Bush spoke today about peak oil. Okay, he didn’t call it peak oil, but he couldn’t say it publicly any more than he could acknowledge that ethanol has been a big mistake. In fact, it would be irresponsible for him to actually say the words “peak oil” because it might panic the market. But the substance of what he said was decidedly “peakish”
Across our country, many Americans are understandably anxious about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills.
The past 18 months, gas prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. Electricity prices for small business and families are rising as well.
One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand.
Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately, Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem.
It’s not the time to ask American families who are already paying more in the checkout line to pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers.
Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. And I don’t blame them.
Americans should not have to wait any longer for their elected officials to pass legislation to help more families stay in their homes.
The average person wants to know whether or not we know that they’re paying higher gasoline prices and they’re worried about staying in their homes.
You know, we’re transitioning to a new era, by the way, a new era where we’re going to have batteries in our cars that will power — you know, enable people to drive 40 miles on electricity. There’s going to be more ethanol in the market, more alternative fuels. Our driving habits will change.
...on the Saudis, look, I have made the case that, you know, the high price of oil injures economies. But I think we better understand that there’s not a lot of excess capacity in this world right now.
You know, hopefully, high prices will spur more exploration to bring excess capacity on. But demand is rising faster than supply. And that’s why you’re seeing global energy prices rise.
...if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place ... an infrastructure so that nations can be self- sustaining and self-supporting.
...the American people, they got to understand that here in the White House, we are concerned about high gasoline prices, we’re concerned about high food prices, we’re concerned about people staying in their homes and we’re concerned about student loans…
And this from the Q&A;.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you just said there’s not a lot of excess supply out there. Some energy experts think we may have already passed or be within a couple of years of passing the maximum oil-pumping capability [i.e. peak oil]. In other words, we may be close to tapping all we’ve got.
Do you think that’s the case? And if you do, why haven’t you put more resources into renewable energy research, sir?
BUSH: We’ve put a lot into, you know, ethanol. And matter of fact, the solution to the issue of corn-fed ethanol is cellulosic ethanol, which is a fancy word for saying we’re going to make ethanol out of switchgrasses or wood chips. And we’re spending a lot of money along those lines.
But energy policy needs to be comprehensive. And we got to understand we’re in a transition period.
The problem is there’s been a lot of focus by the Congress in the intermediate steps and in the long-term steps, the long-term steps being hydrogen, the intermediate steps being, you know, biofuels, for example, and research into biofuels, and battery technology, but not enough emphasis on the here and now.
And so you ask — you say that people think we can’t — there’s not any more reserves to be found. Well, there are reserves to be found in ANWR. That’s a given.
You know, I just told you that there’s about 27 million gallons of diesel and gasoline that could be from domestically produced crude oil that’s not being utilized.
And not only that, we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for — to be able to drill like we’ve never been able to do so before; slant-hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site — a single drill site to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn’t damage the environment.
And, yet, this is a litmus-test issue for many in Congress. Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don’t care about the environment.
Well, I’m hoping now people, when they say ANWR, it means you don’t care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.
Well, there you go. I think the sudden run up of oil from $100 to $120 with little in the way of crisis has shaken the politicians a little. On the whole, I think these are good comments. In particular, he is astute to point out that much has been done about immediate and long term solutions, but that little has been done to deal with the current energy shortage. It’s clear from this conference, that drilling in ANWR is getting pushed and the idea might get some leverage now. My main concern would be that he still seems to place a lot of faith in ethanol.
But at least he’s talking about the issue openly, which is a good start. I actually think one of the best things a President could do is make a case to the public for conservation. And I mean voluntary conservation - no regulation, no tax, just saying to the public, we need to try and reduce our energy bill a little, it’s bad for the country. It’s bad for the country because nearly half the US deficit goes towards energy, lining the pockets of some unfriendly foreign nations. And the fact is that energy use in the US is so enormous that it could easily be reduced without significantly impacting the standard of living or GDP. If the case was made clearly and intelligently, then enough people would get on board to make a difference.
RJ, whether it’s peaked or demand is just going to keep growing so much that it’s the same thing… so what? We know.
It’s a lot like global warming (or worse yet, sustainability which has really re-nestled into being a socialist code word). A lot of nuts are really into it for their own ideological reasons, but just because they are right about the big picture issue doesn’t mean we want anything to do with their side agenda.
