Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
#21
03-23-2007, 06:23 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Bob - let's be realistic for a second. No partisanship - no politics involved AT ALL.
If those PNGV prototypes were SO GOOD, and the car companies involved were SO SURE they would sell, then the car companies would have used their own money to build and sell them long ago. Car companies are in business to make money. If they rely solely on government programs to finance and build innovative cars, then they are a failure in my eyes.
Here's what happened, regardless of government programs:
Toyota and Honda saw the chance to get ahead, to be innovative, to take a chance, and did so. Domestic carmakers were caught with their pants down.
I can't see how AT ALL that decision was related to PNGV.
Can you find me a quote ANYWHERE from any car company executive who has said, "Toyota and Honda have the advantage in hybrids because the PNGV program was killed." ?????
I don't think so.
Now back to the political side:
Bush, right or wrong, did what other Presidents BEFORE and AFTER him have done and will do: He relied on HIS ADVISORS to recommend a clean car program and went with that. I already showed that there was serious doubt in Congress about the PNGV program at one time. Just because the funding got "negotiated" back into the budget means nothing. There were serious doubts about the program.
If those PNGV prototypes were SO GOOD, and the car companies involved were SO SURE they would sell, then the car companies would have used their own money to build and sell them long ago. Car companies are in business to make money. If they rely solely on government programs to finance and build innovative cars, then they are a failure in my eyes.
Here's what happened, regardless of government programs:
Toyota and Honda saw the chance to get ahead, to be innovative, to take a chance, and did so. Domestic carmakers were caught with their pants down.
I can't see how AT ALL that decision was related to PNGV.
Can you find me a quote ANYWHERE from any car company executive who has said, "Toyota and Honda have the advantage in hybrids because the PNGV program was killed." ?????
I don't think so.
Now back to the political side:
Bush, right or wrong, did what other Presidents BEFORE and AFTER him have done and will do: He relied on HIS ADVISORS to recommend a clean car program and went with that. I already showed that there was serious doubt in Congress about the PNGV program at one time. Just because the funding got "negotiated" back into the budget means nothing. There were serious doubts about the program.
Last edited by lars-ss; 03-23-2007 at 06:33 AM.
#22
03-23-2007, 12:53 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Bob - let's be realistic for a second. No partisanship - no politics involved AT ALL.
If those PNGV prototypes were SO GOOD, and the car companies involved were SO SURE they would sell, then the car companies would have used their own money to build and sell them long ago. Car companies are in business to make money. If they rely solely on government programs to finance and build innovative cars, then they are a failure in my eyes.
If those PNGV prototypes were SO GOOD, and the car companies involved were SO SURE they would sell, then the car companies would have used their own money to build and sell them long ago. Car companies are in business to make money. If they rely solely on government programs to finance and build innovative cars, then they are a failure in my eyes.
http://www.ostp.gov/nstc/html/nstc_ar.pdf
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is a research collaboration between Federal agencies and USCAR, a consortium representing DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors. The partnership’s goal is to produce a production prototype by 2004 of a mid-sized car that will get three times the mileage of 1994 models with no sacrifice in safety performance, affordability, or compliance with emission standards.
In March 2000, PNGV unveiled three concept cars demonstrating the technical feasibility of creating cars capable of getting 80 miles per gallon. All three cars employ some form of hybrid technology that combines a gasoline- or diesel-powered engine with an electric motor to increase fuel economy. The three major automakers also confirmed their commitment to move PNGV technology out of the lab and onto the road by putting vehicles with significant improvements in fuel economy into volume production and into dealers’ showrooms. Work continues on technologies that might contribute to the full achievement of goals for the 2004 prototype.
The PNGV steering group met in November 2000 to approve updated timetables for PNGV work through 2004 and beyond.
In March 2000, PNGV unveiled three concept cars demonstrating the technical feasibility of creating cars capable of getting 80 miles per gallon. All three cars employ some form of hybrid technology that combines a gasoline- or diesel-powered engine with an electric motor to increase fuel economy. The three major automakers also confirmed their commitment to move PNGV technology out of the lab and onto the road by putting vehicles with significant improvements in fuel economy into volume production and into dealers’ showrooms. Work continues on technologies that might contribute to the full achievement of goals for the 2004 prototype.
The PNGV steering group met in November 2000 to approve updated timetables for PNGV work through 2004 and beyond.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=9873&page=62
ABLE 4-1 Comparative Attributes of PNGV Concept Vehicles
Originally Posted by http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=526
. . . The domestic automakers are vague about it. Nicholas Cappa, a DaimlerChrysler spokesman, said in an interview that it is "possible" that the company's hybrid technology stemmed from PNGV.1
Now back to the political side:
Bush, right or wrong, did what other Presidents BEFORE and AFTER him have done and will do: He relied on HIS ADVISORS to recommend a clean car program and went with that. I already showed that there was serious doubt in Congress about the PNGV program at one time. Just because the funding got "negotiated" back into the budget means nothing. There were serious doubts about the program.
