sneaky_pete
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 677
- Tractor
- Kubota B7400HSD, G1800
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> It really makes you wonder what the Big 3 have held back from being developed over the years. They are in bed with the oil industry. </font>
Doesn't make me wonder. But then I don't see a conspiracy behind every tree and am not on the look out for black helicopters. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif (I'm not implying you do, either.))</font>
You've both got your tin foil beanies on inside-out! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil.
Their focus is not mileage but pollution.)</font>
And flawed at that - it takes more energy (thus more pollution too), not less to convert from one type to another and transport it, as in burning coal or natural gas to generate electricity and then move that through lines to your house.
Also, didn't these environmentalists learn anything from the rolling brownouts and blackouts in California? What do you suppose would happen if the already stretched electricity distribution grids in California were further taxed with some percentage of Californians now charging their cars every single night?
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Here's why the automakers haven't done this. No conspiracy. No deal with the oil industry.
Anyone who is in business has to make a business case for spending capital which typically includes a ROI (Return On Investment). Would you invest millions or billions of dollars to design and tool up to make a plug in hybrid when you're not even sure you will sell enough of them to cover your costs much less make a profit? )</font>
But, but... that means there would be no evil boogeyman to blame for all the things I won't take the time or effort to understand for myself. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Doesn't make me wonder. But then I don't see a conspiracy behind every tree and am not on the look out for black helicopters. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif (I'm not implying you do, either.))</font>
You've both got your tin foil beanies on inside-out! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil.
Their focus is not mileage but pollution.)</font>
And flawed at that - it takes more energy (thus more pollution too), not less to convert from one type to another and transport it, as in burning coal or natural gas to generate electricity and then move that through lines to your house.
Also, didn't these environmentalists learn anything from the rolling brownouts and blackouts in California? What do you suppose would happen if the already stretched electricity distribution grids in California were further taxed with some percentage of Californians now charging their cars every single night?
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Here's why the automakers haven't done this. No conspiracy. No deal with the oil industry.
Anyone who is in business has to make a business case for spending capital which typically includes a ROI (Return On Investment). Would you invest millions or billions of dollars to design and tool up to make a plug in hybrid when you're not even sure you will sell enough of them to cover your costs much less make a profit? )</font>
But, but... that means there would be no evil boogeyman to blame for all the things I won't take the time or effort to understand for myself. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif