  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1502 Registered: 06-2004 |
after giving a speech at the auto show http://www.cnn.com/video/partn ers/clickability/index.html?ur l=/video/business/2006/11/29/v o.wagoner.heckler.cnn.cnn | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 341 Registered: 01-2006 |
"They cant do that to our pledges...only we can do that to our pledges." | ||
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 160 Registered: 05-2005 |
That was funny, but I would have liked to seen security tackle the 2 guys. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 351 Registered: 08-2006 |
I like how Wagoner shoved the guy aside and re approached the podium. Very telling of his attitude towards the "American people". Rich Wagoner can't be bothered by such trite issues as the environment. He's too busy trying to figure out how to do away with the US operations all together so he can focus emphasis on selling the Chinese people more Buicks'. And yes I loved the fact that Security was very slow to remove the hecklers that dared to embarrass "his Excellency". | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1409 Registered: 05-2005 |
i can't see the video, but I don't understand why GM is the poster child for all things bad in the environment. hell, toyota, self-professed patron saint of the green automobile, (i heard flowers even come out of their car's tailpipes!) makes full size trucks that get WORSE gas milage than GM's. GM is actively working on new hybrid vehicles, Three of which were announced at the LA show, hybrid full size trucks and SUV's are just around the corner as well. And what of their fuel cell research? is that not good enough for the critics? should it be abandoned? here is a comprehensive list of GM's future hybrid plans: http://forums.thecarlounge.com /zerothread?id=2953044
(Message edited by gravitymachine on December 01, 2006) (Message edited by gravitymachine on December 01, 2006) | ||
Hockey_player Member Username: Hockey_player Post Number: 265 Registered: 10-2003 |
Quote: "I like how Wagoner shoved the guy aside and re approached the podium. Very telling of his attitude towards the "American people". Rich Wagoner can't be bothered by such trite issues as the environment." Didn't realize they were spokespeople for the entire environmental movement or all the "American People". I mistook them for two twerps trying to pull a publicity stunt that makes their cause seem marginal and irrelevant to most people, as all silly stunts like that do. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 107 Registered: 05-2006 |
I'll believe in GM's future hybrids when I see them. All auto companies (not just US) like to show prototypes that never materialize. When they are at the dealership, then I will believe it. Fuel cells are 25 years off at best. It is great that they are looking into it, but they also need to have a plan until fuel cells are ready. My beef with GM is that they will only make fuel efficient or small cars if they are forced to by laws or the market. Their default will be to always make large fuel inefficient vehicles. GM developed a lot of this technology, but they didn't have the vision to follow through until the Japanese were kicking their butts (again). | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 5219 Registered: 09-2005 |
Sorry-example-of-an-American Cambrian says: "I like how Wagoner shoved the guy aside and re approached the podium. Very telling of his attitude towards the "American people". Rich Wagoner can't be bothered by such trite issues as the environment. He's too busy trying to figure out how to do away with the US operations all together so he can focus emphasis on selling the Chinese people more Buicks'. And yes I loved the fact that Security was very slow to remove the hecklers that dared to embarrass "his Excellency"." Wagoner is trying to save your Granny's pension, among other things. Let me guess: You drive a Honda. If he didn't do some of the things he's been doing (like minimizing the effect of blood-sucking unions who don't mind if they ride manufacturing in the USA right into the ground, dead-broke) GM would have been bankrupt long before now. Because Wagoner has worked harder, gotten more education, has been more successful, is older - and thus now richer - than you, all you can do is whine and yip. When you manage to move above your barback job and there is no longer a manufacturing job - then maybe a management job - then maybe an exec job - for your sorry rear, don't go whining to the US auto industry who you p-ss on at this moment. They're far from perfect (there wasn't prior any example, it was all virgin territory) but never in the history of man on the face of the earth has there been an industry that has improved mankind, accelerated technology, and made so many so affluent for so long a period as THE US AUTO INDUSTRY. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 109 Registered: 05-2006 |
Nah, I'll just get a job with Honda. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 93 Registered: 07-2006 |
