Tuesday, 23 September 2014

‘I heart fossil fuels’ at the #People’sClimateMarch

image

And the only one there fanning a different fire? The courageous Alex Epstein from the Center for Industrial Progress, brandishing a copy of his new book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and a banner and T-shirt the same.

Why did he do it? Because he figured protestors should know they are marching against the lifeblood of civilisation.

29 comments:

  1. I have a new hero! Thank you, Alex Epstein, for speaking for reason, progress and the starving millions in under-developed countries.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He is a brave man. Those are angry, dull minded people he is surrounded by. They are dangerous.

    They are self-satisfied with their own self-delusions and dishonesty. They feel they are good, true and right in their random religious beliefs in spite of what reality is all around them. They turn their backs on reality. They are beyond reasoning with and unreachable. Such people are dangerous and rapidly descend into emotionalism and blind violence. He was in danger of being assaulted. He is brave.

    The good news is that he demonstrates for all of the viewers how aimless and slack these "protesters" are. They are not a social force at all. They are ballast. Inert. Brain dead. Without a future. At some point each of those foolish people is going to have to confront the fact that productive people do not want to sacrifice in order to keep them alive, whether as pets or out of sympathy. Then they'll wish they had been brave..........

    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  3. Way to miss the point. Imagine a picture of someone 100 years ago holding a 'I heart horse & cart' sign. In the not too distant future this clown will look just as stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave

    You are the one that looks stupid. You made yourself a fool.

    A photograph such as what you mention does not demonstrate the person as stupid. Even today a horse and cart is better than many people are able to have. 100 years ago it was better than the vast majority of people could have or ever hope to attain. Anyway, a person with such a sign is merely expressing his love of horses and carts. There is nothing wrong with that choice, even now. Leave such a person in peaceful enjoyment of his or her preferences. Stay out of other people's business, Dave. Don't be a busybody.

    As it happens, hydrocarbon fuels are the most convenient and best means of getting energy. Those marching ninnies owe their lives to it. They all get fed because of its exploitation. They all get clothed because of its exploitation. They owe their education, entertainment, income, sustenance and existence to its exploitation. As was pointed out in the VDO clips, everything those morons had (including their lives) was owed to the exploitation of hydrocarbon fuels- even their silly signs. And yet........ they want to ban or at least severely limit the exploitation of hydrocarbon fuels. These horrible creatures are beyond stupid. They are unappealing and ugly. They are incompetent to survive. The trouble is, they want to force their idiocy onto everyone else.

    Best solution for everyone would be for these ban oil types to give up using oil fuels and energy supplies as well as all the products and services that rely on its exploitation. Then all they need do is leave the rest of us alone. They'll all die and be recycled into the environment. Hey, it's their choice to do it. No loss. The rest of us can live our lives in peace.

    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Imagine a picture of someone 100 years ago holding a 'I heart horse & cart' sign. In the not too distant future this clown will look just as stupid."

    Actually, it's that statement that looks pretty stupid to me. Horse and carts didn't become superseded by morons marching through the street chanting "horse and carts must go". Nor did email become the most efficient form of written communication by protesting against typewriters and the postal system. These things became possible by innovators and capitalists looking forwards and developing better ways to do things.

    To better something you firstly have to appreciate what you've got, and respect the work that that goes into making it a possibility. The protestors show none of that. You don't make progress forwards by going backwards, and going backwards is certainly what they would achieve if they had their say.

    Good on Alex Epstein for confronting these idiots with a bit of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Mark & Amit

    You really should make sure you understand someone's point before calling them stupid. I never said protesting would supersede fossil fuels, although there is no harm in talking about problems caused by their use.

    Fossil fuels are extremely inefficient and eventually in the future anyone wearing a 'I heart fossil fuels' shirt is going to look like a moron, regardless of the context.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dave

    You really are stupid. You just confirmed it.

