private sector. When there are profits to be made, than it should be the job of the private sector (as in FCVs). However, environmental dollars should be going to fund such initiatives as protecting the wildlife habitats (which if you read, Mr. Bush isn’t too keen on) which make no return profit.

well, profits will at some time be made. It is not the gov’ts role to say “whoops, the auto industry may be making a profit if we help them convert to environmentally friendly cars - maybe we shouldn’t help”. I’ll stand by my point that it is a moral issue for gov’ts to get involved regardless of whether they help the auto-manufacturers out inadvertantly. Besides, if they did, and Canada were to become a great leader in this market, you can bet that the gov’t would soak up a lot of tax money on this technology - just because they can :P

2. They need to remove excuses from the auto industry and supply industries. When there are roadblocks, gov’t should help remove them.

It is not that there are “roadblocks,” it’s just that car companies don’t want to make an effort. How much have are CAFE standards increased within the past decade. In most cases they have actually come down… :-?

I think i’ve dealt with this . . . .

3. Gov’t (at least in Canada) is too heavily involved in the energy sectors as it is. For them not to be involved in these kinds of options would be hypocritical. Also it levels the competition playing field - more incentive for industry to get involved if gov’t is too.

Competition will help ensure advances in these fields. I am afraid that the government will unlevel the playing field (as they did in their bail out of Chysler)… :-?

This happens all the time. It does not appear fair, but at the same time when/if this happens out here, i just close my eyes and pretend that they are doing this for the benefit of the people they govern. Pending legislation regarding not accepting corporate donations will help me sleep easier in this regard.

4. They are already involved to some degree. Vancouver has public transport running on these fuel cells. It would be great to get these into every bus across the country.

Yes, that would be a good idea. However, this should be made available by the private sector which can do things at more affordably

ahhhhh . . . a capitalist after my own heart :D
at the same time, this is a moot point. Gov’ts fund/grant academic research which is seized by industry, and applied. I’d rather this in the hands of the academics initially anyway. Also with due regard to all the chirping about the auto manufacturers desire to be more enviro-friendly, i don’t buy them flowing along with the winds of change. These people are as old school as tobacco, smith&wesson, etc. Don’t tell them how to build cars . . . .

5. Gov’t does not have to merely shell out money. In Canada it dearly needs to give more grant money to academic institutions to forward this research, but it needs also to find ways to reward businesses with tax incentives etc. who push research and development in these areas.

Yes, as I mentioned before, gov. rebates on LEVs or ZEVs are a good thing. :)

6. Gov’t needs to stop the flow of cash outside the country to the Middle East, etc. Canada is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world requiring a significant amount of money to be spent on transport energies. Much of this leaves the country. If it could stay in the country, be allocated to productive means instead, we’d be much further ahead of the game and be more competitive on a globel scale.

The simplist way to reduce dependacy on oil is to hit it at the consumer where it counts - his wallet. The minute this happens, there will be a rapid turnaround to support FCVs, which will in turn move us away from the Middle East.

i don’t know. The consumer many times takes a while. I don’t see changes in auto demand based on gas prices - we all need cars, and we all need to drive. I walk anywhere within 30-45 minutes of my home - even in -30 (celcius) temperatures despite owning a 2002 Nissan Sentra (very fuel efficient). At the same time, i’m trying to not be fat and not drive unless i have to. This does not apply to middle aged, middle income guys who need to drive it to work daily.