Yes, it’s either peaked now or demand is going to go faster than production growth (which I think is fact) so that the same effects are felt. So what?
My point:
“We have to get ready. We also have nothing to learn from people who run peak oil websites (at least going on the one’s I’ve checked out).”
RJ, whether it’s peaked or demand is just going to keep growing so much that it’s the same thing… so what? We know.
It’s a lot like global warming (or worse yet, sustainability which has really re-nestled into being a socialist code word). A lot of nuts are really into it for their own ideological reasons, but just because they are right about the big picture issue doesn’t mean we want anything to do with their side agenda.
Yes, it’s either peaked now or demand is going to go faster than production growth (which I think is fact) so that the same effects are felt. So what?
My point:
“We have to get ready. We also have nothing to learn from people who run peak oil websites (at least going on the one’s I’ve checked out).”
I agree, whether we’ve peaked is probably academic. Peak oil is more of a technical term. And in retrospect, like 100 years from now, the actual peak will have as much to do with politics as geology. Energy crisis is more accurate because it identifies the problem (energy) and the seriousness (crisis). Tom Petrie, the VP of Merrill Lynch coined the term “practical peak oil” after Saudi Arabia annouced they were putting off expanding productions once they open their big new heavy oil field next year. Practical Peak Oil means that OPEC is essentially going to truncate the peak and establish a prolonged plateau. However, there are plenty of geologists out there who say that the Saudi’s just won’t admit that they can’t expand production. I guess we’ll see in time.
As for websites, I enjoy the oil drum, because I enjoy the maths and science of it all.
r.j.
And in retrospect, like 100 years from now, the actual peak will have as much to do with politics as geology. Energy crisis is more accurate because it identifies the problem (energy) and the seriousness (crisis).
This is basically what I said on the other thread. And you called me a denier. Oh well, whatever, nevermind…
r.j.
However, there are plenty of geologists out there who say that the Saudi’s just won’t admit that they can’t expand production.
Maybe that explains why most geologists make rotten economists and/or bizness men. If the Saudi’s came out and said that they couldn’t expand production (whether they could or couldn’t), the speculators would be running it up to $300 and more per barrel, especially with India, China and the US racing to see who can build the biggest oil safety net. The Saudi’s can only lose money by exaggerating their oil reserves.
Meanwhile, today I heard Billary Clinton wax poetically about BIG OIL being an unregulated bizness. I almost drove off the road while suffering a fit of laughter. She also said that she’d use our guvment to investigate the OPEC oil cartel, as if she’s the first person to ever call OPEC a cartel. She also has said:
Q: What are you going to do about gas prices? $4 a gallon is killing truckers.
A: #1, we are going to investigate these gas prices. The federal government has tools that this administration will not use, in the Federal Trade Commission, because I believe there is market manipulation going on, particularly among energy traders. We’ve seen this movie before, in Enron, and we’ve got to get to the bottom to make sure we’re not being taken advantage of. #2, I would quit putting oil into the Strategi Petroleum Reserve and I would release some to help drive the price down globally. And #3, if there is any kind of gas tax moratorium, as some people are now proposing--
Q: Like John McCain.
A:--like John McCain, and some Democrats, frankly. What I would like to see us do is, if we have $4 gas, then we should have a windfall profits tax on these outrageous oil company profits, and put that money back into the highway trust fund, so that we don’t lose out on repair & construction & rebuilding.
A) She says nothing about the taxes reducing the cost to the consumer.
B) She also didn’t mention that the average tax on those huge windfall profits was 42%.
And Bush says some incredibly stoopid things, here. If you go to your local farmer to buy food good luck, he’s going to be growing corn if he has any kind of substantial acreage at all. And he’s still pushing ethanol, even though it’s responsible for starving people and people spending more and more of their money on food. And a battery that can power your car up to 40 miles? Wow, that’d get me to work--minus the last 9 miles--one way.
I do, however, agree with him on ANWR. What a crying shame that environuts who’ve never been to Alaska have the final say as to what Alaskans do with their natural resources.
The bottom line? Guvment has probably brought this country to its knees.
Maybe that explains why most geologists make rotten economists and/or bizness men.
And economists make really lousy geologists. Pricing oil by inventory levels and imagining that a US slowdown would curb demand. Just look at what every economists has been saying about oil prices in the last 8 years and then compare that with what every geologist has been saying… and then compared that with what actually happened to prices and which group looks stupid?