    Can you read and comprehend what you are reading? Does your post in reply address anything I wrote? Here, I'll make it easy for you. The answer is, no your post does not address what I wrote.

    Anyway, let's look at what you are claiming today.

    "Fossil fuels are extremely inefficient.."

    According to who?

    By what measure?

    Fact is they are efficient indeed. They are the most efficient source of energy for a myriad of applications. For example, there is nothing better for private automobile transport. They are easy to distribute to tens of millions of users. They are easy to handle. They are energy dense. Their properties are well known and understood. They are reliable. They are universal. They are affordable (even with over 100% product specific taxation and restrictive regularion placed upon them). They are readily available. They are easy to process to usable state (for a start there is no necessity to win them, merely recover, refine and distribute- very much more efficient than any other mineral or energy source). The machinery that uses them is scalable from fractional kilowatt to hundreds of megawatts. The machinery that converts their potential energy to kinetic (or electric or whatever) is reliable, effective, economic and well understood. Not only are they efficient, effective and economic, they are irreplacable for the vast majority of applications.

    Perhaps there might be another technology available en mass in several hundred years. Perhaps not. Perhaps sooner. Perhaps later. Fact is, at minimum, for the duration of my lifetime and likely my children's, it is a secure bet that there will not be anything replacing these fuels, let alone competitive with them for the vast majority of applications.

    Eventually, in the future, anyone reading about the nonsense beliefs of these marchers will think they were all total morons. They'll be right with that conclusion.

    Amit



    ReplyDelete
  8. "According to who" "by what measure"

    Speaking of facts, 3/4 of the energy produced by petrol engines is wasted due to heat and friction. You are a moron, Amit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dave

    Look what you just did. You promoted an arbitary observation of no practical use, value, validity or interest to the person who makes the choice to use that particular fuel in that particular engine type for their particular application.

    Again you confirmed you are stupid- really, really stupid.

    It does appear you are not able to read and comprehend what you are reading. Does your latest post address what I wrote to you? Again the answer is, no your post does not address what I wrote.

    Anyway, I'll make it easy for you. Here is what you are doing. First you write this, "Fossil fuels are extremely inefficient.."

    I asked you, "According to who?" You failed to respond. The answer is, according to you. You completely fail to consider all the attributes of this fuel type which make it by far the most efficient at meeting the requirements and needs of the people who choose to use it for the applications they use it for. You completely fail to think of the hundreds of millions of individual decisions that other people are making to use this fuel type. What you do is put your personal beliefs and preferences as superior to those of ALL those others who prefer that which you do not. How ignorant and self-centred you are.

    I asked you, "By what measure?". Again, you failed to respond. The answer is that you choose an arbitary measure which few people know about, understand or ever use when making their decision to purchase and use a fuel for their application. You completely fail to consider all the measures of attribute of this fuel type which reveal it as by far the most efficient at meeting the requirements and needs of the people who choose to use it for the applications they use it for. You completely fail to think of the hundreds of millions of individual measures of evaluation that other people employ when making their decision to use this fuel type. What you do is put your personal beliefs and preferences as superior to those of ALL those others who prefer that which you do not. How ignorant and self-centred you are.

    There is no idiot worse than the type who tries to force his idiocy into the lives and business of other people. You are such an idiot.

    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  10. Amit, go ask everyone you know if they consider 1/4 efficiency to be efficient. You'll find you are the only one. You mention how people 'choose' to use fossil fuels. There is no choice, not because they are efficient, but because they are far more profitable.

    If you can make a killing on a 1/4 efficient energy source, then there is no incentive to develop something more efficient that people will buy less of. Eventually though fossil fuels will become too expensive & better technology will prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dave

    Again you are failing to read and comprehend what you are reading. This time I fear you are doing it deliberately. This is willfull dishonesty on your part.

