Government May Nationalize the Auto Industry

[PropAddict]

We are not going to fix our energy issues with solar panels and windmills.

T. Boone Pickens, many European nations, and Delaware would disagree. http://www.bluewaterwind.com/delaware.htm

And even if Bluewater's numbers were off (they do have an obvious reason to inflate projected yield), it's still a significant chunk of energy demand replaced by a domestic source. An incremental solution, vice a revolutionary, transformational one.

There was an interesting piece on NPR (back in July/Aug) about the DE windfarm, with lots of facts and figures comparing it to other sources of energy. Really revealing when they showed the gov't. subsidies per kWh for each type of energy. Nuke plants get something like 4X the pennies per kWh in subsidies that wind energy does, in order to make it economically viable. Can't find the program online now. Still searching. . .

We need to end the federal subsidy programs for ethanol NOW. Destroying 30%+ of our national corn crop is stupid, and it's going to starve people in developing nations and cause hunger in low income areas here at home.

No argument here. The crux of the issue will be overpowering the corn lobby to get the legislation reversed. Seems corn's more profitable when there's 30% less of it to feed people.

 

[Bevo16]

Words...

and

No argument here. The crux of the issue will be overpowering the corn lobby to get the legislation reversed. Seems corn's more profitable when there's 30% less of it to feed people.

In response to the words:

Do you think that billionaires like Pickens would be buying up ad space for wind farms if they thought that they could make a profit from it on their own? That guy made his money in the oil and gas industry that is still alive and well in Texas, etc. Do you see any commercials for the Oil and Gas industry? Nope, because they don't need to sway taxpayer opinion to grant them subsidy dollars to operate. They secure leases, drill, produce, refine, and distribute. If wind was a viable option for large scale energy production, you would not hear anything about it. If fuel cells were viable for home energy production, I would buy one. Same thing with solar panels. THEY DON'T WORK.

In response to the quote, corn is more profitable when the Ethanol companies have several billion of your dollars to bid up the prices of corn.

 

[eddie]

In response to the words:

Do you think that billionaires like Pickens would be buying up ad space for wind farms if they thought that they could make a profit from it on their own? That guy made his money in the oil and gas industry that is still alive and well in Texas, etc. Do you see any commercials for the Oil and Gas industry? Nope, because they don't need to sway taxpayer opinion to grant them subsidy dollars to operate. They secure leases, drill, produce, refine, and distribute. If wind was a viable option for large scale energy production, you would not hear anything about it. If fuel cells were viable for home energy production, I would buy one. Same thing with solar panels. THEY DON'T WORK.

Fuck ethanol. Ethanol sucks.

But I see oil and gas commercials all the time (mostly talking about being green...). What are you talking about? Everything needs advertising. Markets don't immediately shift to things by sheer virtue of product utility, free flow of information has to be out there to get people to change their preferences.

You keep saying that things don't work or that technology does not yet exist, except I feel like the context here is more akin to building the first airplane in a world with proven gliders than it is cold fusion. I'm not saying the Wright Brothers should have had a government grant, but I think very soon, if not already, the market, by virtue of consumer preferences, will support green tech growth and development.

 

[Bevo16]

Fuck ethanol. Ethanol sucks.

YES!!! Another convert.

But I see oil and gas commercials all the time (mostly talking about being green...). What are you talking about? Everything needs advertising. Markets don't immediately shift to things by sheer virtue of product utility, free flow of information has to be out there to get people to change their preferences.

Ah, the BP campaign. Feel warm and fuzzy about our "green" energy and gas up at BP. You are right, they are out there. That marketing is geared toward gaining market share. The "Pickens Plan" is geared toward diverting (your) tax dollars toward a program that is not going to turn a profit, but he will make a fortune on. The difference is that one is trying to get your dollars via the free market. The other is trying to get your support so you won't call your congressman and complain when you are fleeced for a wind-mill construction project.

You keep saying that things don't work or that technology does not yet exist, except I feel like the context here is more akin to building the first airplane in a world with proven gliders than it is cold fusion. I'm not saying the Wright Brothers should have had a government grant, but I think very soon, if not already, the market, by virtue of consumer preferences, will support green tech growth and development.

You kind of lost me a little bit with the glider and cold fusion reference. I think I get your main point though. Right now, "green energy" is a luxury item. You can put solar panels on you roof and save on your energy bills, but they cost tens of thousands of dollars and never pay for themselves over their service life. People buy them to feel good about themselves, the same way BP wants people to gas up with them so they can feel good about indirectly supporting BP's "green energy". BP is not making any money on any green energy projects. They are making money by TALKING about green energy. Same as Al Gore. How many millions has that dude made by talking about green energy while maintaining the carbon footprint of several South American nations?

