Why can't America build a car like this?

[Bud Williams]

Supercar gets 78 MPG...:angry:

 

[Kevin Palmer]

As a concept, things always are different when it finally hits the street.



That said, to answer your question, because it would cost too many people their jobs. The oil companies really don't want us to solve our energy issue, the loss of money would be in the billions, resulting in the loss of jobs...

 

[Bud Williams]

Is there any more jobs to be lost?

 

[Kevin Palmer]

If you looked ONLY at the oil aspect, all the people that build the drilling rigs, those that work on the rigs, all the ships that move the oil, (crude or refined), sales people that sell the oil, ect ect ect...



So, as bad as things are, from the prospective of the oil companies, it can certainly get worse.



That said, they are VERY good at manipulation and will FIND ways to make money until the point they system finally goes in reverse due to alternative fuels...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oil companies will make larger and larger profits until all the oil is gone (or becomes too costly to retrieve)...whether that takes 20 years, or 30, or 50, or 100 or more. That's the simple market dynamics of scarcity, and the reality of today's oil marketplace what with speculators.



As long as there is demand then the oil companies will deliver the supply, and the supply will dwindle.



The question is when will ultra-high mileage vehicles and vehicles powered by alternative fuels become cost advantageous for the masses? Will it be when gasoline is $6/gallon? $10? $15?



The question isn't IF crude and therefore gasoline will rise to high prices like those mentioned above. The question isn't IF crude will become more and more scarce. The question to these aren't IF, but WHEN?



So, "why can't American build a car like this?"



Answer: It can. It just isn't the right time to make them...yet.



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

The question isn't IF crude will become more and more scarce. The question to these aren't IF, but WHEN?

Can you say that for certain? I've theories discussed in recent years that postulate that oil is not a fossil-fuel,and that there is not a finite amount of it, but rather that the earth is constantly making oil.



I can't recall exactly where I heard that right now, but I have heard it mentioned and read about it a few times in recent years.

 

[Richard McAlister]

Why so much negativism about the oil companies? They make it possible for me to drive my Sport Trac economically and without fear of not finding a supply of fuel - there is a gas station on every corner. A gallon of soda pop costs more than a gallon of gasoline, and it is much easier to produce.

The oil companies make a lot of money, but so do Coca-Cola and McDonalds.

How about a little gratitude?

:driving:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac asks:

Can you say that for certain? I've theories discussed in recent years that postulate that oil is not a fossil-fuel,and that there is not a finite amount of it, but rather that the earth is constantly making oil.

There are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.



I haven't heard the theory you mention. I'm skeptical that our earth regenerates crude oil. If it in fact does not regenerate crude, then there is a limited supply.



TJR

 

[Kevin Palmer]

rmcalis,



I am not being negative, only what I believe to be factual.



They will continue to make money at rates that no one else can obtain.



I am all for ANYONE making money, it is how we survive. What I don't like is being held captive. Which, the oil company does in the form of supply and demand.



If they need/want money they simply slow down the pump is all...



I know of no other business that has that capability and can do so legally.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Coastie said:

I know of no other business that has that capability and can do so legally.

The gold market is pretty close. It has trippled in value the last 10 years (or less) in no small part due to global economic volatility and speculation; and not so much based on real scarcity. I see the same trends and conditions that drive its price up to be shared by crude pricing.



The main difference is people don't "need" gold the way the need fuel...but "need" has always been a relative term. Most here that drive a 13mpg SUT could instead use a 33mpg commuter car because for most, the need is transportation. I know, I know, there are exceptions...but even for most of those that can claim a NEED for a truck, upon examination the need is really based more in a desire or a want.



Regardless, our free market makes certain commodities very valuable and their price very volatile in times of turmoil and unrest. Decreasing global supply and increased global demand for crude (which I feel are both largely inevitable) will cause further turmoil and unrest.



TJR

 

[Collin Lyon]

I've heard of this theory, TT. I wish I can remember the person I was listening to on the radio (was a few years back). The person was talking about samples taken on one of Saturn's moons that there could be oil there. Either this moon had 'dinosaurs' on it millions of years ago, or the moon's interior was generating crude. Man, I wish I could remember the guy's name. He did not come off as a whacko.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Lyon,



Fossil fuel comes from more than just dinosaurs, which is probably the reason for you quotes around the word. The key is organic material.



There could have been some of that on Saturn at one time.