    Dave, the thermal efficiency of an idealised thermodynamic gas cycle happens to be of little value (nil or at best vanishingly tiny) or interest to hundreds of millions of people making the choice to employ hydrocarbon fuels in an internal combustion engine for whatever it is that is their application for it. If your random measure was important to other pepole, then they'd value it and use that measure in formulating their choice. Fact is they don't. They do not think your value or your aesthetic is important enough to warrent attention. They ignore it, as they ignore you. And that is how it should be. They decide what is imporant FOR THEM.

    There is always a choice to use fossil fuels or not to. It is easy enough to make the choice. You are not forced to go down to the servo and make a purchase. I put it to you that you are a hypocrit who actually does purchase fossil fuel and use it.

    Your problem is that you have a childish dream you'd like to wish into existence. Trouble for you is that few others share your approach. You are a member of a sub-species of cranks and crackpots- idiots one and all. In order to see your dream realised you hector, cajore and want to impose on other people's lives at great cost to them. What a busybody you attempt to be! Fortunately the world does not work according to your dreams and wishes.

    Dave, If YOU so much want other people to use a technology according to YOUR values, then YOU have to provide a superior technology for them to use. That means it would have to better meet THEIR values (which is one reason you'll never be able to do it- you are far to self-obsessed in your own prejudices and feelings to bother listening, understanding and developing what others require, what they value and what they want). Assuming you did make supply, if it really was better at meeting other people's requirements and values, then they'd come to you to purchase your service and your product. They'll want it IF it is better for THEM and better serves THEIR interests when employed in their applications then does any alternative. The incentive is that if you can provide a better product or service (in this case a technology) that serves people's needs and values better than any alternative, then you will be well rewarded indeed. You'd be wealthy beyond dreams! Here is the rub though, hydrocarbon fuels, along with the associated engineering technologies, are extremely efficient at providing what people want. We both know that you have nothing which could in any, way, shape or form even get close to competing. You have nothing.

    What the hell is wrong with you. Grow up.

    Amit


    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Dave - You don't measure efficiency by comparing it to some fantasy standard of perfection you've made up - or taking a poll without context on whether people thing 1/4 is efficient - you measure it by comparing it to what is possible, with current technology, in the real world we live in.

    It is a grasp of this reality that the protestors are sorely lacking - and when Alex Epstein is brave enough to stand alone and confront them with reality you call him "stupid" (yes, you started the name calling - not me). A grasp of reality is also lacking with your conspiracy theory that petroleum companies are stopping more efficient solutions from developing. Anyone who could find a more efficient energy source would corner the market and make a fortune, and even if the petroleum companies wanted to stop it getting out, there's no way they possibly could. It's akin to saying that that Apple have no motivation to put out a better Iphone every year because they make plenty of money selling current technology - and that this stops anyone else from producing a better phone too. Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark

    You are right on the money. It is sheer crackpottery to pretend the stories about how some evil petrochem companies are suppressing 100mpg carburettors and some B/S of the minute phony-balony "technology" are fact. Dave has the tin-hat wearing conspiracy lunatic disease. Trouble is that idiots like him (and like all those vacant looking marchers) want to force their lunacy onto everyone else at whatever cost. That's not good.

    While I am prepared to see them all perish unmolested, should they abandon their hypocracy and act as they preach, they fail to do me and the rest of us the same courtesy (of staying out of our lives and business). They must learn to leave others fully alone. Stay out of our business.

    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  14. HEHE DAM BEATNICKS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Mark - 1/4 efficiency is terrible regardless of the context. And I never said anything about perfection being the standard.

    It is naive to think that the most profitable mass market energy solution is necessarily the best current technology. About 15 years ago GM introduced the EV1: Customers loved it but when they realised its efficiency would mean the collapse of their spare parts industry it was recalled. In other words they realised old school automobiles were more 'economically viable' than better technology.

