Genius
Posts: 821 
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 10th, 2008, 03:26 PM
A little bit of entertainment.
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=VRlzqkC...c9YLokbndvoHsI
A little bit of entertainment.
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=VRlzqkC...c9YLokbndvoHsI
May 10th, 2008, 03:45 PM
The price of oil isn't high enough yet. Even if it goes to $200 a barrel it will still be too cheap. I have NO sympathy for the chucklehead who drives a vehicle large enough to qualify for a postal code instead of a license plate, a vehicle with a fireplace and a basement (and don't laugh too hard on that one, since a lot of SUVs double as travelling theaters and concert halls), a vehicle that gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon, a vehicle where the rotation of the earth must be taken into account when parallel parking, and then, when it's all done, the driver whines about the price of gas.
The price of oil isn't high enough yet. Even if it goes to $200 a barrel it will still be too cheap. I have NO sympathy for the chucklehead who drives a vehicle large enough to qualify for a postal code instead of a license plate, a vehicle with a fireplace and a basement (and don't laugh too hard on that one, since a lot of SUVs double as travelling theaters and concert halls), a vehicle that gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon, a vehicle where the rotation of the earth must be taken into account when parallel parking, and then, when it's all done, the driver whines about the price of gas.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 10th, 2008, 04:31 PM
Quoting alypipes
Who says that is who the price increase is going to hit the worst? I doubt very much anybody with an SUV is living paycheck-to-paycheck. Would you suggest those who are just ask for a 20% increase in wages?
The price of oil isn't high enough yet. Even if it goes to $200 a barrel it will still be too cheap. I have NO sympathy for the chucklehead who drives a vehicle large enough to qualify for a postal code instead of a license plate, a vehicle with a fireplace and a basement (and don't laugh too hard on that one, since a lot of SUVs double as travelling theaters and concert halls), a vehicle that gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon, a vehicle where the rotation of the earth must be taken into account when parallel parking, and then, when it's all done, the driver whines about the price of gas.
May 10th, 2008, 04:37 PM
My hubby's down in Houston right now, and on an international level, his company is saying that they don't expect much work past 2032.
According to Wiki, the US has a reserve span of 12 yrs.
So, these 'huge' reserves that people are so excited over are clearly not as 'huge' as they'd like, given that North America has got the appetite to match.
My hubby's down in Houston right now, and on an international level, his company is saying that they don't expect much work past 2032.
According to Wiki, the US has a reserve span of 12 yrs.
So, these 'huge' reserves that people are so excited over are clearly not as 'huge' as they'd like, given that North America has got the appetite to match.
May 12th, 2008, 08:42 AM
Price increases of always hit the lower income families the worst. I see you can get 96mo financing on new vehicles now. If it takes you 96 months to pay off a vehicle, you can't afford it. Long term financing like this wouldn't exist if people didn't live beyond their means. Should I feel badly for individuals who now find they have overextended their income?
Quoting MHz
Who says that is who the price increase is going to hit the worst? I doubt very much anybody with an SUV is living paycheck-to-paycheck. Would you suggest those who are just ask for a 20% increase in wages?
Price increases of always hit the lower income families the worst. I see you can get 96mo financing on new vehicles now. If it takes you 96 months to pay off a vehicle, you can't afford it. Long term financing like this wouldn't exist if people didn't live beyond their means. Should I feel badly for individuals who now find they have overextended their income?
Genius
Posts: 502
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
May 12th, 2008, 07:47 PM
Quoting alypipes
You are just babbling nonscence...
The price of oil isn't high enough yet. Even if it goes to $200 a barrel it will still be too cheap. I have NO sympathy for the chucklehead who drives a vehicle large enough to qualify for a postal code instead of a license plate, a vehicle with a fireplace and a basement (and don't laugh too hard on that one, since a lot of SUVs double as travelling theaters and concert halls), a vehicle that gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon, a vehicle where the rotation of the earth must be taken into account when parallel parking, and then, when it's all done, the driver whines about the price of gas.
Bright Spark
Posts: 428
May 13th, 2008, 03:04 PM
We could be at a tipping point in our civilization, so $200 oil is not out of the question.
Those who blamed the speculators for the high price also said the US slowdown would lower the price of oil. Didn't happen, won't happen. The rest of the world is still growing, producing huge amounts of products that take huge amounts of oil to manufacture. Our lifestyle is not so hard to emulate and there's no holding them back now.
We need lots of solar/wind/tidal power now. What if people start buying electric cars in big numbers? The pressure on the power grid will be huge.
We could be at a tipping point in our civilization, so $200 oil is not out of the question.
Those who blamed the speculators for the high price also said the US slowdown would lower the price of oil. Didn't happen, won't happen. The rest of the world is still growing, producing huge amounts of products that take huge amounts of oil to manufacture. Our lifestyle is not so hard to emulate and there's no holding them back now.
We need lots of solar/wind/tidal power now. What if people start buying electric cars in big numbers? The pressure on the power grid will be huge.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,368
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
May 27th, 2008, 01:54 PM
'Peak Oil' scarcity scam used to justify massive fuel price hikes
'Peak Oil takes a page from publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals that say global government needs to control the world population through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity that will result in massive social unrest, widespread famine, and endless war. $15 a gallon gas will most certainly help this agenda along.'
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2347
'Peak Oil takes a page from publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals that say global government needs to control the world population through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity that will result in massive social unrest, widespread famine, and endless war. $15 a gallon gas will most certainly help this agenda along.'
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2347
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,602
June 9th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Monday, 9 June 2008
There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a former industry adviser who claims there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven reserves are calculated.
