Bush did something alright. One of the first things he did was eliminate the increased mileage standards that were to take place in 2000. Because of this, The big three carmakers are going broke, while Honda and Toyota are building car factories here. Why? Because they just are not as stupid. One of the other great things Bush did was to overide the state of California’s higher gas mileage requirements, claiming the feds rules would be sufficient. Anyone remember Kenny-boy? Can anyone be so pigheaded as to actualy beleive that Bush is some kind of good guy?
Bush did something alright. One of the first things he did was eliminate the increased mileage standards that were to take place in 2000. Because of this, The big three carmakers are going broke, while Honda and Toyota are building car factories here. Why? Because they just are not as stupid.
Bull. The big 3 aren’t going broke because of a supposed elimination of a mileage standard. They are going broke because they are management heavy, unresponsive monsters that put out shoddy, overpriced products with little attempt at customer satisfaction after the sale. They will put out a product that nobody wants, or will screw up something that people would buy, then wonder why they aren’t selling anything. The Japs are doing well because they respond quickly to the market, put out a high quality product and care about their customers after the sale. This has nothing to do with federal laws. Put the blame where it belongs, with the automakers. Dodge is offering as much as a 44 percent discount on their full size trucks right now, and I’ll bet they are still making a profit.
Dunebilly - 19 August 2008 10:01 PM
One of the other great things Bush did was to overide the state of California’s higher gas mileage requirements, claiming the feds rules would be sufficient.
Yes, this was a great thing. Bush was correct to override California’s mileage requirements. Part of the problem we have with high fuel costs and high automobile prices today is the feds allowing individual states set their own standards. Even individual cities can set their own fuel formulations. Allowing different standards in different places drives up everybody’s costs. This also threatens all automakers, not just the domestics, because when you allow stupid crap to drive up costs you start driving businesses out of business. When a business goes broke, their employees lose jobs, and their suppliers lose jobs. The correct way to change emissions standards is to do it at the federal level, same with fuel formulations. People don’t like this because they have to be able to prove the need at the federal level, unlike at the California CARB level where the mandates only require someone to whine to get a tougher standard through.
Dunebilly - 19 August 2008 10:01 PM
Anyone remember Kenny-boy? Can anyone be so pigheaded as to actualy beleive that Bush is some kind of good guy?
No idea who Kenny-boy might be, but don’t mistake me for a Bush cheerleader. I simply believe that if you are going to place blame, place it where it is due. Bush is doing what he thinks is best for the whole nation according to his own views. Same way Clinton did, same way Bush Sr did, same way Reagan did, so on and so forth. Some folks simply think that because he ain’t “their boy” that he can do no right, and will find fault and overlook success no matter what. Apparently this Kenny-boy is one who would not see any bad in Bush, just as you can see no good. Nobody is perfect, not Bush, Clinton, McCain or Obama, they all have their good points and their bad points. You may choose to be half blind, but I don’t. Bush’s major failing in his 8 year term: going back into Iraq without sufficient strength, which was proven by the effectiveness of the troop surge. Had he gone back in with a 50 percent stronger force, we’d be several years further down the road than we are now, and be about 250 billion richer.
It was not a supposed elimination. Yes , they are greedy, which is why they prefer to make large cars, trucks, SUVs, they are more profitable. That is the stupid part. People want cars with good mileage. That is why there is a waiting list to buy a prius. The only reason Dodge is even still in business is because the feds bailed them out. Forget about that? Them Mercedes bailed them out as well. Still wasn’t enough. 44% off a full size truck, sounds like a real lose/lose proposition. The consumer loses by buying a gas pig and Dodge looses by selling a product at 44% off list. “I’ll bet they are still making a profit”. Obviosly not, or why would they cut their prices?