    "Anyone who could find a more efficient energy source would corner the market and make a fortune, and even if the petroleum companies wanted to stop it getting out there's no way they could"

    Makes sense in theory, but you are ignoring the huge power and influence large companies have both in the marketplace & the legal system. If you truly had a 'grasp of reality' you would have considered the example of Microsoft, not Apple. In the 90's in particular, Microsoft would use the cash pile from its initial success to either tie up smaller competitors (with better software) in the legal system or just buy them outright. The main victim being the consumer. And this is not an isolated example: it happens across all industries.

    Amit - I recall in another blog post you railing about vaccines causing autism, so you are not in a position to be calling others 'tin hat wearing lunatics'. You are guilty of what you call "hypocracy" (sic)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dave

    Avoiding the substantive again I see. You are a silly thing.

    This claim,

    "About 15 years ago GM introduced the EV1: Customers loved it but when they realised its efficiency would mean the collapse of their spare parts industry it was recalled. In other words they realised old school automobiles were more 'economically viable' than better technology."

    is what is known as bullshit. It is a lie. As with the CO2 nonsense, that it has been repeated so often does not alter its status. It is and remains false. The alleged efficiency of EV1 did not mean that there would be a collapse of the automotive spare parts business. The EV1 was heading into a hugely expensive battery and controller replacement problem. If you even had the slightest idea about how expensive and demanding it is to deal with modern vehicle electronics in comparison to simpler conventional systems you’d not have written such crap, let alone believed in it (you did believe didn’t you, yes you know you did). Already there are millions of serviceable motor vehicles taken off the road and parted out simply due to electronic problems which turn out to be too expensive and difficult for the owners to get repaired. So the entire vehicle is thrown away. This problem gets far more serious with hybrid and fully electric cars.

    Facts:

    1/. GM made multiple tens of millions of dollars of loss on EV-1. Even after the project was closed the losses continued to accumulate, both direct and indirect. The car could not be sold at anything like unit cost to build, let alone pay back ANY of the vast development overhead, or approach anywhere near break-even. Forget about any chance whatsoever to make profit.

    2/. When GM discovered that EV1 was going to deliver terrible losses and result in eye-watering opportunity costs they felt the project too far advanced and too famous to can (as ought to have been done immediately this problem was understood). Instead, since it was a senior management ego project and a tremendous amount of PR propaganda had been expended on how clever it all was, GM persisted and realised an even larger loss than had been forecast.

    3/. EV1 production numbers were well below target, increasing unit cost still further and drving GM further into the red.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 4/. Vital engineering resource was diverted away from core business at a critical period. This was to have severe knock-on effects not so many years later.

    5/. GM could not sell the cars to private purchasers for two main reasons. They were, unit cost (which killed demand dead stone cold- no-one on being informed of the break-even price, not one person at any of the clinics GM ran agreed they'd purchase at that price) and unit reliability (which pertains to warranty overhead and component resupply). There were other reasons as well, including legislative.

    6/. The supply chain was expensive, insecure and unreliable. It certainly did not meet industry T-1 standard.

    7/. EV1 was not "better technology". It had hopelessly short range. Real world driving saw the range dip as low as 40 miles on a charge. Payload capacity was poor. Reliability was always an unresolved issue. The technology was fragile.

    8/. The car could not be usefully employed in the Northern or Central States or anywhere that saw weather conditions that ever departed from mild and temperate. For example, when the air temperature was at 5 degrees C or below range was cut by ~1/4 (and that was without operating the cabin heating system, use of which would eat into range still further). Rain posed problems as well.

    9/. The car had reasonable accelerative performance but only when battery charge was high, air-density and humidity low and air-temperature moderate. For example, 0-60 mph was achievable in 8.6 secs but only for a handful of attempts per full battery charge. Then the car would get slower and the driver would be soon seeking recharge or else would be risking battery damage...