Although it is widely assumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has peaked and proven reserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, a former oil industry man who is now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Current estimates suggest there are 1,200 billion barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to less than half of what actually exists.
The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending jitters through the market and prompting calls for oil-producing nations to increase supply to push down costs.
Flying into Japan for a summit two days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8 countries yesterday discussed an action plan to ease the crisis.
Explaining why the published estimates of proven global reserves are less than half the true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producers were glad to go along with under-reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oil industry is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision makers in both the companies and the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said.
Dr Pike's assessment does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit.
The environmental implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside the industry, will alarm environmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to find greener alternatives.
"The bad news is that by underestimating proven oil reserves we have been lulled into a false sense of security in terms of environmental issues, because it suggests we will have to find alternatives to fossil fuels in a few decades," said Dr Pike. "We should not be surprised if oil dominates well into the twenty-second century. It highlights a major error in energy and environmental planning – we are dramatically underestimating the challenge facing us," he said.
Proven oil reserves are likely to be far larger than reported because of the way the capacity of oilfields is estimated and how those estimates are added to form the proven reserves of a company or a country. Companies add the estimated capacity of oil fields in a simple arithmetic manner to get proven oil reserves. This gives a deliberately conservative total deemed suitable for shareholders who do not want proven reserves hyped, Dr Pike said.
However, mathematically it is more accurate to add the proven oil capacity of individual fields in a probabilistic manner based on the bell-shaped statistical curve used to estimate the proven, probable and possible reserves of each field. This way, the final capacity is typically more than twice that of simple, arithmetic addition, Dr Pike said. "The same also goes for natural gas because these fields are being estimated in much the same way. The world is understating the environmental challenge and appears unprepared for the difficult compromises that will have to be made."
Jeremy Leggett, author of Half Gone, a book on peak oil, is not convinced that Dr Pike is right. "The flow rates from the existing projects are the key. Capacity coming on stream falls fast beyond 2011," Dr Leggett said. "On top of that, if the big old fields begin collapsing, the descent in supply will hit the world very hard."
Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Monday, 9 June 2008
There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a former industry adviser who claims there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven reserves are calculated.
Although it is widely assumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has peaked and proven reserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, a former oil industry man who is now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Current estimates suggest there are 1,200 billion barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to less than half of what actually exists.
The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending jitters through the market and prompting calls for oil-producing nations to increase supply to push down costs.
Flying into Japan for a summit two days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8 countries yesterday discussed an action plan to ease the crisis.
Explaining why the published estimates of proven global reserves are less than half the true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producers were glad to go along with under-reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oil industry is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision makers in both the companies and the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said.
Dr Pike's assessment does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit.
The environmental implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside the industry, will alarm environmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to find greener alternatives.
"The bad news is that by underestimating proven oil reserves we have been lulled into a false sense of security in terms of environmental issues, because it suggests we will have to find alternatives to fossil fuels in a few decades," said Dr Pike. "We should not be surprised if oil dominates well into the twenty-second century. It highlights a major error in energy and environmental planning – we are dramatically underestimating the challenge facing us," he said.
Proven oil reserves are likely to be far larger than reported because of the way the capacity of oilfields is estimated and how those estimates are added to form the proven reserves of a company or a country. Companies add the estimated capacity of oil fields in a simple arithmetic manner to get proven oil reserves. This gives a deliberately conservative total deemed suitable for shareholders who do not want proven reserves hyped, Dr Pike said.
However, mathematically it is more accurate to add the proven oil capacity of individual fields in a probabilistic manner based on the bell-shaped statistical curve used to estimate the proven, probable and possible reserves of each field. This way, the final capacity is typically more than twice that of simple, arithmetic addition, Dr Pike said. "The same also goes for natural gas because these fields are being estimated in much the same way. The world is understating the environmental challenge and appears unprepared for the difficult compromises that will have to be made."
Jeremy Leggett, author of Half Gone, a book on peak oil, is not convinced that Dr Pike is right. "The flow rates from the existing projects are the key. Capacity coming on stream falls fast beyond 2011," Dr Leggett said. "On top of that, if the big old fields begin collapsing, the descent in supply will hit the world very hard."
Bright Spark
Posts: 428
June 9th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Good post Walter, the way the oil producing calcualte their reserves is a little foggy. Lack of information causes jitters. Throw in two needless wars in Asia, and no big oil fields discovered in over 30 years and you get higher prices.
If Bush announced troop withdrawals from Iraq, I bet the price of a barrel of oil would drop $25 in a week.
But Bush won't for the same reasons big oil won't get religion regarding alternative energy. It's just not in their parochial interest. But GM got religion for alternative fuels. It's in the Saturday Globe and Mail Report on Business.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...eRequested=all
GM wakes up and plugs in. Now comes the hard part
By GREG KEENAN AND BARRIE MCKENNA
Saturday, June 7, 2008 Page B4
TORONTO AND WASHINGTON -- Mark LaNeve, chief salesman for General Motors Corp., strode to the microphone in Detroit in January and pointed to his company's newest green vehicle. It was, of all things, a Hummer, one powered by biofuels, a feature that would be available on all Hummer models by 2010.
Engines were being downsized, too, with the first Hummer powered by a V6 engine on its way, Mr. LaNeve told an assembled throng at the North American International Auto Show.
"It does make sense," he declared. Less than five months later, that incremental step of making more fuel-efficient Hummers became a full-fledged retreat.
GM decided that the symbol of conspicuous gas consumption no longer made sense. It will be sold off, killed off or remade into a home for smaller vehicles.
Smaller Hummers? No Hummers? What's hit GM? A tsunami of high oil prices and sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles falling off a cliff, and the realization that getting back in the black for a sustained period means going green.