As far as it being a good thing, for California to lose it’s right to set it’s own emisions standards, under Bush, do you really think thats true? Because of California’ seperate system, most of the clean tech. that is in use was developed. Yet the carmakers somehow survived and prospered all these years, till Bush told them something they have been doing for decades was illegal. That is why 26 states are suing the E.P.A. The federal standards may be more “correct”, but they don’t mandate significant change until 2016. Do you really think we can wait that long? The federal mandate does not promote better mileage at all. It just puts it off till later. More smoke and mirrors. California wanted to do something NOW, which is why the EPA got involved. They don’t want higher standards now anymore than they did in 2000, or anything else that helps the planet or the economy or anyone other than the very rich. Stop listening to Rush Limbagh.
Kenny-boy was President Bush’s nickname for Kenneth Lay, the president of Enron, the company that fleeced California. While I agree that the Iraq invasion was a very bad idea, it was far from his “magor failing”. Bush’s major failing is that he is a patsy for the megarich and has always put their needs before the good of the country as a whole, thus leading to the situation we have now, rampant un or underemployment, food and fuel cost out of control, runaway inflation, weak dollar, need I go on? Aparently, but I tire easily these days.
Yes, they are still making money with a 44 percent discount, just not as much. Do you really think it takes that much to build a truck? They are using the same design they’ve been using on trucks for 75 years, frames with leaf springs in the back and coil springs or torsion bars in the front. They aren’t going to sell the trucks at a loss, they would dismantle the trucks and stock the parts for repairs before they would do that. I agree with you on the greed but not much else.
Yes, I think it’s true that removing the state’s ability to set its own rules on emissions is a good thing. Always have, always will. If California wants tougher rules, then California should be working through the EPA and Congress to make it happen. When the rules are changed, they should be a uniform rule across the nation. This way a car that is sold in Kansas is the same as a car sold in California. Every time you add special requirements that don’t apply everywhere, unnecessary costs are added. Same with the other emissions crap, gasoline, ect. Would it not be better to have tougher emissions laws and tougher gasoline requirements nationwide rather than in just specific areas? Even if we adopted the toughest of the standards, having them be uniform across the nation would ultimately cost less than the patchwork system we have now.
I see on Kennyboy. I also see you blaming Bush for that, when the whole thing got started under Clinton. Neither President was responsible for what California did to themselves. All Bush said was “You got yourself into it, you get yourself out of it.” If you are going to blame Bush for what California did to themselves because he didn’t bail them out, then you also have to blame Clinton for not stopping it to begin with, not that you’ll do that. I blame the heavily liberal Cali Democratic legislature for passing the legislation to begin with. They saw only what they wanted to happen, ie lower costs for the consumers, and disregarded everything else, ie the law of supply and demand, and the nature of greed. A well thought out piece of legislation would have included provisions for dealing with supply problems, including raising rates if necessary.
I never said going back into Iraq was a bad idea, I thought it was an excellent idea. I faulted him for his execution of the plan, by not going in with enough troops. Had he not gone back into Iraq, we’d still be flying sorties in Iraq for a billion a month with no end in sight like under Clinton, perhaps even setting up a Cuba policy where we wait Hussein dies on his own. Instead, we can now put an end to this, looks like in the next year with a victory provided Obama doesn’t get elected, forfeit and pull the US out willy-nilly. But does this mean it’s Clinton’s fault? No, he can only be blamed for inaction. The original fault would lay with Bush Sr for not finishing what he was forced to start to begin with. Had he removed Hussein at that time, we might have already been out of Iraq and been done with it.
This certainly isn’t the apropriate setting for for discussing the merits of this 800 billion plus (so far) act of war against a soveriegn nation, where we have no business being in the first place, and clearly we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I respect your opinion and respectfully disagee. As far as the feds deserving more power than they should have, don’t worry, they are taking it whether it is proper or not. Ever heard of states rights? I am not blaming Bush for what the theives at Enron did. Just that they were able to get away with it because he is one of them. Thievery is thievery regardless of who the perpetrator is. Just like the GOP’s present candidate. Mcain was one of the Keating-five, five senators caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, during the S.&L;. collapse of the mid-eighties. My family lost 350K that time around and I had friends who lost much more. Now you want that thief to be president? To all the familys who lost children in this needless war, started only for the as yet unseen profits of the oil companies, I apologise from the bottom of my bleeding heart.
