Slashdot Mirror
GM Cornered Into Defending the Volt
Al notes a story in Technology Review reporting on a CMU study (now over a month old) claiming that the Volt doesn't make economic sense, and GM's response. The study suggests that hybrids with large batteries offering up to 40 miles of range before an on-board generator kicks in simply cost too much for the gas savings to work out (PDF). Al writes: "Unsurprisingly, GM disputes the claims, saying 'Our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack.' Interestingly, however, GM admits that the tax credits for plug-in hybrids will be crucial to making the volt successful. Without those credits, would an electric vehicle like the Volt be viable?"
If you want a decent electric car might I first suggest you get rid of the oil company and foreign oil company interests OUT OF YOUR BOARD ROOM?
Thank you.
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
They make big, gas-guzzling pieces of shit and the idiots who bought them are the reason why the U.S. is so damn fucked up.
They made the Escalade and the Escalade was the reason why suburban housewives turned all NIGGER on us. And they want a fucking bailout?! Fuck 'em, let 'em drown.
Electric is not the answer, because it only shifts fuel costs to your electric bill. Since my electric bill goes well over $300 a month in the summer (AC usage), I can't even begin to guess how expensive it would be to charge my car every night.
I'm not a fan of Hybrids (yet), but at least that system doesn't accrue the additional cost of an electric bill to go with your gasoline bill.
because the american consumer won't buy it
the american consumer won't buy it, because the american consumer is complacent about fossil fuels
sometimes you need to foot the bill, you need a strong central government to force the issue, because the market place won't solve the problem
market forces are NOT the source of all progress in this world
the government needs to step in, overruuling the whining conservatards, and mandate what consumers can buy and what manufacturers can make
why?
because:
1. the technology will prove itself as more economically viable than fossil fuels once the recharging infrastructure is in place and technology improves
2. fossil fuels are going to become more expensive no matter what, simply because it will get harder and harder to dig up, and more and more demand is growing world wide. we can prepare for the future now or suffer more
3. the geopolitical reality is that soccer moms refueling their SUVs are paying for gasbags like chavez in venezuela, islamic nutjobbery via saudi wahabbism, and russian neoimperialism. that comes back to bite us in the ass. but those geopolitical realities, that soccer mom is paying for, is completely decoupled form her considerations when she shops for a new SUV
4. the environment. yes, conservatards, we need to tackle the endless dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere. begin your al gore jokes and your head in the fucking sand
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you know what conservatards? sometimes you need a large government and strong regulations. no, really, you really do
Like the PATRIOT Act. Gotcha!
You'll give up your freedoms because Al Gore says there is a danger, but not because George Bush says it?
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming. When the government taps my phone, it makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. It has absolutely no impact on my freedom. Taxing gas or telling me what I am or am not allowed to drive has a DIRECT impact on my life.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is clearly not a troll. Did a bunch of Enron employees get /. account or something?
the contrast between freedom and security is a false dichotomy. terrorists are not people who take advantage of freedoms in order to make havoc, therefore showing us the need to constrain freedoms. rather, terrorists are people produced form societies with no freedoms at all. thereby showing us the need to maintain freedoms and EXTEND them
meanwhile, when you throw your beer can from your hunting blind, you're an asshole. you have no freedom, nor did you ever have the freedom, to do that. so when someone makes a law that you, as a consumer, can not litter, or some coal company has to scrub its CO2, this is not freedom that is being taken away, this is simply good stewardship of the land being enforced on assholes who mistake their laziness and irresponsibility with the notion of freedom
you don't have the freedom to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts me, my environment, that i share with you. the notion of freedom never ever included your right to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts other people. when you litter, you impose on my freedom, and i, in the name of my freedom, and the freedom of y societ yot have a clean environment, will fight lazy irresponsible assholes like you, who don't even understand what freedom really is
is that enough "straight talk" for you genius? am i unclear on any concepts?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Neither GM nor Crapsler are viable as on-going businesses.
Their assets will sold to China.
Good riddance.
Yours In Socialism,
K. Trout
For one thing you could try taking a shower and finding some friends. You have never had the desire to fit more than 1 other person in your car? That is just plain sad. Really.
tell me something market fundamentalist:
how come the markets, in their infinite wisdom, are not immune to human fear and human greed?
what i mean by that is, it is an obvious rule, bourne out by hundreds of examples from the historical record (look at the bank panics in the 1800s) that an unregulated marketplace is a market place of boom and bust
what is happening in the market right now, is merely the product of weakened regulations by the government
so what is the purpose of the government? it is to regulate and serve as a steward of the marketplace. because left to its own devices, simple human psychology means it will bubble and pop, bubble and pop, forever. regulation and a strong central government STABILIZE the market
and you, in your "infinite wisdom" confuse this prudent intelligent stewardship of the market with, what did you say? "Ahh yes... Big brother knows best. People don't make good decisions on their own. They need someone else to make decisions for them."
hey, genius: it is possible to have a well regulated marketplace without everyone being mind-controlled communists. really. you should look into this notion sometime, and not blindly swallow your conservatard propaganda and hysteria
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ha! Love that. Basically he is saying that yes, he does see a need for a larger car. But he'll let other people take care of that for him. I'm sure they are all just totally happy to provide practicality for him while he buys fun cars. Wish he were my friend. Guess they like the role of driving miss daisey.
I expect that as technology progresses that the batteries will get better, but I am still hopeful that there will be more effort put into developing hydrogen powered cars. Then you would not need the huge acid lead batteries, emissions from the vehicles would be literally just water, and all the innovation could be focused on generating hydrogen.
I wish people who don't understand basic laws of physics wouldn't spout nonsense with this level of confidence.
Do I really have to explain that the energy required to produce the hydrogen is greater than the energy released by burning it? Obviously I do, that was a rhetorical question.
All a hydrogen economy needs it an unlimited free source of energy to use to produce the hydrogen in the first place...of course, if you HAD such an energy source, you don't need the GODDAMN HYDROGEN.
Cheap, proven technologies are still steps down a dead end road.
So I should give up my bicycle and kayak then?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"Of course not. My point was--and remains!--that the ORIGINS of the idea of human rights is Western, and that the foundations of the idea of RATIONALLY reaching a conception of human rights that is objectively correct and universal, is a western idea. The foundation is rooted in centuries of philosophies and philosophers that I would be happy to get into a longer discussion about, but I don't think you're really interested in that."
incredibly patronizing, condescending, and flat out historically inaccurate
i also especially love how you boil my argument for innate humanism as a conceptualization of "the noble savage"
ha! do i laugh or do i cry?
i feel like i am talking to rudyard kipling. whoever the fuck you are, you certainly channel the arrogance of "white man's burden" perfectly. did you just step out of 1890?
"I really have to say, for all of your (imho bizarre) talk of alleged universality of mores, you're really pretty damn rude"
your arrogant blind ethnocentrism deserves far worse than rudeness
but please, ignore me, i'm just a "noble savage"
the victorian age lives on!
i await your lecture to me on the merits of phrenology
wait, let me go wax my moustache
what a fucking ideological fossil you are
pfffffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it