    10/. Driving the car to the point of no charge (or even a state of low charge) risked battery damage. Repeated deep discharges guaranteed permanent battery damage. Emptying a tank of gasoline in a regular vehicle portends no such issues of permanent damage (i.e., you do not have to replace the fuel tank just because it was drained to empty a few times). A replacement battery pack was I the tens of thousands of dollars. Who would pay for that….? GM had to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 11/. Federal and State safety regulations had to be relaxed with waivers and concessions granted in order for the car to be registered at all. A serious accident in one was out of the question.

    12/. The batteries were toxic.

    13/. The issue of a live car after an incident malfunction or an accident was never resolved (remember we are looking at hundreds of volts DC- not a trivial issue to deal with).

    14/. The car could only be registered as a lease vehicle and rented to customers (at a rate which was trivial compared to the cost of the actual car itself).

    15/. A Jaguar XJ12 and a Mazda Rx7 purchased together at full price cost less than an EV1 would cost at break-even. Another alternative was a Ferrari (also cost less).

    16/. Its energy efficiency was not an improvement over other technologies. I suggest you take a look at well-head to wheel efficiency and equivalent as realistic measures if energy efficiency is your shtick.

    17/. Its payload capacity was woeful. This was due to the volume and weight demands of the batteries. For the volume dedicated to batteries GM could have fitted a gasoline tank replaced the electric motor with a gasoline engine and had a car with enough range to cross the USA coast to coast and back again! It would have been a lighter car as well.

    18/. Braking performance was poor. This was a safety risk which was never resolved. It was due to the tyres and braking system necessitated in the effort to extract more range.

    19/. Road holding was sub-par. This was a safety risk which was never resolved. It was primarily due to the tyres and a spring damper system selected in the effort to attain more range.

    20/. The cost of components and sub-systems, as well as the cost of maintaining supply of said items for the requisite decade was a telling blow against EV1. The car was recalled and most were destroyed in order to eliminate that overhead as well as a real biggie which was.....

    ReplyDelete
  19. 21/. The on-going forward liability of EV1 to fault and safety related litigation should the car have been sold to private owners was the final blow that sealed the fate of EV1.

    22/. The car had its supporters. It was pleasant enough to drive (while it ran). It suited the mythology and lies of the politically correct (and it still does). People who got into such an expensive drive at such titanic subsidies loved it. But they were on a welfare binge paid for by the stock holders of GM, its component suppliers and the taxpayer. By far the vast majority of people stayed well away from EV1. Even at the subsidies it enjoyed there were only few who leased it. It wasn't able to meet real needs of all but a very few and for those satisfying an aesthetic or a political fantasy was high priority in their list of values. Not so for the rest though.

    23/. As a concept EV1 was very interesting, but a practical proposition it was not. It proved what was already well understood by EVERY car manufacturer (including GM itself), designer, energy supplier, transportation engineer and T-1 & 2 component supplier. It also proved what most of the buying public knew as well- EV1 could NOT meet their requirements.

    In conclusion, the car was uneconomic to produce, had poor utility, was inferior to regular vehicles in nearly every aspect, had low payload capacity, was overly expensive, had severely limited performance, had safety issues, had longevity issues and really amounted to no more than a novelty or a plaything (a third or fourth car for a comfortably wealthy family). If it had indeed been superior technology then other manufacturers would have immediately supplied versions of their own. It wasn't. They didn't.

    In regards to vaccines and autism, Dave, again you having reading problems and not addressing what was written. Either that or your comprehension skills are close to non-existent. My position was that there is risk and that a person making the decision to vaccinate or not ought to evaluate all the risks very carefully and seriously prior to making a decision. Note that the amended results of trials undertaken by CDC confirm that position as correct.

