gm lay off. the volt not doing so hot.

[Reno badboy]

Ummmm, John, ummmm, are you turning "GREEN"??? OK, OK, I take it back!!! No hitting!!! It was a joke!(Yea, right!)

[gremlin]

you can build your own truck modle. heack a nice honda genarator and a 220 v electric motor with a speed controler would do very good on miles per gallon.

[russau]

yep,i was thinking if a person bought one of them electric cars, could he hookup a small trailer and run a generator on it to power this across the country? that would have tobe the best fuel ecconomy you could ever get. now about the pickup/SUV version.......i saw a tv ad where ,one car had a lifetime warrentee on their battery.

[Hoser John]

NOT GREEN BUT RED at $5.00 a gallon gas old dog must learn new tricks to keep in the fun party mode as CDs,I Bonds and MM quit paying squat and VERY costly loss at this time---tons a au 2 u 2-John

[golden optimist]

Good ol Kalifornia! Gas is still $3.23 a gallon here.
Leonard

[nebraskadad]

CARB is the bain of our energy security, what starts in the Peoples Republik tends to creep east, O"Barry is using the CARB model of regulations to push his energy agenda, and using the EPA as the regulatory arm.

I saw this blurb in the current Oil and Gas Journal

California cars

The recent decision by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to require 15.4%
of new cars sold in California in the year
2025 to run on batteries, hydrogen fuel
cells, or plug-in hybrid technology represents
a triumph of political correctness
over science and economics. CARB made
clear that its goal is to have 87% of new
vehicles operating on such technology by
the year 2050. Apparently, the members
of CARB never heard of the branch of science
called thermodynamics.
There are about 19.8 million automobiles
and 14 million light trucks, vans, and
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) registered in
California. Assuming the fuel cell vehicles
are small cars, like the Chevy Volt, the fuel
cell output necessary to power just the
automobiles in this fleet of vehicles for one
year would be about 80 billion kw-hr. However,
the process of producing hydrogen
from water is so energy-inefficient, approximately
260 billion kw-hr of electrical
energy would be needed to produce and
compress this hydrogen. This represents
about one third of the total nuclear generation
in the US today. Just to produce
this hydrogen, about 35,000 Mw of new
nuclear generation would have to be built.
This is equivalent to 17 new Diablo Canyon
plants.
The environmental lobby would like us to
believe this electricity will come from solar.
There are several problems with this idea,
not the least of which is the enormous
area of collectors required (about 300,000
acres). Furthermore, even if the solar generating
capacity were built, we would need
35,000 Mw of back-up gas-fired generation
for cloudy days. Questions such as
who is going to pay for all of this capacity
seem to have been ignored.
But, you say, not all of the vehicles
operating in 2050 will be fuel cell vehicles.
True, although CARB’s goal is for fuel cell
vehicles to comprise about 60% of all
vehicle sales by the year 2050. That would
mean light trucks, vans, and SUVs operating
on fuel cells. Such vehicles consume
a lot more energy that the 0.42 kw-hr/mile
used in these calculations. It also makes
both the economics of CARB’s plan and
the back-up generating capacity problems
worse. There are presently about 9,500
gasoline service stations in California. If
60% of new vehicle sales are going to run
on fuel cells, we need a comparable number
of hydrogen refueling stations. Who
pays for this?
CARB has told the public the cost of
operating battery-powered vehicles will
be lower than gasoline-powered vehicles
because they can be recharged at night
off-peak. The problem is there is no
solar energy at night, and in California,
frequently no wind. Therefore, the batteries
will have to be recharged at night
with gas-fired generation. Electricity rates
will certainly rise to cover the cost of
the additional back-up capacity. This is
equivalent to a tax on energy. This is no
way to run an industrial state. A much
cheaper alternative would be to operate
conventional internal combustion vehicles
on compressed natural gas and save the
taxpayers the $7,500 tax credit that the
Chevy Volt enjoys (for traveling 35 miles on
a charge of electricity).
It is worth noting that replacing the entire
fleet of 19.8 million automobiles in California
with vehicles running on fuel cells
would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
about 73 million tonnes/year—just 0.2%
percent of the present world total. China’s
carbon dioxide emissions are increasing
by about 400 million tonnes/year. CARB
needs a reality check.
Donald F. Anthrop
Berkeley, Calif.

[russau]

if the damocrats will buy me one of them, ill drive it! ill park my truck!and no, i wont sell it!im still looking for them to make these battery cars in a truck!

[gremlin]

gas here is 3.86 a gallon not good. but there is some thing on the home front to be happy about. if we can make fuel we can use it tax free. thats right fuel tax on home made fuel is free. got to love indiana. now getting the permits to make that fuel is not easy. you need a permit to transport used cooking oil, and the epa is ware you get that permit from. if your making fuel you got to get a state permit and one from the epa. got to love that tax free fuel.

i have seen small genarators that can be placed in the bed of a pickup or i bet after all the exhost and things are moved around it could be mounted under the bed.

[Hoser John]

FOUR DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS AT ARCO HERE-$5 by May------sic sic sic crappola John

[russau]

$3.57 for the "cheap stuff"here in good ole St. Louis Misery!