Cambrian, actually it's been commented that he handled it very well. he listened, he responded in a civil manner, and they were removed from the stage. they were not supposed to be there, they could have taken them off the stage before they even started speaking - yet they didn't. What did you really expect him to do? It had nothing to do with an attitude towards the American people, or selling buicks in china or any of the crap you stated. If he can't be bothered with 'such trite issues as the environment' why had he just finished a speech about it? Besides, how exactly do they define 'the most fuel efficient automaker'? gm can already say they have more vehicles over 30mpg than any other. toyota can say they've got the prius, but they have the tundra or sequoia too, so they're really no better. you could go off the average of what they sell, but then that punishes gm for building a better truck than toyota, therefore selling more, and lowering the average for the company. there's really no good way to figure the 'most fuel efficient'. and the prius is a niche vehicle, and sells virtually nothing compared to even a camry, so offering one high-mileage vehicle is nothing more than PR. Nainrouge, fuel cells are NOT 25 years off. the majority of cars will still be internal combustion, with a decent amount of hybrids, but i'd be surprised if we have to wait even 10 years for fuel cells vehicles to be available. And actually, next year, GM is doing a market test of 100 fuel cell equinoxes placed with various consumers, including some individuals (not just the military, although they got the first one). | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 112 Registered: 05-2006 |
What are the production costs of those equinoxes? I have heard that it costs over $1 million to produce a single fuel cell vehicle. Where are you getting your information that fuel cells will be here in ten years? Source please! As far as I know, no one has solved the problem of hydrogen production or storage, unless you want to use natural gas to produce hydrogen (and CO2 emissions) and then carry around a 10,000 PSI bomb in your trunk. | ||
Fortress_warren Member Username: Fortress_warren Post Number: 241 Registered: 10-2006 |
I'm amazed they actually knew who's the CEO of GM. We don't buy no detroit iron out here. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 94 Registered: 07-2006 |
Nainrouge before you go demanding someone bring up a source, how about you go get one for your 25 year claim? so far as my claim, GM says they plan on having a 1000-vehicle fleet on the road by 2010-2012. that's only 5 years away - you really think it will be another 20 past that before we see them in dealerships? i'll give you that maybe 10 years from now is on the optimistic side, but more realistic than 20. they have to get these on the road sooner than that for the investment to pay off. http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/ar chives/2006/09/the_moon_shot.h tml yes, at first hydrogen will most likely be sourced from natural gas or petroleum. the problem is not so much in production as it is distribution. since a distribution system is already in place for those sources, it will be easier to convert that for use as a hydrogen source. eventually, it will become more cost efficient (since there will be more out) to use different methods, but until it's rolled out across the country, the existing system can still be used. storage solutions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H ydrogen_storage i'm sure there's more possibilities not listed there, and part of the development is in working out the difficulties in storage, and making it more efficient. you are misinformed if you think it's necessarily going to be compressed hydrogen. also, you seem to have no problem with the flammable gasoline you carry in your vehicle currently. the equinox is NOT a production vehicle, it's a market test. this gives GM feedback about how they are used, the problems that come up, etc. it may very well cost over a million for one. how much does it cost for any concept? for that matter one with new completely different technology? besides, building 100 of them is completely different from building a million, so i fail to see the point of your argument. once you factor in increased development of the technology and economies of scale, the vehicles won't be a million when they are mass produced. also, if you have 'heard' that's how much it costs, why not provide a source? | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 114 Registered: 05-2006 |
Oh, I wouldn't want to argue with GM's claims! You said that they "plan on having" these cars on the road, but even your GM sponsored article hedges like crazy: "But any speculation as to exactly when we will do it and exactly how much it will cost is just that: pure speculation." Pure speculation is not much to build on. Later he hedges again: "It’s going to take time to make the hydrogen economy a reality" Doesn't sound too encouraging to me. I guess I won't invest in that hydrogen fueling station! On hydrogen storage, from your own Wikipedia source: "Hydrogen, in comparison, is quite expensive to store or transport with current technology." Current technology = Compressed hydrogen - there are no other technologies in place now. Cooling hydrogen has not proved effective. The prototypes have very high pressure tanks in them. I would hate to see what would happen when one of those springs a leak and yes, I would rather be sitting on a tank of gas than 10,000 pounds of pressure. A leaking gas tank may or may not cause a fire depending on the situation. Punch a hole in your hydrogen tank and someone is going to get hurt! The article goes on to talk about other possible solutions, but nothing that is about to be put on the market or even on the horizon. These are just theoretical solutions. You didn't even address the fact that you cannot produce hydrogen right now efficiently. No hydrogen = no hydrogen fuel cell. My point about the equinox is that you presented that like that proves that the fuel cell vehicle will be available soon. Obviously they have a very long way to go to make these available to the consumer. Even with economies of scale, you are talking a huge difference between what they cost now and where they would be marketable to the general public. None of your sources support your ten year claim for the general public. 