They both look stoopid. The same geologists who helped create the energy crisis in the seventies look stoopid. Economists do make lousy geologists, but as you said earlier, it’s a politically created crisis at this point. The real culprits are congress and the environut movement who have tied our hands energy wise. They abhor coal powered electrical plants yet they don’t want nuclear. In California they cut down trees so some dope can gain an extra 2% of available peak sunlight. Maybe the guy can sue God when it rains for 5 days in a row. And many of them don’t want wind farms where they’re feasible because a bird or two might get hurt. They haven’t let us build a new gas refinery since 1972. All for the want of votes come election time. I’m not willing to blame geologists or economists for high fuel prices when we’ve got Congress and the aggressive enviro-mental lobby groups wreaking havoc on our way of life.
Blues and JReb can correct me if they think that I’m constitutionally wrong, but I think now would be a great time to explore term limits for congress and the abolition of the lobbyist system in this country. I’m embarrassed that I live in a country where idiot lifer politicians like Chuck Schumer can still make the same moronic statements about the energy crisis today that he’s made for the past 20 years without actually doing anything to correct the problem.
Blues and JReb can correct me if they think that I’m constitutionally wrong, but I think now would be a great time to explore term limits for congress and the abolition of the lobbyist system in this country. I’m embarrassed that I live in a country where idiot lifer politicians like Chuck Schumer can still make the same moronic statements about the energy crisis today that he’s made for the past 20 years without actually doing anything to correct the problem.
Won’t happen. Protected by the first amendment under “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” You’d have more success getting the flag burning amendment passed I think.
Bush spoke today about peak oil. Okay, he didn’t call it peak oil, but he couldn’t say it publicly any more than he could acknowledge that ethanol has been a big mistake. In fact, it would be irresponsible for him to actually say the words “peak oil” because it might panic the market. But the substance of what he said was decidedly “peakish”
Bush -
You know, we’re transitioning to a new era, by the way, a new era where we’re going to have batteries in our cars that will power — you know, enable people to drive 40 miles on electricity. There’s going to be more ethanol in the market, more alternative fuels. Our driving habits will change.
Sounds like he’s promoting a move away from the internal combustion engine.
Another political figure predicted/hoped that we’d see the back of the internal combustion engine in the near future, and he was declared Anti-American on these boards for that reason. (and a couple of others)
crichton - 30 April 2008 01:09 AM
And a battery that can power your car up to 40 miles? Wow, that’d get me to work--minus the last 9 miles--one way.
We’ve been over this before, not everybody lives as far away from work as you do. In fact most people don’t. 40 miles would get me to work and back, or at least almost all the way back.
You know he’s talking about the Chevy Vault right? It’s a hybrid, so it means that on a good day you’ll get to work for the pice of 9 miles worth of gas, better yet, that will be the last 9 miles, so it kicks in when the car is already warm and running, not at start up which as you know is more taxing on the gas.
Plus, if your employer goes green and puts in charging stations (i.e. basic electrical outlets in their parking lot) you can charge it up at work and do the same on your way home.
Hmm, 100 mile round trip for 20 miles worth of gas, doesn’t seem too bad to me.
Yes, there are problems with electric / hybrid cars. We’d like more range, better cold weather performance, better battery performance and cleaner sources for the electricity but those things will come. We shouldn’t have to wait until a car that is affordable to everybody, works everywhere and has enough range for everybody’s commute exists before the rest of us can buy one, Chevy agrees with me.
I personally can’t wait for pique oil - when it too finally reacts with sharp irritation and resentment to its wounding, arousing an emotion or provoking it into action, like the proud global village’s feeling irritation or resentment from a wound to pride or self-esteem inflicted upon it by the imperialist USA, death to it.
I read somewhere that the average one way commute in Michigan is 24 miles. That’s a long commute for a state that relies on industry. I wonder how much the average commute in Wyoming might be? Or Arizona. Regardless, why should I be coerced into moving into the city in which I work?
Plus, if your employer goes green and puts in charging stations (i.e. basic electrical outlets in their parking lot) you can charge it up at work and do the same on your way home.