GM and its Detroit rivals, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, are entering uncharted waters on their way to a new world. It is possible - perhaps even probable - that one or two of them will not survive.
Going green is going to take more than a change in mindset. That, in itself, was monumental for GM, but it will likely end up being the easy part. Going green can save the Detroit Three only if they can quickly change their business model to one that generates profits from the sale of cars, instead of trucks and SUVs. And even then, only if they can develop the right environmental technologies that drivers - and North American governments - are demanding in an era of expensive gasoline.
Of course, even if they do all that right, they'll still face Toyota and Honda on the other side, ready to steal even more market share. In fact, their Japanese rivals have already pulled ahead in the race to go green.
Unfortunately, the Detroit Three seem to take decisive action only when a gun is pointed at their heads.
"Sometimes the gun is at their temple and it takes three or four homicidal events for them to move," a former GM executive quips.
Gasoline at $4 (U.S.) a gallon looks like the gun that is prompting them to try to save themselves. Whether they will won't be known for several years.
High-risk gambles
The immediate concern is energizing companies that move at a glacial pace to respond more quickly to consumers who have reacted to gas prices - at lightning speed, in recent months - by abandoning the pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles that the companies have relied on for more than a decade to generate profits.
It involves quick thinking now, but it also demands a longer-term strategy that starts looking beyond oil, says GM's major green visionary.
Larry Burns, GM's vice-president of research and development, summed it up like this in a recent interview with The Globe and Mail: "I think the issue is the auto industry and our world's dependence on petroleum as a single commodity for automotive energy."
One of the daunting challenges facing GM and its rivals is that they must lay down several expensive bets at the same time. One wager is already being played out - hybrids. Another growing quickly is the use of ethanol and other biofuels as a replacement for gasoline.
Then there are the really high-risk gambles. There are so-called plug-in hybrids, also known as extended-range electric vehicles, and, finally, the technology that is ultimately the holy grail to wean the industry off gasoline - hydrogen-powered fuel cells.
Development of hybrids, plug-ins and fuel cells by GM and global rivals such as Toyota are part of a race against the clock to transform the industry to meet new U.S. fuel economy standards set to take effect in 2017. With the surge in U.S. gasoline prices to around $4 a gallon, this now has also become a race to satisfy consumers who demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, but are not willing to drive subcompacts.
This is perhaps the most expensive proposition Detroit has ever faced. There are estimates that the total bill may come to more than $100-billion. That's an enormous tab for a healthy sector, never mind for three struggling companies.
"The ultimate question for the Detroit Three is how do they fund this activity," said auto consultant Bill Pochiluk, president of AutomotiveCompass LLC in West Chester, Pa.
They have posted losses of tens of billions of dollars, and the biggest sales slump in more than a decade means there is no hope of turning that financial situation around in the short term.
"Where are you going to find the additional capital?" Mr. Pochiluk asked. "Which gets you to the point that you're going to have shut some marginal operations down to save some capital to focus in on the right things."
GM and Ford lost a whopping $65-billion in the past three years. Chrysler too, has lost billions, but it is private so exact numbers are impossible to obtain. Ford and GM are mortgaged to the hilt. And the consensus among analysts is that Chrysler's owner Cerberus Capital Management LP is in the auto business only for a short time.
Few believe Chrysler has the financial resources to run with the big boys in the environmental race, and even before that game gets into the late innings next decade, the No. 3 Detroit auto maker already is in rough shape. It sells mainly trucks amid a market turning with lightning speed back to passenger cars - the development that sparked GM's announcement this week that it will shut four truck and SUV assembly plants, including its Oshawa, Ont., pickup plant.
"Chrysler's extremely light product pipeline leads us to believe that Chrysler's current owners do not have a long-term commitment to the business in its current form and it will most likely be broken up," Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. analyst John Murphy wrote in a recent research note.
If that happens over the next five or even 10 years, Detroit will look radically different, although it might also give GM and Ford some new customers to try to win over.
Erred pulling plug-in plug
Sources familiar with GM's most recent foray into the environmental space said there was no single eureka moment when it dawned on the company's executives that they had to act to change the perception that their company was a home to gas-guzzling hulks.
It was an ongoing process over a period of time at a company that, under chief executive officer Rick Wagoner, has taken a step-by-step approach to tackling problems that have long plagued it.
Ironically, GM once enjoyed a significant lead in the electric car business. In the late 1990s, it produced more than 1,000 experimental EV1 electric cars - one of the greenest vehicles ever made. GM leased the cars to hundreds of enthusiasts, who fell in love with the plug-in vehicle.
But in 2000, the company pulled the plug on the plug-in after sinking $1-billion into the venture, convinced that it would never make money selling a fringe car to geeks.
Eight years and a quadrupling in the price of gasoline later, Mr. Wagoner now readily admits killing the EV1 was one of his biggest mistakes.
It wasn't GM's only slipup on the road to green. The largest U.S. auto maker is guilty of being, at once, too farsighted and too shortsighted. While rejecting electric, GM's top brass bet that the future of autos would be hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles. So, early this decade, they redirected their development dollars into the faraway promise of hydrogen - "a moon shot," as GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz once called it. GM has already sunk more than $1-billion into hydrogen vehicles, and will spend another $1-billion by 2010 - money that could have been spent on hybrids and electrics.
That long-term gamble may well pay off for GM in the future. But the present of green is electric.
And even then, car makers still have a lot of work to do.
'thermal events' a worry
The battery is the missing link between the hybrids on the road today and the plug-in electric vehicles of the near future. It is the critical short-term challenge.