    Dave, vaccines are intended to cause alterations to human metabolism. That they do. Sometimes they result in a desired effect to a greater or, more often, lesser, extent. Unfortunately sometimes they cause side-effects. Some of those are undesirable, some unpleasant, some serious, some extremely so- to the point of debilitation or even death. This is established knowledge. It is necessary to weigh up the risks of acquiring a disease while being unvaccinated and the consequences thereof, as well as the risks of acquiring disease due to vaccination and the consequences thereof. Research, evaluate and only THEN decide in the light of what you know. Know as much as possible. This is analogous to the old advice, “Measure twice. Cut once.” In other words, learn much prior to acting. There is another saying, “Act in haste. Repent at leisure.” Don’t experience that one.

    There are several mechanisms being investigated in relation to vaccine influences, either as enhancement, increase or casual to autism as well as in relation to other health problems (some related to autism and some not). Wakefield was correct in his original paper in pointing out strong correlation between certain vaccine protocols and autism. The whole area demands investigation (which is presently on-going) and the winning of specific knowledge in order to understand what to do (whether it be withdrawal of particular products, changes in protocols or avoidance of specific practices, altered make-up of product or completely newly developed product). The human immune systems are not perfectly understood. How vaccines work (or fail to in some instances) is not an exhaustively researched and understood area. There are significant gaps in knowledge which need to be filled. May I suggest you undertake some personal research in the topic and find out about it some?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now as to tin-hat wearing- that is what you have been up to lately. Do you really believe that GM could possibly prevent the emergence of the electric car if such a vehicle was superior in meeting the needs and requirements of all the customers? If so then go ahead and tell us all about the huge and secret conspiracy amongst the oil companies to kill the electric car. Put on your tin-foil hat and breathlessly tell us all about how all the car manufacturers, the whole damn lot of 'em every one, and the whole component and systems suppliers as well (including all the electrical and electronics companies- yes, them too), about how the whole of industry gets together to conspire to wreck the consumer and make the consumer suffer at their conspiratorial hands. Dave, that approach is lunacy. Seriously quite mad.

    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  21. You crack me up Amit. Someone with your view on vaccines is not in a position to accuse others of avoiding the substantive.

    Not surprised you didn't list your source for your rather desperate rebuttal of the EV1. No doubt from one of your tin hat member websites where you also get your information about vaccines.

    Seems to boil down to 2 main points: 1. Too expensive to make 2. Not good enough or practical enough to meet the needs of the consumer.

    1. Of course a limited production run of a new technology is expensive. Mass production would have easily rectified this.

    2. Although it was poorly marketed, the customers who did get their hands on one loved it. The fact that they had to be legally forced to give their cars back would seem to disprove the claims about poor quality. Some customers wanted to upgrade the batteries at their expense, assuming full legal responsibility for the car. Instead of taking this easy option, GM instead opted to spend the time and money to scrap them.

    So yes of course GM could prevent the emergence of the electric car. Simply by making excuses as to the feasibility & then recalling it so customers couldn't make their own upgrades.

    As to your vaccine conspiracy: Currently none of the major entities such as the WHO or FDA agrees with your tin hat theories. The scientific consensus is that vaccines are safe. Here is a link to that effect.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?version=b&utm_expid=4418042-5.krRTDpXJQISoXLpdo-1Ynw.1&record_id=10997&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThiomersal_controversy

    Feel free to provide equally valid scientific links to prove your conspiracy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dave

    Well you have avoided focusing upon and addressing the substantive time and time again- right since the start of this conversation. First you ran away and hid from your mistake in relation to the horse and cart. Then you ran off and hid when the facts pertaining to hydrocarbon fuels were explained to you. And you made sure you never addressed the point raised in regards to your particular values and evaluations not being accepted or used by other people. You never acknowledged the substantive point made to you that you ought to leave other people alone and stay out of their business when they choose other than would you. Then you tried insisting on a conspiracy wherein evil black-hat corporations conspire to wreck consumers. Mate, you are so FUBAR.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Re the failure of the EV1 project

    It boils down to more than the two issues you raise. Still, let's look at what idiocy you have managed to reveal this time around.

    "1. Of course a limited production run of a new technology is expensive. Mass production would have easily rectified this."

