Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple

On 5 May 2005 22:08:33 -0700, "casioculture" >
wrote:

>
>L Sternn wrote:
>> On 4 May 2005 17:38:27 -0700, "casioculture" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Detroit car makers really need to get back to the basics. Their
>> >problems are not with the workers or the unions as they often seem
>to
>> >make it out to be.
>>
>> Unions are not their only problem, but they do add to the cost of
>> production.
>
>Detroit isn't competing with sweathsop nations, it's competing with
>Japan and Europe. The Japanese and Europeans have far more egalitarian
>labor laws and much stronger union traditions,

Japan, "stronger union tradition"?

Just admit you don't know what the **** you're talking about.


> yet you'd hardly ever
>hear their (relatively) modestly-paid executives use unions, workers
>pittance, corporate tax or other social issues as excuses for failure.
>
>>
>> > Their problem is in their hedious corporate
>> >thinking.
>>
>> Could you explain exactly what you mean by that?
>>
>>
>> >Look at Renault, france is a country with considerable social
>> >responsibility, yet Renault has wonderful designs that are smart,
>> >economical, and very, very safe
>>
>> And they don't run very well either, which probably contributes to
>> their safety. They can't hurt anyone if they're not on the road.
>>
>> That's been my experience with Renault, anyway.
>>
>
>Your experience is likely outdated. Renault of the 2000s is much
>different from that of the 1980s.


Duh - they gave up on trying to sell cars here.

'cuz they suck

Rod Speed wrote:

> fbloogyudsr > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scott en Aztlán > wrote
>>
>>>Lorenzo L. Love > wrote
>
>
>>>>>Here it is in a nutshell,
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
>>>>>if you took every square inch of arable land and put it into production of
>>>>>oil producing crops ( soybeans,corn etc...) it wouldn't even cover 5% of
>>>>>today's consumption of oil.
>>>>>This also means we would have no land to grow food or feed stock for the
>>>>>animals we eat ;~)
>
>
>>>>Even if you don't take it that far, it's a dead end. Any increase in the
>>>>amount of land put under agricultural use means an increase in the already
>>>>unsustainable rate of soil erosion and freshwater aquifer depletion,
>>>>bringing closer the day when we run out of the most fundamental natural
>>>>resources, soil and water.
>
>
> Complete pig ignorant drivel.
>
>
>>>Hmm... What about all that land that the government pays farmers NOT to
>>>plant? Why not make farmers *earn* their subsidies by growing something on
>>>those fields that can be used for fuel?
>
>
>>The vast majority of that land is marginal
>
>
> Bull****.
>
>
>>- in western arid states, you're lucky to get 40 or so bushels of wheat from
>>such land (in the Midwest it's 90-100).
>
>
> PIty thats not where most of the subsidys to not grow goes.
>
>
>>A lot of the rest in the Plains states (KA, OK, n. TX, NE)
>>is irrigated from the Ogallala aquifer, which has only 20-30 years (the
>>arguments are exactly like the oil remaining!) left.
>
>
> PIty thats not where most of the subsidys to not grow goes either.
>
>
>>So, you wanna rape the oil fields, or rape the land?
>
>
> Makes more sense to rape fools like you with a telephone pole instead.
>
>

Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease
production AND the total vegetible oil production is still would only
provide 15% of the fuel needed just for transportation. Throw in what we
need for industrial and home heating and you can see it's totally
impossible to replace crude oil

http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html

In article >,
Mike Wilcox > wrote:

> barbie gee wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Mike Wilcox > wrote:
> >>DTJ wrote:
> >>>We sure seem to be. We discover more new oil every year than what we
> >>>use.
> >>
> >>Nope, last I heard we are only finding one new barrel for every two we use.
> > and then, when we find the *last* barrel, we can't make any more.
> > "discovering" isn't the same as "creating" the stuff in the ground for
> > us to find in the first place.
> > duh.
>
> What do you mean "creating the stuff in the ground for us to find"?
> What's there has been there for millions of years, old dry wells don't
> mysteriously fill back up ;~)

I was pointing out to DTJ that he is equating "discovering" more oil
isn't the same as a never ending, renewing supply of oil. YOu were
re-enforcing that point; we find one for every two we use, and when it's
gone, it's gone. It's DTJ who seems to think we can go on "dicovering
"new oil" every year. New oil? it's old, and it's finite.