The Toyota Prius, for example, runs on a nickel metal hydride battery, which kicks in to power the car's electric engine at low speeds and then recharges while the car runs at higher speeds on gasoline.
GM's great white hope, the Chevrolet Volt, is destined to run on a lithium ion battery - a larger version of the batteries that power most laptop computers, cellphones and MP3 players.
The main advantage is that a lithium ion battery packs the same amount of juice in roughly half the size of a nickel metal hydride, allowing a car to run for hours between charges. Experts predict the lithium ion battery will eventually push the range for electric cars to more than 300 kilometres, and enable quick recharges in just slightly more time than it takes to fill up at the pump. Initially, the Volt would run for a more modest 64 kilometres before its gasoline engine kicks in to recharge the battery.
But with just two years before the Volt's planned launch, lithium ion batteries are completely unproven for cars. The industry isn't currently producing them. GM's greatest challenge will be to produce batteries that are safe and in sufficiently large quantities to meet the company's commitment to large-scale production of the Volt in 2010.
The batteries will be road ready for the Volt's launch, GM insists. Suppliers have their doubts, fretting privately they may not be able to produce the batteries in large enough quantities to meet the Volt's tight deadline.
"Battery makers are very concerned," said Brett Smith, assistant director of manufacturing, engineering and technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. "There is a lot of uncertainty. Less than large-scale production, they can handle. Beyond that, you look at much different manufacturing strategies, and that's what they're struggling with."
Another key question mark hovering over lithium ion batteries is the danger of fire. Computer makers have struggled for years with overheating lithium ion batteries, recalling millions of laptops.
The threat of overheating is likely to be even greater with much larger car batteries - a touchy subject around GM. GM's product development czar Mr. Lutz said earlier this year during a discussion about the Volt and batteries that it's best not to refer to fires, but rather the danger of "thermal events."
Any car company serious about electric vehicles is teaming up with battery makers to improve the technology. Toyota and Matsu****a Electric plan to spend about $700-million to boost output of several kinds of batteries to one million units a year by 2011. They plan to begin producing lithium ion batteries in 2010.
Hedging its bets, GM has struck deals with two potential consortiums - Johnson Controls/Saft Advanced Power Solutions and Cobasys/A123Systems.
Similarly, Volkswagen is teaming up with Sanyo. Nissan has linked up with NEC Corp. of Japan in a $115-million battery project.
GM is still very committed to hydrogen fuel cells. Mr. Burns, the research and development guru, is a true believer.
"Three things remain to be done," he said. "We need to get the costs down, we need to get the durability up and we need the infrastructure."
Auto makers and their partners in the fuel cell race should, he said, be able to get the costs down and the durability up to the point where fuel cell vehicles could come to market by 2018.
That leaves the key question of whether the oil industry or someone else will step up to provide the hydrogen infrastructure to fill up the vehicles.
Affordability an issue
Once GM overcomes the battery challenge, the auto maker will have to figure out how to make cars people want, at a profit. That could prove to be a tall order, considering that it lost an average of $690 for every vehicle it made in North America in the first quarter, more than double its loss a year earlier. And it has been steadily ceding market share - to less than 20 per cent in the U.S., down from 50 per cent at its peak in the 1970s.
"Even if you deliver the vehicles people want, there still may be fewer [buyers] who can afford them, and therefore you have a smaller industry," said Mr. Smith of the Center for Automotive Research. "That's an enormously scary discussion for the auto industry."
Sustained high gas prices could potentially shrink the overall car market by 20 to 30 per cent, leaving GM with a shrunken business as the foundation of its revival, Mr. Smith estimated.
"It could be a big payoff, but it's a huge risk for General Motors," Mr. Smith concluded. All the engine, electronics and battery technology comes at a price. GM estimates the Volt's hybrid electric features will add about $10,000 to the price tag (the company expects the Volt to retail for $30,000 to $45,000).
That's a significant premium over the existing Prius, whose hybrid components account for $4,000 of its roughly $21,500 base price.
The Volt must come in at considerably less than $40,000, said the former GM executive, or buyers won't save enough on fuel to make up for the premium.
Already, the Japanese, and Toyota in particular, enjoy a substantial technological lead on the Detroit Three in the race to develop environmentally friendly vehicles. Toyota plans to launch a plug-in version of the Prius in 2010, the same year the Volt hits showrooms.
As many as three-quarters of GM's 50 models may need to be retrofitted in some way to get better fuel efficiency. "They're a generation behind on hybrid technology," Peter Morici, a professor of international business at the University of Maryland, said of GM. "It's going to be a while before [the Volt] turns into a money maker."
The success Toyota and Honda have had in small cars and their long-established footprints in the hybrid market put them ahead of GM, and much farther in front of Chrysler and Ford, said Mr. Pochiluk. He said any company seeking to join the leaders therefore must tell itself this: "We can't be as good as, we have to be better than."
Toyota, which is battling tooth and nail with GM for world sales leadership, said yesterday that a new fuel cell hybrid car it has developed will travel 830 kilometres before it needs refuelling, more than double the distance of its previous fuel cell model.
What GM does have are the resources to play catch-up, unlike Ford and Chrysler. But success will depend on getting customers to embrace its transformational journey from Hummer maker to the champion of green. And on that front, GM has a major sales job ahead of it, after years of pushing SUVs and pickups.
"They will never be viewed as the green leaders," Mr. Smith said of the Detroit Three. "In the near to mid-term, it will be extremely difficult to overcome 100 years of producing gas-guzzling dinosaurs. Toyota does too, of course. But perception is more important than reality in the marketing world."
It's also too early to tell if consumers will embrace electric cars, although U.S. drivers are migrating back to cars and crossover utility vehicles from pickups and SUVs.