Why the crap should I expect my employer to charge up my inefficient electric car? So it can cut into their profit margin even more? So me and my fellow 2600 co-workers take a hit on the stock options that they give us? My employer is consistently one of the most green corporations in the world, I think they do enough as it is. Imagine this, at the campus I work at we have 2600 people who basically each drive their own car because we have employees from about 6 or 7 surrounding counties. So you’re telling me that a town of 2800 people can handle 2600 cars plugged into their grid 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Because that’s the hours we work, it’s a 24/7/364 operation (everyone gets Christmas off) that runs 24 hours each of those days. We don’t have the infrastructure for that. What to you propose, that my employer pay to have every flippin’ parking lot at all 7 or 8 buildings torn up so they can put in electrical outlets? They should just pay for it because, well, I really have no idea why they should pay for it. It’s the most impractical thing that I’ve ever heard.
Many manufacturers in this state are now running 24/7 operations as it’s the most efficient use of their buildings and overhead. Imagine hundreds of thousands of cars all plugged into the grid 24 hours per day. How green is that? We don’t have the grid for it anyway, not even close. The endgame to all of this is something that very few people consider. Kind of like Albert Gore, jr. starving millions of brown and black folk so we can drive our cars on corn juice…
Crichton. Maybe no one will make you or your company do anything. Let’s hope so. So when gas is more than $10/gallon in the US, you can freely decide for yourself where you want to live and work and how you want to get between the two.
When gas is $10/gallon in the US it will be about $25+/gallon in Europe and the UK. I’m not too worried about how the US will come out when compared to how everyone else will.
When gas is $10/gallon in the US it will be about $25+/gallon in Europe and the UK. I’m not too worried about how the US will come out when compared to how everyone else will.
Easier to adjust to high oil prices in Europe than Michigan (or Minnesota) because they have public transport and don’t tend to live 49 miles from work.
Crichton. Maybe no one will make you or your company do anything. Let’s hope so. So when gas is more than $10/gallon in the US, you can freely decide for yourself where you want to live and work and how you want to get between the two.
What’s your point? That everyone should live within walking distance of their workplace? Because that’s exactly what you’re intimating, that the choice of where I’ll live will be made for me by some lobby-owned charlatans in D.C. Ehh, maybe you’ve got a point there.
All I’m saying is that all the guvment regulations that are in place (regardless of billary clinton claiming that the oil industry isn’t regulated) are what’s responsible for where we’re at today. And $10 gallon gas isn’t going to be anything compared to the relative price of food and every other good that is transported to the place it’s purchased at. And since we have a global market for even food, get your wallet out, too.
And don’t exaggerate the lack of public transportation in the midwest. I know people that live in southwest Michigan and work in either Indiana or Chicago and they don’t drive to work--they take the train. But at least they have the choice. And what to do about farmers? Should they also move to the cities and abandon their fields because gasoline is so expensive? On the whole it’s just amazing to me how myopic city dwellers tend to be. I know mountain bikers that shudder at the thought of living...*gasp*...where mountains are.
I’m also stating, again, that when the guvment mandates things like making companies go green and, at their own expense, make it possible for all of their employees to plug in their electric cars, they never consider the end game (please see “ethanol” for further explanation). It will hurt industry and the wage/benefit potential of their employees. There’s all these moronic ideas abounding that no one has ever asked the question “how does it play out?” Few people consider the real cost.
The truth is we should have started our “quick fixes” for the energy problem thirty years ago instead of giving environuts such a large soapbox.
Crichton. Maybe no one will make you or your company do anything. Let’s hope so. So when gas is more than $10/gallon in the US, you can freely decide for yourself where you want to live and work and how you want to get between the two.
What’s your point? That everyone should live within walking distance of their workplace? Because that’s exactly what you’re intimating, that the choice of where I’ll live will be made for me by some lobby-owned charlatans in D.C. Ehh, maybe you’ve got a point there.
I’m not intimating that people would move through coercion but by circumstance. Ten dollar gas would be a circumstance to which people would have to react. Many would choose to move closer to work, or work closer to home. Others might choose to cut costs elsewhere in the budget. I certainly don’t think anybody has the right to tell you where to live.
And $10 gallon gas isn’t going to be anything compared to the relative price of food and every other good that is transported to the place it’s purchased at. And since we have a global market for even food, get your wallet out, too.
Tell me about it. We have more cows per capita than just about anywhere, but the price of cheese has doubled. That’s because everyone else is buying it.