Mike Wilcox > wrote in message
. ..
> Rod Speed wrote
>> fbloogyudsr > wrote
>>> Scott en Aztlán > wrote
>>>> Lorenzo L. Love > wrote

>>>>>> Here it is in a nutshell,

>> Nope.

>>>>>> if you took every square inch of arable land and put it into production
>>>>>> of oil producing crops ( soybeans,corn etc...) it wouldn't even cover 5%
>>>>>> of today's consumption of oil.

>>>>>> This also means we would have no land to grow food or feed stock for the
>>>>>> animals we eat ;~)

You dont even know that if the animal get to
eat the residue after the biodiesel production.

>>>>> Even if you don't take it that far, it's a dead end. Any increase in the
>>>>> amount of land put under agricultural use means an increase in the already
>>>>> unsustainable rate of soil erosion and freshwater aquifer depletion,
>>>>> bringing closer the day when we run out of the most fundamental natural
>>>>> resources, soil and water.

>> Complete pig ignorant drivel.

>>>> Hmm... What about all that land that the government pays farmers NOT to
>>>> plant? Why not make farmers *earn* their subsidies by growing something on
>>>> those fields that can be used for fuel?

>>> The vast majority of that land is marginal

>> Bull****.

>>> - in western arid states, you're lucky to get 40 or so bushels of wheat from
>>> such land (in the Midwest it's 90-100).

>> PIty thats not where most of the subsidys to not grow goes.

>>> A lot of the rest in the Plains states (KA, OK, n. TX, NE)
>>> is irrigated from the Ogallala aquifer, which has only 20-30 years (the
>>> arguments are exactly like the oil remaining!) left.

>> PIty thats not where most of the subsidys to not grow goes either.

>>> So, you wanna rape the oil fields, or rape the land?

>> Makes more sense to rape fools like you with a telephone pole instead.

> Okay smart ass,

Not okay, dumb arse,

> even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease production AND the
> total vegetible oil production is still would only provide 15% of the fuel
> needed just for transportation.

You're plucking those numbers out of your arse.

You dont even know what is feasible with plant
breeding for crops optimised for biodiesel production.

AND I didnt even comment on the total land area required, ANYWAY.

AND the other obvious approach is to only use biodiesel for
a transport fuel, and use nukes to produce electricity for
the bulk of the current use of oil, including larger ships etc.

> Throw in what we need for industrial and home heating and you can see it's
> totally impossible to replace crude oil

You dont know that when the better approaches
to biodiesel and only using it for a transport fuel.

> http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html

Makes the same stupid pig ignorant assumptions.

max wrote:
> In article >,
> Mike Wilcox > wrote:
>
>
>>Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease
>>production AND the total vegetible oil production is still would only
>>provide 15% of the fuel needed just for transportation. Throw in what we
>>need for industrial and home heating and you can see it's totally
>>impossible to replace crude oil
>>
>>http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html
>
>
> I agree. I've enveloped this kind of thing more than a couple of times,
> with real numbers from .gov sources -- biodiesel (and corn squeezin's)
> are a scam with current useage patterns.
>
> The enthusiastic promotion of biofuels in the face of their self-evident
> insufficiency as viable energy sources scares me.
>
> I'm reminded of homer simpson cooking $27 of bacon to render its fat,
> which brought him $0.63 at the recycler. Biofuels is a lot like that,
> and a careful study of Homer Simpson can yield valuable clues about
> American policy.
>
> .max

Just a coincidence it's called pork barrel politics when
mega-corporations like ADM get massive government subsidies for
bio-fuels even though it takes more than one gallon of gasoline to make
one gallon of ethanol.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything remotely true.”
Homer Simpson

max > wrote in
message ...
> Mike Wilcox > wrote

>> Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow,
>> grease production AND the total vegetible oil production is still
>> would only provide 15% of the fuel needed just for transportation.
>> Throw in what we need for industrial and home heating and you
>> can see it's totally impossible to replace crude oil

>> http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html

> I agree.

You're completely irrelevant.