Although conventional wisdom is that hybrids are taking over, at the moment, they make up less than 1 per cent of GM's U.S. car sales, and one in 10 of Toyota's sales. Car makers sold a total of 347,000 hybrids last year in the U.S., and sales are up about 4 per cent so far this year. That's still just 2 per cent of all light vehicle sales.
And yet high gas prices are rapidly changing the landscape. People are driving less and turning to public transit. And, according to a May survey by RBC Dominion Securities, 82 per cent of U.S. respondents would consider buying a hybrid.
The big question now is: Are the masses willing to pay a premium to go green? In the past, consumer enthusiasm has typically cooled in the showroom, where price quickly becomes the prime mover.
Says Mr. Smith, the auto analyst: "People speak more often with their wallets than with their green hearts."
That's the task for GM. Getting consumers to part with the green in their wallets.
FUEL CELLS
How they work
Vehicles are powered by a fuel cell that creates power through a chemical reaction. In a stack of membranes and separators, hydrogen obtained from a source such as natural gas or methanol is combined with oxygen to generate enough electricity to power the vehicle's electric motor without releasing harmful emissions.
Potential
Because the only byproducts of combining hydrogen and oxygen are heat and water - and because the hydrogen packs don't need to be plugged in for recharging - the technology is considered by many as the best solution to environmental woes.
Drawbacks
Despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on research and development in the past 20 years, experts believe the technology is still more than 10 years away from becoming mainstream. The prototypes are expensive, and the logistics of creating a supply and storage system for hydrogen refills on roads and highways is difficult.
In the news
Perhaps as a sign of the shift away from the immediate feasibility of developing fuel cell-powered cars, Ballard Power Systems Inc. of Burnaby, B.C., sold its pioneering auto fuel cell business last year to Daimler AG and Ford Motor Co. and changed its emphasis to fuel cell markets such as forklifts, backup power and co-generators.
HYBRIDS
How they work
Hybrid technology combines a combustion engine and an electric motor with a small, on-board battery pack to run accessories, move the vehicle for short distances and provide a power boost when accelerating.
Potential
Hybrids deliver better gas mileage than conventional engines, and at a time when car buyers are going for smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles, the technology is the most proven in the market. Hybrid technology is spreading to many larger vehicles. GE Rail, for instance, has designed a hybrid locomotive and there are several hybrid trucks and SUVs available.
Drawbacks
There are still doubts about the long-term economics of hybrids. Most studies have shown that you have to drive a hybrid car for more than five years, on average, to recover the premium through fuel efficiency. Most hybrids cost significantly more than similar vehicles with conventional engines.
In the news
In April, the U.S. Congress introduced a measure to study the potential dangers hybrid cars pose to the blind and other pedestrians because they are so quiet.
PLUG-INS
How they work
Dubbed the "next-generation hybrid," plug-ins use the same basic technology but benefit from rechargeable lithium ion batteries - like those in power drills - that can be charged using an everyday power outlet.
Potential
The advantage of plug-ins is that they run longer on electricity than regular hybrids. Supporters of plug-ins tout huge fuel economy gains. Theoretically, owners who drive less than 60 to 80 kilometres a day will never need to fill up on gasoline.
Drawbacks
The mass production of plug-ins is being held back by high costs and battery technology that limits the vehicles' range. Lithium ion batteries are required, but no supplier has developed one proven to be safe, durable and affordable. Plus, accessible electrical outlets aren't available in many places.
In the news
Henrik Fisker, the Danish-born former designer for BMW and Aston Martin, has teamed with Google and Quantum Fuel Systems. They plan to have the Fisker Karma, an $80,000 (U.S.) battery-powered, luxury plug-in, on the market some time next year. The Chevrolet Volt is likely to be the first plug-in to hit the mass market in 2010.
ETHANOL
How it works
Ethanol - another term for ethyl alcohol - is grain alcohol, usually refined from corn or sugar cane, that can be used as a fuel additive. Added to gasoline, ethanol reduces greenhouse emissions such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide.
Potential
Biofuels such as ethanol have emerged as an economically feasible and renewable alternative to oil. Higher gas prices make ethanol increasingly attractive as an alternative.
Drawbacks
Some say booming ethanol production has slowed global food production by reducing available farm land. There are also questions about the net benefit of ethanol on the environment because of its lower energy content versus gasoline. In 2005, a Cornell University study found that producing ethanol from plants such as corn, sunflowers and soybeans uses more energy than the fuel generates.
In the news
Ethanol has had several resurgences over the years. It was used in the 1850s to fuel lamps and again during the Second World War when gas and diesel supplies ran low.
DAVID HUTTON, MATTHEW TREVISAN
Good post Walter, the way the oil producing calcualte their reserves is a little foggy. Lack of information causes jitters. Throw in two needless wars in Asia, and no big oil fields discovered in over 30 years and you get higher prices.
If Bush announced troop withdrawals from Iraq, I bet the price of a barrel of oil would drop $25 in a week.
But Bush won't for the same reasons big oil won't get religion regarding alternative energy. It's just not in their parochial interest. But GM got religion for alternative fuels. It's in the Saturday Globe and Mail Report on Business.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...eRequested=all
GM wakes up and plugs in. Now comes the hard part
By GREG KEENAN AND BARRIE MCKENNA
Saturday, June 7, 2008 Page B4
TORONTO AND WASHINGTON -- Mark LaNeve, chief salesman for General Motors Corp., strode to the microphone in Detroit in January and pointed to his company's newest green vehicle. It was, of all things, a Hummer, one powered by biofuels, a feature that would be available on all Hummer models by 2010.