Bush, right or wrong, did what other Presidents BEFORE and AFTER him have done and will do: He relied on HIS ADVISORS to recommend a clean car program and went with that. I already showed that there was serious doubt in Congress about the PNGV program at one time. Just because the funding got "negotiated" back into the budget means nothing. There were serious doubts about the program.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 03-23-2007 at 01:07 PM.
#23
03-23-2007, 02:02 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
I knew all about the ESX-3. That would have been a great car. Apparently the $7500 price premium scared them away.
The PNGV section of the executive summary just points to my earlier point that although they were close to making the production cars, the carmakers did not fund the final steps alone. Why not? Either they were REALLY too far away from production cars and were lying in the report, or they thought the cars were not economically feasible and they were relying on PNGV to fund their manufacturing efforts. There is no other logical conclusion to be drawn. My point remains unchallenged that if they were so close and the cars were so awesome, where are they?
And it was also "possible" that the DC hybrid did NOT stem from PNGV. You think no cars will EVER stem from FreedomCar?
And it remains politically true that each President relies on his advisors, correctly or incorrectly, in their policy decisions. All Presidents do what they think is right for the American people. Once that changes, I'm moving to Switzerland.
And like I said earlier, FreedomCar is not just hydrogen:
The FreedomCar Partnership addresses:
* Integrated systems analysis
* Fuel cell power systems
* Hydrogen storage systems
* Technologies for the production and distribution of hydrogen necessary for the viability of hydrogen vehicles
* The technical basis for codes and standards to support hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure and the interface between them
* Electric propulsion systems applicable to both fuel cell and internal combustion/electric hybrid vehicles (e.g., power electronics, electric motors)
* Lightweight materials
* Electrical energy storage systems (e.g., batteries, power capacitors)
* Advanced combustion and emission control systems for internal combustion engines (employing a variety of fuels such as diesel, hydrogen, and renewable blends, and investigating innovative concepts such as homogeneous charge compression ignition systems, variable compression ratio, in-cylinder exhaust gas recirculation, etc.)
Those goals are neither less attainable than nor inferior to the PNGV goals.
The PNGV section of the executive summary just points to my earlier point that although they were close to making the production cars, the carmakers did not fund the final steps alone. Why not? Either they were REALLY too far away from production cars and were lying in the report, or they thought the cars were not economically feasible and they were relying on PNGV to fund their manufacturing efforts. There is no other logical conclusion to be drawn. My point remains unchallenged that if they were so close and the cars were so awesome, where are they?
And it was also "possible" that the DC hybrid did NOT stem from PNGV. You think no cars will EVER stem from FreedomCar?
And it remains politically true that each President relies on his advisors, correctly or incorrectly, in their policy decisions. All Presidents do what they think is right for the American people. Once that changes, I'm moving to Switzerland.
And like I said earlier, FreedomCar is not just hydrogen:
The FreedomCar Partnership addresses:
* Integrated systems analysis
* Fuel cell power systems
* Hydrogen storage systems
* Technologies for the production and distribution of hydrogen necessary for the viability of hydrogen vehicles
* The technical basis for codes and standards to support hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure and the interface between them
* Electric propulsion systems applicable to both fuel cell and internal combustion/electric hybrid vehicles (e.g., power electronics, electric motors)
* Lightweight materials
* Electrical energy storage systems (e.g., batteries, power capacitors)
* Advanced combustion and emission control systems for internal combustion engines (employing a variety of fuels such as diesel, hydrogen, and renewable blends, and investigating innovative concepts such as homogeneous charge compression ignition systems, variable compression ratio, in-cylinder exhaust gas recirculation, etc.)
Those goals are neither less attainable than nor inferior to the PNGV goals.
#24
03-23-2007, 03:07 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Originally Posted by off topic
I know this is completely off topic but I have to respond to lars-ss's barb about the prosecutors. Yes, I imagine Clinton replaced all the prosectutors when he took office. Then Bush replaced them all again when he took office. Okay. However, when there IS no new President taking office, it's VERY atypical for the President to fire prosecutors, so trying to make it sound normal is just misleading.
If people are putting political pressure on prosecutors to bring or not bring cases because of political motivations, that's a potential felony, and it sounds like that's exactly what those two New Mexico Republican Congressmen did. Firing the prosecutors for political reasons may be unethical but it's probably not illegal unless it was done to influence a prosecution- and the Carol Lam instance appears that it might actually have gone down that way.
All that rhetoric about the 'serving at the pleasure of the President' is just a nonsensical talking point- Bush might be in charge of appointing these people, but prosecutors, perhaps more than any other segment of our legal system but judges, need to work for the PEOPLE, for principles of justice and attempt to uphold the law and nothing else. It is NOT a political position, even if the hiring system goes through a political process, any more than an appointed judge or justice, like the Supreme Court itself, is supposed to have to answer to his/her political patrons instead of to the people of our country as a whole.