    Incredible! So you think all you have to do is wave your hands, recite the magic incantation, "mass production", and it all would have been so easily reduced to the happy ending, like what happens in your nightly wet-dream fantasies. Actually Dave, no. EV1 could not be produced in anywhere near the volumes referred to by the term "mass production". Physically there were limitations imposed by the materials the car was built from, the architecture of key components (such as the controller, designed by Alan Cocconi, who is still around by the way, and redesigned for easier build by Hughes, then a recent GM acquisition), the attributes of the components and sub-assemblies, the manufacturing and assembly processes involved. Early on it was understood that the project could not self-sustain then or ever. That was when a hard decision was called for. Superior technology? No. Not this. It failed unfortunately. There are reasons why hydrocarbons remain superior technology to this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. " 2. Although it was poorly marketed, the customers who did get their hands on one loved it. The fact that they had to be legally forced to give their cars back would seem to disprove the claims about poor quality. Some customers wanted to upgrade the batteries at their expense, assuming full legal responsibility for the car. Instead of taking this easy option, GM instead opted to spend the time and money to scrap them."

    Poorly marketed? What fucken planet were you on? That thing was the subject of a huge campaign. we spent a ship on it. It got in all the papers. It got into every single automotive and specialist publication bar none. It got onto TV. There were ads everywhere. Billboards. There were talk shows on radio. GM got a lot of attention for it. EV1 was the halo car, the representative of what the "new GM" could achieve. Only EV1 didn't. It couldn't.

    The people who leased the cars were not "forced to give back their cars". The cars belonged to GM, every one of them. The people who had them had voluntarily signed leasing agreements. When the term of lease was over they had agreed to return the GM owned cars back to GM, the owner of the cars. It was as simple as that. No force involved on GM's part. The trouble was there were some people who thought they ought to be allowed to steal GM's cars. They initiated attempts to apply coercive force against the owner of the private property they wanted to steal. It didn't work.

    I did not say the cars suffered from poor quality. For a GM product of the period they were about low average to mid average in that regard. I do agree though that the cars had very limited (poor) utility and did not suit the market they were launched into.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I note your admission that the batteries required upgrading. So too did several other aspects of the car. This would have been a regular on-going issue for owners and it would have continued to be expensive and vexatious to deal with. For technically minded enthusiasts with deep pockets (very) a toy like this would not have been such an imposition. It could have been fun working on the cars and up-rating them some as the opportunity arose (& personally I wished this had been the direction the situation developed towards). There is one big badass issue that could not be escaped. There is a saying, "You cannot contract out of the law." It applies to the litigation and regulation situation surrounding EV1. In essence this meant that no matter what agreements or indemnifications GM signed with a private owner, one who intended to use EV1 as a functional vehicle, the liabilities for safety, spare parts supply for years to come, warranties, accidents, design faults and any incidents or occurrences that might attract litigation etc ultimately remained tied to GM. Now this state of affairs was not GM's doing. It was the fault of the State and Federal Governments in the USA. In the end this was a matter of what was the safest and most economical means of dealing with the problem. GM took the hard decision this time. There was probably no avoiding it from their point of view. I do recall the warnings of this potential outcome to senior management early on in the project (when it was understood the thing was a financial catastrophe in the making). There were also warnings issued about the bad reportage and subsequent bullshit mythology (it was, after all, occurring in California) that scrapping the EV1 fleet would generate. Still, "onward to the 'berg they raced!"

    You repeat that "people loved it". Sure, some did, but no-one would buy it for what it cost to make and nowhere near enough people were interested in it to make it a practical proposition for GM to continue with. There were the free-loading muthas were able to run about in a vehicle that was costing them a mere fraction of what it ought to have, but you'd not get hard $ out of them. They were on a welfare subsidy paid for by GM shareholders, component supplier shareholders and the ever suffering tax-payer. Other than that, EV1 unfortunately managed to attract a weird set of trendy, political fantasists with a peculiar aesthetic. There was this love, not so much of the car, as the ability to use it to assume a posed moral superiority against other people (like who drove conventional vehicles). Then they could run with their busybody demands. Pity. It wrecks my memory of the entire project.