Engines were being downsized, too, with the first Hummer powered by a V6 engine on its way, Mr. LaNeve told an assembled throng at the North American International Auto Show.
"It does make sense," he declared. Less than five months later, that incremental step of making more fuel-efficient Hummers became a full-fledged retreat.
GM decided that the symbol of conspicuous gas consumption no longer made sense. It will be sold off, killed off or remade into a home for smaller vehicles.
Smaller Hummers? No Hummers? What's hit GM? A tsunami of high oil prices and sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles falling off a cliff, and the realization that getting back in the black for a sustained period means going green.
GM and its Detroit rivals, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, are entering uncharted waters on their way to a new world. It is possible - perhaps even probable - that one or two of them will not survive.
Going green is going to take more than a change in mindset. That, in itself, was monumental for GM, but it will likely end up being the easy part. Going green can save the Detroit Three only if they can quickly change their business model to one that generates profits from the sale of cars, instead of trucks and SUVs. And even then, only if they can develop the right environmental technologies that drivers - and North American governments - are demanding in an era of expensive gasoline.
Of course, even if they do all that right, they'll still face Toyota and Honda on the other side, ready to steal even more market share. In fact, their Japanese rivals have already pulled ahead in the race to go green.
Unfortunately, the Detroit Three seem to take decisive action only when a gun is pointed at their heads.
"Sometimes the gun is at their temple and it takes three or four homicidal events for them to move," a former GM executive quips.
Gasoline at $4 (U.S.) a gallon looks like the gun that is prompting them to try to save themselves. Whether they will won't be known for several years.
High-risk gambles
The immediate concern is energizing companies that move at a glacial pace to respond more quickly to consumers who have reacted to gas prices - at lightning speed, in recent months - by abandoning the pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles that the companies have relied on for more than a decade to generate profits.
It involves quick thinking now, but it also demands a longer-term strategy that starts looking beyond oil, says GM's major green visionary.
Larry Burns, GM's vice-president of research and development, summed it up like this in a recent interview with The Globe and Mail: "I think the issue is the auto industry and our world's dependence on petroleum as a single commodity for automotive energy."
One of the daunting challenges facing GM and its rivals is that they must lay down several expensive bets at the same time. One wager is already being played out - hybrids. Another growing quickly is the use of ethanol and other biofuels as a replacement for gasoline.
Then there are the really high-risk gambles. There are so-called plug-in hybrids, also known as extended-range electric vehicles, and, finally, the technology that is ultimately the holy grail to wean the industry off gasoline - hydrogen-powered fuel cells.
Development of hybrids, plug-ins and fuel cells by GM and global rivals such as Toyota are part of a race against the clock to transform the industry to meet new U.S. fuel economy standards set to take effect in 2017. With the surge in U.S. gasoline prices to around $4 a gallon, this now has also become a race to satisfy consumers who demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, but are not willing to drive subcompacts.
This is perhaps the most expensive proposition Detroit has ever faced. There are estimates that the total bill may come to more than $100-billion. That's an enormous tab for a healthy sector, never mind for three struggling companies.
"The ultimate question for the Detroit Three is how do they fund this activity," said auto consultant Bill Pochiluk, president of AutomotiveCompass LLC in West Chester, Pa.
They have posted losses of tens of billions of dollars, and the biggest sales slump in more than a decade means there is no hope of turning that financial situation around in the short term.
"Where are you going to find the additional capital?" Mr. Pochiluk asked. "Which gets you to the point that you're going to have shut some marginal operations down to save some capital to focus in on the right things."
GM and Ford lost a whopping $65-billion in the past three years. Chrysler too, has lost billions, but it is private so exact numbers are impossible to obtain. Ford and GM are mortgaged to the hilt. And the consensus among analysts is that Chrysler's owner Cerberus Capital Management LP is in the auto business only for a short time.
Few believe Chrysler has the financial resources to run with the big boys in the environmental race, and even before that game gets into the late innings next decade, the No. 3 Detroit auto maker already is in rough shape. It sells mainly trucks amid a market turning with lightning speed back to passenger cars - the development that sparked GM's announcement this week that it will shut four truck and SUV assembly plants, including its Oshawa, Ont., pickup plant.
"Chrysler's extremely light product pipeline leads us to believe that Chrysler's current owners do not have a long-term commitment to the business in its current form and it will most likely be broken up," Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. analyst John Murphy wrote in a recent research note.
If that happens over the next five or even 10 years, Detroit will look radically different, although it might also give GM and Ford some new customers to try to win over.
Erred pulling plug-in plug
Sources familiar with GM's most recent foray into the environmental space said there was no single eureka moment when it dawned on the company's executives that they had to act to change the perception that their company was a home to gas-guzzling hulks.
It was an ongoing process over a period of time at a company that, under chief executive officer Rick Wagoner, has taken a step-by-step approach to tackling problems that have long plagued it.
Ironically, GM once enjoyed a significant lead in the electric car business. In the late 1990s, it produced more than 1,000 experimental EV1 electric cars - one of the greenest vehicles ever made. GM leased the cars to hundreds of enthusiasts, who fell in love with the plug-in vehicle.
But in 2000, the company pulled the plug on the plug-in after sinking $1-billion into the venture, convinced that it would never make money selling a fringe car to geeks.
Eight years and a quadrupling in the price of gasoline later, Mr. Wagoner now readily admits killing the EV1 was one of his biggest mistakes.
It wasn't GM's only slipup on the road to green. The largest U.S. auto maker is guilty of being, at once, too farsighted and too shortsighted. While rejecting electric, GM's top brass bet that the future of autos would be hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles. So, early this decade, they redirected their development dollars into the faraway promise of hydrogen - "a moon shot," as GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz once called it. GM has already sunk more than $1-billion into hydrogen vehicles, and will spend another $1-billion by 2010 - money that could have been spent on hybrids and electrics.