1000 vehicles is nothing, even if they could reach that goal. If read carefully, your articles support the fact that this technology is a long way off. You probably think I am against alternative energy - you would be very wrong. I support it strongly. If this technology were viable for the near future, I would be its biggest supporter. I just feel that fuel cell vehicles have been hyped way beyond the advances in the technology. Here is a link for you: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2 006/05/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-v ehicles-may-take-20-years-to-c atch-on-but-h/ Ok 20, not 25. My bad. I am still not holding my breath. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1503 Registered: 06-2004 |
so how is Wayne State's fuel celled police vehicle holding up? | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1181 Registered: 12-2004 |
Nainrouge, we need to give you more assignments at work. Why dont you walk over to my office sometime, so I can share with you the work I have to do into the after-work hours. On a side note, hydrogen is here! Look at the Hindenburg! | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 95 Registered: 07-2006 |
no responsible auto exec is going to give you an exact time as to when something is going to happen. they tell you what they're planning on - but they aren't going to promise, cause that's bad pr if something goes wrong. (where the hell is my flying car?!?) 'hydrogen economy' (at least how i see it) isn't just a few fuel cell cars available. that's when it begins replacing every vehicle on the road. it's going take decades to convert over - you're not just going to wake up and say 'hey we've got a hydrogen economy now.' they'll be available in some areas for years before they become commonplace across the country. you assume that 'current technology' only means compressed hydrogen, which is not the case (it is one option, but clearly not the best). and they are certainly working on better means. that's a major part of the development of a fuel cell, there's no denying it. but to assume that because it's expensive right now to store hydrogen, it always will be, just doesn't make sense to me. so far as producing hydrogen efficiently: again, economies of scale. it is not efficient now because there is no need for it. in the same way, everyone could have their own coal burning power plant in their backyard, but they wouldn't be efficient either. start doing it on a large scale to provide millions of people with power, it becomes much more efficient. i won't deny that even that has strides to make too. by presenting the equinoxes like that, i only intended on saying gm is serious about this, they have made strides, and this is another step. perhaps i didn't come across clearly. it's still a ways off, there's no denying that. but it is in sight. of course there is a huge difference between the current cost and what it will be. but it's come down a lot from when they first started on it. and it will continue to come down. GM has admitted that, and obviously they're working on it. cheaper materials for the fuel cells, etc. platinum was used for some part of it at one point, for example, but i think they found something else, or at least they were working on it. don't ask me details on that though, i'm not an engineer, and i use that as an example only. it may not be completely factually accurate, i admit. even that article you posted, said it may take 20 years before they can be 'widely used.' and most of it said before they 'prevail', which is a far cry from 'available'. it's mostly the distribution system that will hold it up, and i imagine it would take 5-10 years to get a basic one in place nationwide, and will take millions, if not billions of dollars of investment. but most driving is done locally, so once it's in your area, you will, for the most part, be fine (don't take a trip to north dakota for a while though) in any case, i guess we have to agree to disagree. i do agree it's a ways off, and hybrids will definitely be around for a while. but i'm not going to write fuel cells off, they are coming. i already admitted that perhaps 10 years was optimistic, but i still find 20 to be high. by the way, i didn't think you were *against* it, just overly pessimistic about the timing. personally, i don't think anyone could be against it with these gas prices.  at the same time, i may be overly optimistic, cause i really could use a break from paying 50 bucks a week just so i can get to work (and i drive a cavalier!) | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 117 Registered: 05-2006 |
Yes, cost will come down and they will find technical solutions - in 20 to 25 years! In the meantime, I will look to hybrids, plug-in hybrids, full electrics (EVs), and biodiesel to get rid of our oil addiction. These are on the road, in the hands of "average Joes" right now! Here is another article about hydrogen: http://www.spiegel.de/internat ional/spiegel/0,1518,448648,00 .html 1953 - I still get a lunch hour, right? |