Furthermore, even if it turns out that no one was doing anything illegal before they started investigating the suspicious goings-on, once the administration started lying to Congress about it to make it sound less damaging, they were breaking a whole separate set of laws. You MIGHT, just MIGHT be able to make a case that it's necessary to deceive the public to keep them safe, but covering someone's political hind end is not a national security interest, no matter how many times the administration tries to assert that it is.
If people are putting political pressure on prosecutors to bring or not bring cases because of political motivations, that's a potential felony, and it sounds like that's exactly what those two New Mexico Republican Congressmen did. Firing the prosecutors for political reasons may be unethical but it's probably not illegal unless it was done to influence a prosecution- and the Carol Lam instance appears that it might actually have gone down that way.
All that rhetoric about the 'serving at the pleasure of the President' is just a nonsensical talking point- Bush might be in charge of appointing these people, but prosecutors, perhaps more than any other segment of our legal system but judges, need to work for the PEOPLE, for principles of justice and attempt to uphold the law and nothing else. It is NOT a political position, even if the hiring system goes through a political process, any more than an appointed judge or justice, like the Supreme Court itself, is supposed to have to answer to his/her political patrons instead of to the people of our country as a whole.
Furthermore, even if it turns out that no one was doing anything illegal before they started investigating the suspicious goings-on, once the administration started lying to Congress about it to make it sound less damaging, they were breaking a whole separate set of laws. You MIGHT, just MIGHT be able to make a case that it's necessary to deceive the public to keep them safe, but covering someone's political hind end is not a national security interest, no matter how many times the administration tries to assert that it is.
#25
03-24-2007, 12:09 AM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Sorry if I'm being too touchy about this, but really! Where would we be if governments didn't fund scientific and technological research? And don't come back with any libertarian arguments about how the private market would take care of it, because most of the major scientific advancements of the modern age would never have been possible without a strong foundation of scientific research done for the sake of knowledge, things that don't necessarily produce profits for far longer than any private company could stomach and stay in business.
You sound like we'd be in caves if not for government grants?
#27
03-25-2007, 07:57 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Ford developed a hybrid, but they found it violated Toyota's patents.
Ford had to sign a license agreement.
Ken@Japan
#28
03-27-2007, 11:16 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
worthywads. That's just not true. Maybe in a few areas like automotive technology and pharmaceuticals, it's more true than most areas of scientific endeavor, but don't generalize from specialization areas to an overall picture of the scope of scientific history and achievement. Scientific research in this world is funded largely by governments, and private research typically builds on public research. That's just true.
I do not ask you to take my word for this. Here are a few links to academic articles on the subject to illustrate:
Biotech: http://www.sristi.org/material/9.2an%20analysis.pdf
General: http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jeclit/...1199-1235.html
Nation by nation perspective: http://www.nature.com/cgi-bin/doifin...0.1038/430311a (you need to subscribe to Nature to read it, sorry, so feel free to disregard)
Genetics: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture01626.html
Germany: http://bibserv7.bib.uni-mannheim.de/...pdf/dp9837.pdf (it concludes that there was a widespread false perception that not much private technology was based on public research, and also mentions that if the only rationale for public research was transfer to the commercial sector, it would not be justifiable. Hence the work that they do would not occur in the absence of public involvement.)
Most of the rise of private scientific research is fairly modern. These days, there's a lot of private research in certain industries that are flourishing and the foundation in public research for those better-developed areas is more distant and partly forgotten with time. Goodness, we have an entire intellectual property system largely intended to stimulate privately funded creativity, because it needs that kind of push to proceed, and the public benefits that can occur are so huge.
I do not ask you to take my word for this. Here are a few links to academic articles on the subject to illustrate:
Biotech: http://www.sristi.org/material/9.2an%20analysis.pdf
General: http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jeclit/...1199-1235.html
Nation by nation perspective: http://www.nature.com/cgi-bin/doifin...0.1038/430311a (you need to subscribe to Nature to read it, sorry, so feel free to disregard)
Genetics: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture01626.html
Germany: http://bibserv7.bib.uni-mannheim.de/...pdf/dp9837.pdf (it concludes that there was a widespread false perception that not much private technology was based on public research, and also mentions that if the only rationale for public research was transfer to the commercial sector, it would not be justifiable. Hence the work that they do would not occur in the absence of public involvement.)
Most of the rise of private scientific research is fairly modern. These days, there's a lot of private research in certain industries that are flourishing and the foundation in public research for those better-developed areas is more distant and partly forgotten with time. Goodness, we have an entire intellectual property system largely intended to stimulate privately funded creativity, because it needs that kind of push to proceed, and the public benefits that can occur are so huge.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Delta Flyer
Journalism & The Media
9
09-28-2005 09:55 AM