That long-term gamble may well pay off for GM in the future. But the present of green is electric.
And even then, car makers still have a lot of work to do.
'thermal events' a worry
The battery is the missing link between the hybrids on the road today and the plug-in electric vehicles of the near future. It is the critical short-term challenge.
The Toyota Prius, for example, runs on a nickel metal hydride battery, which kicks in to power the car's electric engine at low speeds and then recharges while the car runs at higher speeds on gasoline.
GM's great white hope, the Chevrolet Volt, is destined to run on a lithium ion battery - a larger version of the batteries that power most laptop computers, cellphones and MP3 players.
The main advantage is that a lithium ion battery packs the same amount of juice in roughly half the size of a nickel metal hydride, allowing a car to run for hours between charges. Experts predict the lithium ion battery will eventually push the range for electric cars to more than 300 kilometres, and enable quick recharges in just slightly more time than it takes to fill up at the pump. Initially, the Volt would run for a more modest 64 kilometres before its gasoline engine kicks in to recharge the battery.
But with just two years before the Volt's planned launch, lithium ion batteries are completely unproven for cars. The industry isn't currently producing them. GM's greatest challenge will be to produce batteries that are safe and in sufficiently large quantities to meet the company's commitment to large-scale production of the Volt in 2010.
The batteries will be road ready for the Volt's launch, GM insists. Suppliers have their doubts, fretting privately they may not be able to produce the batteries in large enough quantities to meet the Volt's tight deadline.
"Battery makers are very concerned," said Brett Smith, assistant director of manufacturing, engineering and technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. "There is a lot of uncertainty. Less than large-scale production, they can handle. Beyond that, you look at much different manufacturing strategies, and that's what they're struggling with."
Another key question mark hovering over lithium ion batteries is the danger of fire. Computer makers have struggled for years with overheating lithium ion batteries, recalling millions of laptops.
The threat of overheating is likely to be even greater with much larger car batteries - a touchy subject around GM. GM's product development czar Mr. Lutz said earlier this year during a discussion about the Volt and batteries that it's best not to refer to fires, but rather the danger of "thermal events."
Any car company serious about electric vehicles is teaming up with battery makers to improve the technology. Toyota and Matsu****a Electric plan to spend about $700-million to boost output of several kinds of batteries to one million units a year by 2011. They plan to begin producing lithium ion batteries in 2010.
Hedging its bets, GM has struck deals with two potential consortiums - Johnson Controls/Saft Advanced Power Solutions and Cobasys/A123Systems.
Similarly, Volkswagen is teaming up with Sanyo. Nissan has linked up with NEC Corp. of Japan in a $115-million battery project.
GM is still very committed to hydrogen fuel cells. Mr. Burns, the research and development guru, is a true believer.
"Three things remain to be done," he said. "We need to get the costs down, we need to get the durability up and we need the infrastructure."
Auto makers and their partners in the fuel cell race should, he said, be able to get the costs down and the durability up to the point where fuel cell vehicles could come to market by 2018.
That leaves the key question of whether the oil industry or someone else will step up to provide the hydrogen infrastructure to fill up the vehicles.
Affordability an issue
Once GM overcomes the battery challenge, the auto maker will have to figure out how to make cars people want, at a profit. That could prove to be a tall order, considering that it lost an average of $690 for every vehicle it made in North America in the first quarter, more than double its loss a year earlier. And it has been steadily ceding market share - to less than 20 per cent in the U.S., down from 50 per cent at its peak in the 1970s.
"Even if you deliver the vehicles people want, there still may be fewer [buyers] who can afford them, and therefore you have a smaller industry," said Mr. Smith of the Center for Automotive Research. "That's an enormously scary discussion for the auto industry."
Sustained high gas prices could potentially shrink the overall car market by 20 to 30 per cent, leaving GM with a shrunken business as the foundation of its revival, Mr. Smith estimated.
"It could be a big payoff, but it's a huge risk for General Motors," Mr. Smith concluded. All the engine, electronics and battery technology comes at a price. GM estimates the Volt's hybrid electric features will add about $10,000 to the price tag (the company expects the Volt to retail for $30,000 to $45,000).
That's a significant premium over the existing Prius, whose hybrid components account for $4,000 of its roughly $21,500 base price.
The Volt must come in at considerably less than $40,000, said the former GM executive, or buyers won't save enough on fuel to make up for the premium.
Already, the Japanese, and Toyota in particular, enjoy a substantial technological lead on the Detroit Three in the race to develop environmentally friendly vehicles. Toyota plans to launch a plug-in version of the Prius in 2010, the same year the Volt hits showrooms.
As many as three-quarters of GM's 50 models may need to be retrofitted in some way to get better fuel efficiency. "They're a generation behind on hybrid technology," Peter Morici, a professor of international business at the University of Maryland, said of GM. "It's going to be a while before [the Volt] turns into a money maker."
The success Toyota and Honda have had in small cars and their long-established footprints in the hybrid market put them ahead of GM, and much farther in front of Chrysler and Ford, said Mr. Pochiluk. He said any company seeking to join the leaders therefore must tell itself this: "We can't be as good as, we have to be better than."
Toyota, which is battling tooth and nail with GM for world sales leadership, said yesterday that a new fuel cell hybrid car it has developed will travel 830 kilometres before it needs refuelling, more than double the distance of its previous fuel cell model.
What GM does have are the resources to play catch-up, unlike Ford and Chrysler. But success will depend on getting customers to embrace its transformational journey from Hummer maker to the champion of green. And on that front, GM has a major sales job ahead of it, after years of pushing SUVs and pickups.