I don't think that the market is going to move toward the luxury of green energy. If anything, the market has shown that it will not support green energy without taxpayer support. Even with all the billions that have been spent, there is not a viable green alternative for home or transportation use. People are having a hard enough time paying their mortgages and feeding their family to have "green" as a top priority.

The treasury is just about broke. Unemployment is skyrocketing. The fed is about to have to choose between raising interest rates (and forcing millions more into foreclosure) or allowing hyperinflation. We are in a hole, and the government has to stop digging. Allowing the markets to work and promoting an energy policy based on proven sources is the only way to move forward. If someone has enough money around to do R&D on green energy, then fine. I hope they are successful and make a billion dollars. I just don't want my tax dollars spent on it.

 

[Random8145]

Electric cars are not the panacea many of the green types think of them to be either. I've read it's estimated our energy costs will triple in the ensuing decades in the United States alone; what do these greenies think will happen if we end up with say sixty million electric cars on the road? We're going to need more powerplants to provide the power for those cars. Chances are it will be coal.

Also, what does one do with the batteries when they need to be disposed of if there's like six or more batteries per car?

Also what happens if the power blows in the area and you can't charge up the car?

"Hey boss, I can't come into work this morning, the power's out and the car ain't charged up."

The electric light bulb was a revolutionary invention, one that many scientists said was impossible and that Edison was an idiot to try, and he proved them all wrong.

I have no idea about the technology, but I view a good battery as the same. If we can create a truly revolutionary new battery, one that lasts for a LOOOOOOOONG time, it will truly change the world. Suddenly, technologies like solar and wind power will become far more viable. I do not think electric cars will ever be a viable idea though.

What we need is revolutionary new engine technology that can produce far more power and mileage with less fuel, and also maybe a new fuel source.

 

[Bevo16]

Electric cars are not the panacea many of the green types think of them to be either. I've read it's estimated our energy costs will triple in the ensuing decades in the United States alone; what do these greenies think will happen if we end up with say sixty million electric cars on the road? We're going to need more powerplants to provide the power for those cars. Chances are it will be coal.

I have no idea about the technology, but I view a good battery as the same. If we can create a truly revolutionary new battery, one that lasts for a LOOOOOOOONG time, it will truly change the world. Suddenly, technologies like solar and wind power will become far more viable. I do not think electric cars will ever be a viable idea though.

What we need is revolutionary new engine technology that can produce far more power and mileage with less fuel, and also maybe a new fuel source.

Good points:

A new battery is required to hold enough energy to meet the demands of an average consumer. 40-50 miles per day below highway speeds is not going to get it done.

Better electric infrastructure is needed nation wide, but especially on the east coast and California. When you think of how much energy is burned in cars nationwide every day, trying to transmit that energy through the electric grid in addition to normal electric loads will melt the grid down. Hell, they can't even run their air conditioners in California without rolling blackouts. Add 20 million electric cars.....Yea, tell me another joke.

In addition to not having viable battery technology, not being to small to safely share the road with highway traffic, not being able to maintain highway speed for sustainable periods, extensive recharge periods, and not having an electric grid to suit wide spread support, electric cars are a great solution.

 

[Flash]

Flash, I'm with you in that we will never be energy self-sufficient while we're using petroleum as our primary energy source, but I'd be interested to study the numbers and effects on the equasion if domestic production were increased. I understand that it's not a panacea, but if the benefits are justified by the expense (financial, environmental, etc), it seems unreasonable to exclude the possibility that domestic production should not be increased just because it won't solve all our problems. Seems like a straw-man used by the eco-left who lack a cogent argument to not drill besides the possibility of upsetting some critters in Alaska. Thoughts?

Brett

I think the possiblity can be explored but most of the economically viable petroleum reserves are already being exploited. Certainly opening up offshore drilling more and a few other options are something to be looked at, but even then I don't think we will put a real significant dent in our petroleum imports, we jsut use so much. Looking at the DOE numbers, we just don't have enough to make a really big dent even under the most optimistic of scenarios.

 

[Brett327]

I think the possiblity can be explored but most of the economically viable petroleum reserves are already being exploited. Certainly opening up offshore drilling more and a few other options are something to be looked at, but even then I don't think we will put a real significant dent in our petroleum imports, we jsut use so much. Looking at the DOE numbers, we just don't have enough to make a really big dent even under the most optimistic of scenarios.

This may be OBE, with oil prices as low as they now are, but I'm willing to let the petroleum industry decide what reserves are economically viable or not. If they're willing to sink the cost of recovering in more "challenging" areas, so be it, if it ultimately increases the supply. Like I said, cost-benefit calculus should include environmental impact to an extent, but I think that this has generally been given a disproportionate amount of weight in past decades.