    More:- "So yes of course GM could prevent the emergence of the electric car. Simply by making excuses as to the feasibility & then recalling it so customers couldn't make their own upgrades."

    Dave, you are a fantasist. You are also ignorant. It is pathetic, the state of you. GM could not, did not and can not prevent the emergence of the electric car. For example, during the development of EV1 one of the key designers got the shits when Hughes engineers were bought in to redesign aspects of the car so as to make it easier to manufacture. He left the project and continued his own developments in private capacity. You could and still can purchase electric vehicles from his company. He started with a neat little two seat convertible sportscar. You ought to go buy one (back in the day I had a red one), but somehow I doubt you ever would.

    Look Dave, you simply are not in possession of any fact whatsoever. You watched some electric-car porn movie and so now you think you can spew beliefs like a schoolboy urges his knob to pump. Get over yourself. Get a life. Go out some.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re Vaccines

    And still you have trouble with reading comprehension. No conspiracy raised by me here. My position is exactly as was stated. Find out everything you can first. Evaluate carefully before making the decision to act. Do your own research and be aware of all risk (and there are risks).

    As soon as you started raving about "scientific consensus" you entered your tin-foil hat mode once again. This time you've got your tin-foil undies on as well. Seems they are restricting circulation to your weewh head. Science is not "consensus". As soon as you start getting into that talk, you have left the realm of science and entered the brothel of hucksterism, the circus of fraud and the den of lies. Science ignores consensus (often proving ruling consensus to be false). Science is to win knowledge of and develop understanding of the nature of reality. As an illustrative, recall the disaster of thalidomide. The consensus at the time was that it was safe and efficacious. The major entities and authorities reported such to us. Fact was, it was not safe for pregnant women to take to alleviate morning sickness (which it didn't always suppress anyhow). The consensus was wrong. Once the disaster was revealed the consensus was denial. Gradually the consensus dissolved in the face of rigorous scientific investigations. It was revealed for what it was- empty of knowledge, unscientific, self-interest and self-serving. Scientific research confirmed not only the link between thalidomide and crippled infants but also the specific interactions the drug caused that did the damage. Be careful of believing in "scientific consensus".

    Right now the metabolic effects of vaccines are not exhaustively known or well understood. Research work is on-going. Rather than believing in your illusory consensus, I'll stick with science. I'll rely on my own scientific training and research experience.

    Amit Cim PhD

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dave

    One other fact for you to consider. The EV1 project cost GM US$1.1-billion direct. They built ~1,100 cars. Do the math.

    Amit


    ReplyDelete
  28. I asked for your sources Amit. Again you provided none and then claim to have scientific training & research experience, yet again with no references. Then you claim to have a PhD! Clearly I have wasted my time trying to reason with a mental patient. Lesson learned.

    ReplyDelete
  29. David

    Did you?

    You asked for sources for a conspiracy theory. As pointed out previously, I did not promote a conspiracy by anyone. You are the only one who did that. You need to learn to read.

    Yes. I have a PhD and, prior to retiring, some twenty-seven years experience in research and project work.

    By the way. Since you are too dull to be able to do simple arithmetic, the price for the EV1 works out at about US$1-million per car. tell us again about how superior such technology was. tell us about how efficient. Tell us about how the whole industry conspired to wreck the customer.

    Dave, you waste everyone's time by being alive. Your silly mother would have done better having another bowel movement rather than having you erupt from her inflamed crotch and out onto the floor! You ought to be consistent, act consistent with your stated beliefs, stop using the product of hydrocarbon fuels and suffer the inevitable consequence. I'd not interfere.

    Amit


    Amit



    Really?

    Tip and run.

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.