> I've enveloped this kind of thing more than a couple
> of times, with real numbers from .gov sources

Not even possible. You have absolutely no idea what is
feasible with plant breeding to optimise biodiesel production.

Some industrys have been doing that for centurys now
with crops like sugar and nothing much at all has been
done with biodiesel production. All thats actually been
done is to show that what oil crops we do have for
other reasons are very viable biodiesel fuels.

> -- biodiesel (and corn squeezin's) are
> a scam with current useage patterns.

You dont know that either.

AND what matters is whether its feasible to produce enough
biodiesel to do something about the rate of increase of crude
oil use, no need to replace it completely any time soon. In
spades with other oil sources like shale oil that become
economically viable once the price of oil increases.

Even just replacing the use of oil in static locations and
keeping crude oil for transport fuels by using nukes for
electricity production would help considerably too.

And natural gas is a perfectly viable transport fuel too.

> The enthusiastic promotion of biofuels in the face of their
> self-evident insufficiency as viable energy sources scares me.

Your neurotic fears are your problem.

No need to go into headless chicken mode any time soon.

Some fools did that in the 70s and ended up looking
very pathetic indeed in a surprisingly short time.

> I'm reminded of homer simpson cooking $27 of bacon to render its fat,
> which brought him $0.63 at the recycler. Biofuels is a lot like that,

Nope, nothing like that, in spades with biodiesel fuels grown for fuel.

> and a careful study of Homer Simpson can
> yield valuable clues about American policy.

There is no need for anything special 'policy' wise, the real cost
of crude isnt anything like what it peaked at decades ago and that
didnt produce the end of civilisation as we know it, or anything like it.

"Lorenzo L. Love" > wrote in message
link.net...
> max wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Mike Wilcox > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Okay smart ass, even if you combined the total animal fat,tallow, grease
>>>production AND the total vegetible oil production is still would only provide
>>>15% of the fuel needed just for transportation. Throw in what we need for
>>>industrial and home heating and you can see it's totally impossible to
>>>replace crude oil
>>>
>>>http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/...iodiesel1.html
>>
>>
>> I agree. I've enveloped this kind of thing more than a couple of times, with
>> real numbers from .gov sources -- biodiesel (and corn squeezin's) are a scam
>> with current useage patterns. The enthusiastic promotion of biofuels in the
>> face of their self-evident insufficiency as viable energy sources scares me.
>>
>> I'm reminded of homer simpson cooking $27 of bacon to render its fat, which
>> brought him $0.63 at the recycler. Biofuels is a lot like that, and a
>> careful study of Homer Simpson can yield valuable clues about American
>> policy.
>>
>> .max
>
> Just a coincidence it's called pork barrel politics when mega-corporations
> like ADM get massive government subsidies for bio-fuels even though it takes
> more than one gallon of gasoline to make one gallon of ethanol.

Another flagrant lie.

L Sternn wrote:
>>Your experience is likely outdated. Renault of the 2000s is much
>>different from that of the 1980s.
>
>
>
> Duh - they gave up on trying to sell cars here.
>
> 'cuz they suck

so they bought a company that doesnt suck (or doesnt suck as bad...)-nissan!

i see a LOT of altimas around. not many maximas or 350's tho. must be
doing something right.

SoCalMike > wrote in
message ...
>L Sternn wrote

>>> Your experience is likely outdated. Renault of the 2000s is much different
>>> from that of the 1980s.

>> Duh - they gave up on trying to sell cars here.

>> 'cuz they suck

> so they bought a company that doesnt suck (or doesnt suck as bad...)-nissan!

'think' again, they dont own nissan.

> i see a LOT of altimas around. not many maximas or 350's tho. must be doing
> something right.

DTJ wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:07:27 -0500, barbie gee > wrote:
>
>
>>why does everyone think it's ONLY about money saved?
>>what about gasoline saved?
>>we can make more money, we can't make more oil...
>
>
> We sure seem to be. We discover more new oil every year than what we
> use.

Actually, it's quite the opposite.
This site quotes a variety of sources.
enjoy

Life After the Oil Crash
"Deal with Reality, or Reality will Deal with You"

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/



"My father rode a camel. I drive a car.
My son flies a jet-airplane.
His son will ride a camel."~ Arabian Oil Sheik