The truth is we should have started our “quick fixes” for the energy problem thirty years ago instead of giving environuts such a large soapbox.
That’s what I’ve been saying (minus the word environuts). We have an energy crisis because the issue has been overlooked by politicians, by environmentalists, and because the distorted marketplace for energy has failed to provide adequate price signals.
Many Germans take public transportation to and from work, yet still own cars too. And they simply love them, oft more than their own boring, expensive child. And also know their cars are better than anyones else’s - natch, built better, more reliable, more km/l, yet still fast and sporty. Well worth the high cost. And, of course, the blindest Kraut is still a better driver than even a NASCAR champion. What a stupid, wasteful, lame “sport”. Formula One, now thats worth the price of admission and gasoline spent.
Speaking of sports and recreation, thats when and where ya need a real car. Thats where you get to show you’re a winner. Like to ski on weekends? Just strap on the skis on the roof, fill ‘er up and make that 2, 3, 4 hour drive to some real mountains in nearby Switzerland and Austria, driving like Speed Racer all the way, because its your vacation and you readily earned it. If someone’s wasting your time by driving within the speed limit, honk and cuss ‘em out.
The smaller the penis, the louder the mouth, the faster the car.
But, hey, the trip itself can be such a thrill. Go to http://www.youtube.com , search “autobahn” and gaze in rapt wonder how tender, green, poet thinkers care about each other and their environment.
Just like every other time this has come up, you’re being ridiculous.
You’re ignoring a lot of what others have posted and you’re putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
crichton - 30 April 2008 10:01 PM
I read somewhere that the average one way commute in Michigan is 24 miles. That’s a long commute for a state that relies on industry. I wonder how much the average commute in Wyoming might be? Or Arizona. Regardless, why should I be coerced into moving into the city in which I work?
So driving a Chevy Vault on a good day, the average person in Michigan will be able to get to work and back for about 8 miles worth of gas (all of which comes in the last 8 miles on the way home after the car is warmed up and running) Which beats 48 miles of gas. What’s your point?
Of course that’s just the average person, some will have to spend more on gas and some will be able to do their entire commute without using gas.
You seem totally stuck on the point that a car such as the Vault won’t eliminate gas for everybody. So?
And keep in mind, this is what is expected by Chevy for the Vault on day 1. We often hear of the unlimited potential of the American people / worker to invent/improve on technology if there is a buck to be made out of it, I don’t doubt it. How long before these cars have a range of 80 miles without compromising on performance/cost etc? Probably not long.
crichton - 30 April 2008 10:01 PM
Tripper -
Plus, if your employer goes green and puts in charging stations (i.e. basic electrical outlets in their parking lot) you can charge it up at work and do the same on your way home.
Why the crap should I expect my employer to charge up my inefficient electric car? So it can cut into their profit margin even more? So me and my fellow 2600 co-workers take a hit on the stock options that they give us? My employer is consistently one of the most green corporations in the world, I think they do enough as it is. Imagine this, at the campus I work at we have 2600 people who basically each drive their own car because we have employees from about 6 or 7 surrounding counties. So you’re telling me that a town of 2800 people can handle 2600 cars plugged into their grid 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Because that’s the hours we work, it’s a 24/7/364 operation (everyone gets Christmas off) that runs 24 hours each of those days. We don’t have the infrastructure for that. What to you propose, that my employer pay to have every flippin’ parking lot at all 7 or 8 buildings torn up so they can put in electrical outlets? They should just pay for it because, well, I really have no idea why they should pay for it. It’s the most impractical thing that I’ve ever heard.
See, this is one of the places where you take 2 and 2, and come up with 5.
I suggest that your employer might go green and put in some chargin stations, and you’ve converted that to you’re employer has to rip up every parking lot and install these everywhere, as if your entire employee population will be buying a new Chevy Vault on day one. Later in your posts I see that you’ve converted this argument into one about your employer being made to put these in, at no point did I or anybody else say we should force anybody to do this.
You say your employer is consistently one of the most green corporations in the world, which I assume means that they choose to do more than is required under law, they obviously have a commitment to being green and have taken actions by choice to reduce their environmental impact. Simply looking at this from an environmental impact point of view only, if they are prepared to implement other environmentally friendly actions, why would they not be prepared to do this? Nobody is saying they have to mind you.