This certainly isn’t the apropriate setting for for discussing the merits of this 800 billion plus (so far) act of war against a soveriegn nation, where we have no business being in the first place, and clearly we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I respect your opinion and respectfully disagee. As far as the feds deserving more power than they should have, don’t worry, they are taking it whether it is proper or not. Ever heard of states rights? I am not blaming Bush for what the theives at Enron did. Just that they were able to get away with it because he is one of them. Thievery is thievery regardless of who the perpetrator is. Just like the GOP’s present candidate. Mcain was one of the Keating-five, five senators caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, during the S.&L;. collapse of the mid-eighties. My family lost 350K that time around and I had friends who lost much more. Now you want that thief to be president? To all the familys who lost children in this needless war, started only for the as yet unseen profits of the oil companies, I apologise from the bottom of my bleeding heart.
You’re correct, this isn’t the place. This should have been limited to the gigantic power plants going up, but people these days are so charged up on politics it bleeds into places it shouldn’t be. We definitely have a difference on the Iraq war, which actually began in 1990, that we were sucked into due to treaty requirements with Kuwait. Sorry about the huge loss your family took, I myself lost some 200 grand when another company took a sudden dump due to similar shady practices. And all it takes to divert the discussion is “Thanks to (politician)...” or “If it weren’t for (politician) we’d...” to get both sides worked up. It isn’t that I want McCain to be President, it’s that he’s the best choice of the two that are running. If you want to see some REAL problems in the world see what happens if Obama gets… but now there I go, trying to rehash the same ol’ slop. I’ll try to not respond to any other politico crap on this thread, and perhaps we can get it back on target.
Getting back on track, I still wanna see every Wal-Mart Super Center, Target shopping center, or any other strip mall become a solar farm, with cells that stretch from the back of the building to the edge of the parking lot.
And not just comercial property but residential as well. Spain passed a law several years ago that mandated that all new construction, comercial or residential must have a solar roof. I thought this was a great idea and would spread around the world, but as far as I know, only Spain has such a law. How pathethic that Spain or any other country should be so far ahead of the U.S. in this regard. This is why I say that we can’t look to or wait for the Gov. to solve this energy crisis. It is going to require individual effort by all those that are able.
The permiting process alone has taken seven years so far. Every government agency from the individual towns to the farthest reaches of the feds are involved. For the most part the local opposition seems to be backing off, but does still exist.
Yep, read that about Spain, but it won’t fly here because it’ll raise the cost of housing. This is why I was looking at starting with big business. Since Wal-Mart has put a slowdown on building new stores due to market saturation, they could apply that capital towards going all solar with their stores. They would see a regular, increasing savings in their power bill, provided they could work a deal with the power company over the billing, AND they could reap tons of publicity over it. They could use the power savings to either undercut their competitors, or not change prices and improve profits. Big business is also the only ones that can afford to go to the suppliers and buy bulk panels under multiyear contracts, while guaranteeing enough business over the years (no way a company the size of Wal-Mart could convert all their stores to solar in less than 10 years) to prompt the solar gear suppliers to expand their manufacturing base. All this would make going solar cheaper for the residential side. Get a dozen companies like that to start going solar and I bet in 5 years you’d be able to get 300 watt panels for 100 bucks each.
So far as Cape Cod goes, as soon as Teddy succumbs to liquor poisoning the most vocal and visible opponent to wind power will go. NOTE: This particular comment only reflects Teddy Kennedy’s very vocal opposition to wind power, and nothing else.
One of my freinds put a photovoltaic system on his house several years ago. He gets a check from the electric company every month, which, combined with the savings of not having a bill, would have paid off in eight years, but the rates have gone up so much since then that his payback period will be much shorter. Rates are only going to continue to rise. The economic conitions already exist to make green energy feasible. Another freind heats his house with a small diesel genset burning free cooking oil and get free electric as well. A very large motel in Teddy’s home town uses a generator burning natural gas to produce all it’s electricity and hot water, cleanly saving a fortune. Another fellow burns the same amount of heating oil that he has always used, but in a generator instead of an oil burner and gets free electricity all year even though he only runs the generator during the heating season. A local chain of stores is installing small turbine will mills on the roof of all their stores, which will provide almost half of their electricity. My town hall now runs mostly on solar generated electricity. I could go on and on. The time is now, not hopefuly ten years from now. Lets start talking about what we can and are doing, instead of thinking up reasons why this or that scheme is no good.