Brett

 

[Flash]

This may be OBE, with oil prices as low as they now are, but I'm willing to let the petroleum industry decide what reserves are economically viable or not. If they're willing to sink the cost of recovering in more "challenging" areas, so be it, if it ultimately increases the supply. Like I said, cost-benefit calculus should include environmental impact to an extent, but I think that this has generally been given a disproportionate amount of weight in past decades.

Brett

And so am I, they are the experts at it. If we didn't we could end up like Mexico, Venezuela or Iran where the politicians run the show and their oil production suffers accordingly.

What I was referring to mainly was the oil shale production and other more 'non-traditional' sources of petroleum. The vast majority of Canada's oil reserves are in oil sands and I have heard the number $65 for the deposits now being exploited to be profitable.

 

[Bevo16]

$65 dollar oil is not that far off into the future.

What we are seeing right now is being termed a "head fake" by oil traders. The global economic crisis has caused a drop in demand for oil and the market reflects it. The next crisis is going to come when demand goes back up (or production lags slightly) and oil becomes a "shortage market" again.

Several months ago I pointed out that the supply and demand curves for oil are not linear. When we get a shortage (say a million barrels of production per day) it causes prices to go up roughly 200% just to buy that million barrels back from market. That's why OPEC wants to cut production now. Create a shortage, multiply your profits.

We don't need 100% energy self reliance. We do need to go after all the resources that are economically viable so that when there are dips or peaks in the market, we are not sending the President of the by-God-United States of America to beg a bunch of Arabs for more oil.

 

[xj220]

One thing that disturbs me is how nonchalantly people are treating this. Maybe it's just me, but the American auto industry is more than just a business, but a symbol. It represents American manufacturing and engineering and our love affair with the car. There's a reason why Chevy engines are called the Heartbeat of America. I understand that the Big Three have produced some less than desirable cars, especially in recent memory, and that free markets should allow the strong to survive, however we shouldn't throw them under the bus. They've made huge strides in recent years (and the newest models coming out will be some of the best produced by anyone). Also, people fault them for producing gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, well that's what people have been buying all the way up until gas prices rose (Toyota was in the process of opening up a new truck plant before things went awry). I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd be devastated if the Big Three fell or ceased to exist. You may not like their cars or them, but it's more than that, to me it's a matter of national pride.

 

[MasterBates]

Ford is the only one of the Big 3 to not have gone under at least once. And the only thing that prevented that from happening was it was privately held, and Henry Ford used his personal wealth to keep the doors open.

It used to happen, yet the Govt. never really got involved until the Chrysler bailout in the 1980s.

From a former GM Engineer, the problems are threefold-
1-Overhead in the form of the UAW and its pensions/healthcare. It adds so much cost per unit to cars that it makes it hard/impossible for them to turn a profit on the smaller econoboxes.
2-Mismanagement. It's happened. The industry needs another Lee Iaccoca or Billy Durant (founder of GM)
3-Market inertia. The sheer logistics train to keep a line up and going is pretty impressive. By that I mean huge. With the majority of sub-assemblies outsourced, and contracted for X units per year, it's hard to just shift production to another vehicle line. When GM and Ford got the majority of their components from wholly-owned subisiaries, like Rochester, Fisher, Motorcraft, and AC DELCO, they got around that issue. Most of them got spun off into Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers in the 80s/90s, partially as a way to get some of the UAW overhead off their backs.

 

[Bevo16]

loves the auto industry.etc

I don't want the big 3 to go under. I do want them to reorganize under bankruptcy just like hundreds of currently successful American companies have done.

We don't need to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at these companies to keep them afloat when there is a process in place for distressed businesses. Let them go through the process, then we'll talk.

 

[OUSOONER]

If the big 3 got nationalized...wouldn't that mean the big CEO's would have to take on government-sized salaries? That could be millions of dollars less than what they make now. Or, would they just get a bailout? I know the government doesn't just give without getting something in return.

 

[Bevo16]

If the big 3 got nationalized...

Oh sweet mercy. Don't even think it.

It would be better to let them go under. If you think that people don't want to buy a US made car now, just wait until they are made by the government.

Is there a government sponsored transportation system that does not bleed money? That's a real question (not a sarcastic "I already know the answer", statement).

I know that the Public Transportation System in Austin was millions of dollars in the red every year, and it's the same thing in Memphis. The "DART" program in Dallas has never been in the black, and the rail system in San Fran was so costly and the ridership was so low that it would have been more cost effective for the city to lease a Chevy Tahoe and pay the gas for every individual rider. AmTrack? Has anyone been on one of those trains?