How much has big auto lied?

#1
OWB

OWB

Never
Staff member
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
47,161
Likes
834
#1
LINK

I'll go on and get these parts out of the way so you all can concentrate on the actual car.

</div><div class='quotemain'> [SIZE=2 said:
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
If I could afford a Porche, I&#39;d go that route instead easy.
Beautiful car....

Nice work on the incendiary headline OWB.... :D

 
#3
#3
Just go see "Who Killed the Electric Car?" for proof of how corporate greed eats innovation like so many CornNuts. Then go see "An Inconvenient Truth" for a story of brutal denial and sheer idiocy among the political and corporate elite. Then rent "The Corporation" to see how social responsibility ranks right up there with modest golden parachutes on the list of U.S. corporate values (though that may finally be changing, given the undeniable business woes caused by global warming). Voilá America in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Good thing there&#39;s no lying or misleading in any of these works :rolleyes:
 
#4
#4
(volinbham &#064; Aug 3 said:
Good thing there&#39;s no lying or misleading in any of these works :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I agree, that is a good thing.
 
#5
#5
If the nutjobs who wrote all this have such technical expertise that they can come up with "a 100-percent emissions-free, oil-free, ultragreen vehicle that still has all the comforts and performance of a regular car" then why don&#39;t they DO it?&#33;?&#33; The funniest thing about all this "electric car" BS is that it would in no way reduce the ENERGY needs of the country... you&#39;d just be getting the electricity for your car from a COAL FIRE plant. Maybe if the enviro freaks would get their heads out of their asses and allow nuclear power to take over from coal fire, we&#39;d actually be able to greatly reduce the overall emissions of this country.
 
#6
#6
(rwemyss &#064; Aug 3 said:
If the nutjobs who wrote all this have such technical expertise that they can come up with "a 100-percent emissions-free, oil-free, ultragreen vehicle that still has all the comforts and performance of a regular car" then why don&#39;t they DO it?&#33;?&#33;
Click to expand...

The answer to that is in the article.
 
#7
#7
oil-makes-him-hot.jpg
 
#8
#8
I am a little ashamed in your selection of articles OWB. You could have found a hundred or more articles that marvel at the new Tesla prototype, yet, you choose the most biased, and factually incorrect, one to post here. In the very fact that the author of this spam mentioned the pile of money that Haliburton made, shows he has done absolutely no research on KBR&#39;s bottoms line for their work done in Iraq. If he had, he would have known KBR and Halliburton actually lost money in Iraq...and lots of it&#33;

Anyway, the Tesla does indeed sound like a nice little car. However, for &#036;80,000 it is still far outside the price range of Ford and GM&#39;s primary consumers. Also, it is true that the emissions that eventually make their way into the atmosphere would now come more in the form of power plants than in auto exhaust. And since NIMBY seems paranoid about the evils of nuclear power, most power plants still burn coal.
 
#9
#9
(therealUT &#064; Aug 3 said:
Also, it is true that the emissions that eventually make their way into the atmosphere would now come more in the form of power plants than in auto exhaust. And since NIMBY seems paranoid about the evils of nuclear power, most power plants still burn coal.
Click to expand...
The coal also produces far more pollution, tonnage-wise, than nuclear power... so while we don&#39;t have to decide what to do with 10 tons of nuclear waste, we put 150 tons of pollutants into the air instead. :dunno:

And I agree... 80k isn&#39;t a feasible price... and again I mention that the electricity that runs that car is no where near "100-percent emissions-free, oil-free, ultragreen vehicle that" emissions- coalfire electricity... oil- I gurantee there are plastics in that car, what is one of the prime materials needed for plastics? You guessed it, crude oil. Finally ultragreen- well, it looks red to me. :p

Finally, after looking at a couple of other things... 80k was the LOW number. They may sell the thing for as much as 120k. Also left out is the charge time for the battery... with only a 250 mile range, I&#39;d have to be able to stop and "charge up" on a trip, but they don&#39;t express how long it takes to charge the battery... I think you&#39;ll find that issues like this have kept the major auto makers from producing such a car.
 
#11
#11
How long (how many cars do they have to sell) before Tesla is big enough to lie, cheat and steal? :w00t:
 
#12
#12
(therealUT &#064; Aug 3 said:
I am a little ashamed in your selection of articles OWB. You could have found a hundred or more articles that marvel at the new Tesla prototype, yet, you choose the most biased, and factually incorrect, one to post here. In the very fact that the author of this spam mentioned the pile of money that Haliburton made, shows he has done absolutely no research on KBR&#39;s bottoms line for their work done in Iraq. If he had, he would have known KBR and Halliburton actually lost money in Iraq...and lots of it&#33;

Anyway, the Tesla does indeed sound like a nice little car. However, for &#036;80,000 it is still far outside the price range of Ford and GM&#39;s primary consumers. Also, it is true that the emissions that eventually make their way into the atmosphere would now come more in the form of power plants than in auto exhaust. And since NIMBY seems paranoid about the evils of nuclear power, most power plants still burn coal.
Click to expand...

I know I could have found better examples, I just thought this one was funny. It&#39;s more of a "get the chatter going and rile up the Republicans piece" than anything. The politic forum has been sleeping lately. Plus, I thought it was a pretty cool looking car.

As for the price of it, that doesn&#39;t really matter. It&#39;s the point that something like that is totally possible along with cars that run on other types of fuel.

I never knew that this was all I&#39;d have to do to get you all talking about global warming and the environment, I thought you all didn&#39;t believe any of that nonsense. Could it be that you all would believe in it if I didn&#39;t? :D Anyone ever heard of CCT (Clean coal technology)? How&#39;s that coming along?


 
#13
#13
actually, we&#39;d still be better off with nuclear power. Just because I don&#39;t believe in the global warming crap and all the panic that goes with it, I still believe in issues with air quality and pollution. :p
 
#14
#14
(rwemyss &#064; Aug 3 said:
actually, we&#39;d still be better off with nuclear power. Just because I don&#39;t believe in the global warming crap and all the panic that goes with it, I still believe in issues with air quality and pollution. :p
Click to expand...

Back peddling already? :eek:lol:
 
#15
#15
(rwemyss &#064; Aug 3 said:
actually, we&#39;d still be better off with nuclear power. Just because I don&#39;t believe in the global warming crap and all the panic that goes with it, I still believe in issues with air quality and pollution. :p
Click to expand...

People are afraid of nuk-u-lar power because of disasters like 3 mile island and Chernoble (sp?). The fact is, technology has come a long way since then and I think nuclear power is a reasonably safe alternative.
 
#16
#16
Three-mile Island was a cake walk compared to Chernobyl. We have ALWAYS had far better safeguards than the Russians... if the French can have a nuclear power system as safe as it is, ours can be as well.

Backpedalling? Where have I ever said that I don&#39;t give a crap about air pollution? I want good air quality as much as the next guy, I&#39;ve been touting nuclear power as the answer for years.
 
#20
#20
(Orangewhiteblood &#064; Aug 3 said:
Some things are just better left unsaid.
Click to expand...
In your case, everything would be better left unsaid. OOOOH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :biggrin2: :lol: :dance:



:huggy: I almost forgot how much fun this can be OWB.
 
#21
#21
my bro is an engineer with NASA in Hootersville, AL. He says there are several different alternative fuel sources that NASA has developed for different space craft that could have a major impact on the auto-industry. Several of them do not require burning any coal, petroleum, etc. He agrees that the production of such vehicles has been stifled by some of those mentioned in the article.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top