The time is now, not hopefuly ten years from now. Lets start talking about what we can and are doing, instead of thinking up reasons why this or that scheme is no good.
Foolish thinking. If you don’t evaluate potential problems, you wind up with either a failed system, or you wind up rebuilding the system several times, all of which adds to the cost dramatically. I’d much rather fix a problem with a little forethought about what might go wrong than with expensive bits and pieces. Your way of not thinking up reasons why something won’t work is good only for draining the pocketbook for no good reason.
The ten year mark is what I figured it would take for a large retailer like Wal-Mart to convert all of its stores to solar. Even if they began the process yesterday, the sheer volume of equipment needed and time to install would take them 10 years, if not longer. It takes time to build this stuff. Nice thing is, if they DID enter into a contract to convert all their stores, this would spur larger production lines and innovations to produce more power from less panels. If the contract specified that each store’s equipment load must be able to generate 5 megawatts of power per day (just pulling a number out of my @$$ here, so don’t read too much into it) then the panel maker would have a financial incentive to build panels that can make the required power with fewer panels, and would have incentive to cut the cost to make each panel. Same with the rest of the gear. When the contract is fulfilled, they would still have the manufacturing facilities, which means more panels on the market, which would drive down costs for residential users, which means more people being able to afford the gear. On top of that, imagine the interest that would be generated by people seeing a large retailer using all solar, especially when you consider that the retailer will go WAY out of his way to make sure his customers know that “We’re greener than the competition, we use solar power to run our store and feed the excess back to the power company to power YOUR house!” This would be a marketing boom, and the knowledge that you’re already using solar power in your house thanks to the retailer, well, maybe solar power isn’t so exotic anymore.
See? Getting big business to jump onboard would be something that could be done RIGHT NOW. It would also be the most effective way to cut fossil fuel usage for power, since these big businesses are also the largest consumers of power. My local Wal-Mart shopping complex probably uses more power in a day than my house uses in a year.
I agree with you completely. I think efforts must me made on every front. What I am trying to say is that there are viable alternatives available now, and homeowners should not have to wait until big business or the government or anyone else propels them. Lets utilize whats available now. Most research universities and most big corperations are already way into research/investment in green energy. The train is already rolling down the tracks. We just need more people to get onboard and use what is available. We can switch to more effective means as they become available.
Conservation is key. It helps out every day all day. Sunny, windy, or not.
With all the talk of how warm it is in the stove room (me included) it probably wouldn’t be bad to conserve wood either.
Yes, I agree with you Dunebilly, up to a point. The masses are living paycheck to paycheck. While changing equipment to go renewable/solar/wind/what have you will in the long run cost less than living as they do, that initial outlay for gear is something the average joe can’t swing. Then there’s other considerations such as home owner’s associations. They regulate everything about your place right down to the color you are allowed to paint your house. I’ve already had to tangle with mine over the outside TV antenna I have. I only won that due to federal law. And, all that’s assuming that your place is correctly located and has the correct access to good sun/wind to make it usable to begin with.
Big business, on the other hand, tends to have large pieces of land available, or at least large patches of roof available for renewables. They aren’t usually located in areas where it would be unsightly to have renewable power installed, in fact since most big business has flat roof buildings RE gear might not even be seen at all. They also tend to have the capital available to buy the gear available. Only by engaging big business to invest in solar big time will we get enough of a market for solar gear to get an industrial base large enough to bring the costs down to where Joe Sixpack can afford to convert over. I could see a lot of people being able to put back 5 grand to go solar, but not 30 grand.
The most Joe is going to be able to do is switch to CFLs, keep his filters clean, be disciplined about keeping unused gear shut off, and add insulation. Beyond that…