"They will never be viewed as the green leaders," Mr. Smith said of the Detroit Three. "In the near to mid-term, it will be extremely difficult to overcome 100 years of producing gas-guzzling dinosaurs. Toyota does too, of course. But perception is more important than reality in the marketing world."
It's also too early to tell if consumers will embrace electric cars, although U.S. drivers are migrating back to cars and crossover utility vehicles from pickups and SUVs.
Although conventional wisdom is that hybrids are taking over, at the moment, they make up less than 1 per cent of GM's U.S. car sales, and one in 10 of Toyota's sales. Car makers sold a total of 347,000 hybrids last year in the U.S., and sales are up about 4 per cent so far this year. That's still just 2 per cent of all light vehicle sales.
And yet high gas prices are rapidly changing the landscape. People are driving less and turning to public transit. And, according to a May survey by RBC Dominion Securities, 82 per cent of U.S. respondents would consider buying a hybrid.
The big question now is: Are the masses willing to pay a premium to go green? In the past, consumer enthusiasm has typically cooled in the showroom, where price quickly becomes the prime mover.
Says Mr. Smith, the auto analyst: "People speak more often with their wallets than with their green hearts."
That's the task for GM. Getting consumers to part with the green in their wallets.
FUEL CELLS
How they work
Vehicles are powered by a fuel cell that creates power through a chemical reaction. In a stack of membranes and separators, hydrogen obtained from a source such as natural gas or methanol is combined with oxygen to generate enough electricity to power the vehicle's electric motor without releasing harmful emissions.
Potential
Because the only byproducts of combining hydrogen and oxygen are heat and water - and because the hydrogen packs don't need to be plugged in for recharging - the technology is considered by many as the best solution to environmental woes.
Drawbacks
Despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on research and development in the past 20 years, experts believe the technology is still more than 10 years away from becoming mainstream. The prototypes are expensive, and the logistics of creating a supply and storage system for hydrogen refills on roads and highways is difficult.
In the news
Perhaps as a sign of the shift away from the immediate feasibility of developing fuel cell-powered cars, Ballard Power Systems Inc. of Burnaby, B.C., sold its pioneering auto fuel cell business last year to Daimler AG and Ford Motor Co. and changed its emphasis to fuel cell markets such as forklifts, backup power and co-generators.
HYBRIDS
How they work
Hybrid technology combines a combustion engine and an electric motor with a small, on-board battery pack to run accessories, move the vehicle for short distances and provide a power boost when accelerating.
Potential
Hybrids deliver better gas mileage than conventional engines, and at a time when car buyers are going for smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles, the technology is the most proven in the market. Hybrid technology is spreading to many larger vehicles. GE Rail, for instance, has designed a hybrid locomotive and there are several hybrid trucks and SUVs available.
Drawbacks
There are still doubts about the long-term economics of hybrids. Most studies have shown that you have to drive a hybrid car for more than five years, on average, to recover the premium through fuel efficiency. Most hybrids cost significantly more than similar vehicles with conventional engines.
In the news
In April, the U.S. Congress introduced a measure to study the potential dangers hybrid cars pose to the blind and other pedestrians because they are so quiet.
PLUG-INS
How they work
Dubbed the "next-generation hybrid," plug-ins use the same basic technology but benefit from rechargeable lithium ion batteries - like those in power drills - that can be charged using an everyday power outlet.
Potential
The advantage of plug-ins is that they run longer on electricity than regular hybrids. Supporters of plug-ins tout huge fuel economy gains. Theoretically, owners who drive less than 60 to 80 kilometres a day will never need to fill up on gasoline.
Drawbacks
The mass production of plug-ins is being held back by high costs and battery technology that limits the vehicles' range. Lithium ion batteries are required, but no supplier has developed one proven to be safe, durable and affordable. Plus, accessible electrical outlets aren't available in many places.
In the news
Henrik Fisker, the Danish-born former designer for BMW and Aston Martin, has teamed with Google and Quantum Fuel Systems. They plan to have the Fisker Karma, an $80,000 (U.S.) battery-powered, luxury plug-in, on the market some time next year. The Chevrolet Volt is likely to be the first plug-in to hit the mass market in 2010.
ETHANOL
How it works
Ethanol - another term for ethyl alcohol - is grain alcohol, usually refined from corn or sugar cane, that can be used as a fuel additive. Added to gasoline, ethanol reduces greenhouse emissions such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide.
Potential
Biofuels such as ethanol have emerged as an economically feasible and renewable alternative to oil. Higher gas prices make ethanol increasingly attractive as an alternative.
Drawbacks
Some say booming ethanol production has slowed global food production by reducing available farm land. There are also questions about the net benefit of ethanol on the environment because of its lower energy content versus gasoline. In 2005, a Cornell University study found that producing ethanol from plants such as corn, sunflowers and soybeans uses more energy than the fuel generates.
In the news
Ethanol has had several resurgences over the years. It was used in the 1850s to fuel lamps and again during the Second World War when gas and diesel supplies ran low.
DAVID HUTTON, MATTHEW TREVISAN
Super Genius
Posts: 1,368
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
June 18th, 2008, 04:48 AM
Stop the Oil Speculators
Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product--petroleum--is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions. Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, "traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little."
Posted Jun 17, 2008 07:28 AM PST
Category: ECONOMY
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/arch...eculators.html
Stop the Oil Speculators
Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product--petroleum--is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions. Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, "traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little."
Posted Jun 17, 2008 07:28 AM PST
Category: ECONOMY
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/arch...eculators.html