 

[Collin Lyon]

Yeah TJR, therefore a theory at this time. However, he was putting out there questioning the 'fossil' part of fossil fuel. Made for good out-of-the-box thinking.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Lyonpride,



Right. I was just gravitating toward your "either" statement. You gave two possibilities for oil on Saturn's moon: dinosaurs in the past or the interior is generating the crude. There could have been other forms of organic material millions of years prior that could account for the oil.



TJR

 

[H D]

Oil is not going anywhere, anytime soon. And that's fine. There are so many things we require oil for that profitability will remain for a long time. We will eventually see a decrease in demand when automakers are able to mass produce profitable 'green' cars.' I quote that because I use the term lightly and somewhat sarcastically. Want to burst a Prius owner's bubble?: ask them how to dispose of that battery they have. But back to my point, oil will be around long after we're all gone. Its necessary for more than just fueling our vehicles.



I do agree that we need to move away from it as much as possible, as quickly as possible, but of course without devastating our economy. The technology is available, and probably more affordable than most know and some will admit. With nuclear, wind, natural gas, and solar power, and our own enormous oil supply, there is little reason we should have so much dependence on the volatile Middle East. Whole other issue, there, but I think that's the most imperative for our nation.



Coastaljoe, I have another business that operates in that manner: the diamond industry. They're freakin' rocks, and they're scattered all over the ground in Africa, yet us idiots it the west pay thousands of dollars for stupid little shiny rocks while the industry pays pennies for them to the poorest people in the world, keeps the supply low by holding them, and selling for ridiculous prices. I'm just ranting because I'm in the market and a little p.o.'d at the cost of a rock that has zero utility.

 

[H D]

Oh, and to actually comment on the topic's question. Tesla makes an electric super car, basically an electric Lotus. Also, I saw an ad somewhere recently that Porsche is going to be running a hybrid in one of the race series. I don't feel like looking up the car, or the races right now, but maybe I'll come back to this with a little more info later. Or someone else could post it if they care.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Diamonds have some utility....demi moore says they make her want to take her clothes off.* (Which is almost scary). :rofl:



The Tesla roadster is interesting, but has the impotence of all electric cars...and has nothing to do with Tesla the inventor.

With nuclear, wind, natural gas, and solar power

Really, wind energy and solar power are not alternatives. They're capricious. We need dependable energy production systems, that produce the same number of watts day in and day out. Not something that is useless at night, and gets impotent on a cloudy day, or produces electricity proportionate to the amount of wind.



We can't make the wind blow nor the sun shine, but we can make a nuclear reactor the powers on 24/7.



I don't even know why all the "Green" people countenance wind turbines. They're fugly & they destroy ecosystems. Moreover, the ones that are in use largely only produce electricity if the wind is at 8 knots or higher, which seems wasteful, and most all of the turbines are made in China.

 

[H D]

Really, wind energy and solar power are not alternatives. They're capricious. We need dependable energy production systems, that produce the same number of watts day in and day out. Not something that is useless at night, and gets impotent on a cloudy day, or produces electricity proportionate to the amount of wind.

Sorry if I was too brief. I in no way pretend that those could produce enough energy to replace our current system. I think they could help, though. I think small scale, or even just personal use, of these energy sources would be much more effective than government run (i.e. inefficient) large scale total change in infrastructure.



A person within a couple miles of me had solar panels on their house. They used less than the panels produced and got paid for putting energy into the grid. It was an expensive initial cost, but they did not have a monthly power bill at all and were actually making money. Not sure if it offset the costs, or not, though. I doubt it. Also, I think the bad storms we had last fall with bad hail storms damaged the panels. They removed them in the winter, but I haven't been back over that way and seen if they've been replaced. I'd estimate that they had them at least 10 years, though. So, I recognize that there are drawbacks, probably still cost prohibitive, but you have to recognize that technology is currently doubling every 7 years. I think they'll figure out solar panels soon enough.



I mostly agree with your thoughts on wind energy. I just threw it in there bc it does get attention and deserves a mention. I could see how a farmer in the Midwest might like to have a few on his property, though. We don't have to buy anything from China. That's an issue that boils down to our government. We are taxing and fining industry out of our country. Whole other topic, though.



I only mention Tesla because it shows that a small company can produce an alternative. Imagine if Ford or GM put significant research into it (I leave out Chrysler bc they never even really figured out internal combustion :bwahaha. Toyota is already working with Tesla.



Fact of the matter is, though, these electric cars still get their charge from plugging in to a source that requires burning coal.



Nuclear is the way to go! It's not the same technology from the 70s.



One more note. Ethanol is just stupid. Anyone who proposes it, hasn't taken 10 seconds to think about what that would require.

 

[H D]

Oh, as promised:



The Porsche GT3 R Hybrid