FYI, Google have purchased a fleet of Prius cars, outfitted them to be plug-in hybrids and have installed charging stations at some of their company parking spots. As you can see, at least one company has chosen to do this already.
Outside of the environmental interests of your company, lets look at some other options.
Just how would they pay for the installation of charging stations? Maybe these could be incentivise by the government. “oh no!” I hear you cry, government meddling. This would be no different from many other things that the government insentivises including environmental factors, it would take the form of being tax deductible to put these in so they’re cheaper. What’s in it for the government?
Creates jobs for those installing the charging points
Helps reduce our reliance on foreign oil (your average MI commuter would use 20% of the gas they use today in a Chevy Vault)
Helps American families deal with the high price of gas, by them having to use less of it. More cash then in their pockets to spend, stimulates economy.
What else?
How about attracting employees? My company, probably like yours, works hard to attract the best talent. How about if some of these people end up driving Chevy Vaults (or other plug-in hybrids). I’d be more attracted to a company that lets me charge my car at the office and thus saves me cash on gas, and one who also shares my values environmentally. For me personally this wouldn’t be a deciding factor on it’s own, but among other things it would help tip the balance in the favour of a specific company. This may be true if I didn’t own a plug in, as I may be looking to purchase one in the future.
It may also attract people who might otherwise think the work location is too far away, and would be prohibitively expensive to commute to. Lets say you had a 60 mile one way commute, not unheard of at my office. That’s 120 miles a day in gas, or 40 miles a day in gas with a Vault. I’d think long and hard about the commute if I had to pay for 120 miles a day at high gas prices, but it would be more favorable if I could cut my gas consumption by 2/3.
I’d be quite happy to pay for the electricity used to charge my car at the going rate by the way, I’m not suggesting that they company would have to pay for the electricity I use at these charging stations.
I think most people would even be open to the idea of paying a yearly/monthly fee for access to these parking stations in the employee parking lot, that yearly fee can be used to recoup the cost of installation.
Shit, now you’ve got me wondering about the possibility of setting up my own company to install, maintain and generally manage charging stations based on private or public property. If enough people were operating these plug ins and looking for places to charge at work, I could approach companies and offer to do the installation / maintenance for them, maybe even free, and I’ll make my money by charging a small fee to the users of the service (the owners of the cars) which will be significantly less than the cost of gas.
As an example of you ignoring what I said, If you go back and read my previous post you’ll see that I agree that we need a better infrastructure and nobody around here is doubting that. That’s where an investment needs to be made. Where we differ is that you seem to think that these plug ins are impractical because the town your employer is based in can’t support the entire population of commuters to their town plugging in their cars starting tomorrow. It’s a poor argument and you know it.
crichton - 30 April 2008 10:01 PM
Many manufacturers in this state are now running 24/7 operations as it’s the most efficient use of their buildings and overhead. Imagine hundreds of thousands of cars all plugged into the grid 24 hours per day. How green is that? We don’t have the grid for it anyway, not even close. The endgame to all of this is something that very few people consider. Kind of like Albert Gore, jr. starving millions of brown and black folk so we can drive our cars on corn juice…
I know what you’re talking about. I work at a satellite office about 3 miles from our main plant which is much as you describe. A manufacturing site withe 24/7 operation. I’m sure you’d recognize that the employees charging around the clock, rather than all at the same time during the middle of the day would actually be easier to handle.
Anyway, what’s this end game that the rest of us haven’t given any consideration to eh? Once again I think you’re “end game” is that there is not the infrastructure today to support all of America owning a plug-in hybrid tomorrow.
I doubt there was the infrastructure in place for every American to own a gas car when the first gas car went into use, but as demand ramped up, so did infrastructure.
Have you played out the end game of doing nothing? Or what is your solution?
Tripper, before accusing me of 2+2=5, you might want to reconsider refering to the Chevy Volt as the Chevy Vault. You don’t even know it’s name for crying out loud.
GM has been making all of these mileage promises even though the car doesn’t exist. They closest thing they have to it is a mule based on the Malibu platform outfitted with what might, or might not be, the battery pack they end up using. GM says they want to get it out by 2011 as they’re 90% sure that they’ll build it yet they haven’t even sourced out 10% of the components as of yet. From no working prototype to full production in two years is some
