one mllion electric cars

[Rune]

Opinion, substantiated, fully in line with known facts on both counts.

EV1 owners were vociferously opposed when GM retrieved their leased cars and destroyed them. How do you explain that?
Where have you derived the info that Volts "suck"?

Yes, but actually pointing out a company started during his tenure that successfully created and sold electric cars pretty much shuts down any idea that the electric car was "set back by a decade" under Bush. It's nonsense. A successful electric car came into being during Bush's terms, that isn't a setback.

No, completely unrelated. I am talking about two aspects;

1. Public acceptance of electric cars.
2. Manufacture and distribution of electric cars by the big three.

Like a viable solar without substantial government subsidy? Interesting.

Like viable oil and coal without government subsidies? Hypocritical.

Yet earlier you stated that as GM starts making more it will change. Tell me why you believe that the direct evidence that they are getting cheaper under Tesla means that they will never be able to afford them?

I don't believe that, nor did I say or imply it. The truth is that they can't now, and almost without doubt, when Teslas become mainstream;

1. so will volts and all other makes of electric cars.
2. Tesla tech will be in affordable cars made by Toyota and other licensees, but the Tesla brand itself will remain a luxury marque as it began.

One more time. Newer versions of Tesla cars are down to around $50K, and that is while still making a profit and under limited production. GM instead lost $49,000 per car with actually higher production. Their business model sucked, and the car itself sucked. People didn't want it because it, literally, wasn't as good as it should have been.

No. Newer models (completely different, sedans, not sport cars, and without the long range which makes the Tesla tantalizing).

Tesla lost (invested) money for 8 years and will not actually make a "profit" until all that money is paid back.

The Volt has been on the market for just over a year. Why do you hold GM to a different standard?

Telling me it was "set back by a decade" tells me that actually developing a car during that period would be impossible. Nobody had an electric vehicle with viability, it can only be set back by continuing that. The fact is it wasn't set back, the only thing "set back" was government subsidy of the production. Instead a company did it without as much support as you think they should have had.

No, I think GM should have been forced to introduce viable electric cars sooner by increased CAFE standards, and yes, plenty of "viable" electric cars existed before the Tesla. I guess you never saw a Toyota EJ?

It's stupid to say that because the government liked hydro cells that nobody could continue working on an electric car so it was set back, then ignore the actual history. A viable electric car was created during that period of supposed "setback", that company continues to make money and now has cars that sell at about the same price as the Volt, but people actually want them and the company doesn't lose $49,000 per car sold. One company had a successful plan and business model the other, not so much.

Again, no. The Tesla sedan sells for 20% more than the Volt.

A 50K car is not mainstream yet.

Oops, turns out the model S (sedan) isn't even available yet in the 50k version. Only the 90k version. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

So much for your argument.

 

[Damocles]

Again, no. The Tesla sedan sells for 20% more than the Volt.

A 50K car is not mainstream yet.

Oops, turns out the model S (sedan) isn't even available yet in the 50k version. Only the 90k version. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

So much for your argument.

Again, they don't sell it at a loss and it is a massive price difference from the first line even with limited production.

While they haven't started producing the 50K model you can pre-order, and people do. Do you know why? Because their cars are frickin' AWESOME. Do you know why they don't pre-order to the Volt at the same rate? Because it sucks.

My "argument" (which is really just simply a restatement of the actual facts) holds up nicely even against this post. A car was created during a time that the President supposedly didn't like electric cars, one that doesn't sell at a loss because it is actually worth the money they ask for it. Their business model doesn't promise to sell the cars at a near $50K loss and they make a profit. They produce cars that do not suck.

If you want people to buy into Green energy you need to improve on the product we currently sell, Tesla did that.

 

[Rune]

I don't think that was the point. Why have electric cars at all? Is it to save on fossil fuels? What fuel do you plan on burning to generate the power that is now going to come from a grid that is operating 24/7 instead of during "peak use". So now, you have the cost of operating a plant 24/7(which you admit is only slightly more expensive than letting the plants idle during off-peak hours)plus the cost of fuel. I don't care how "smart" the grid is, if you increase output, you consume more raw materials, thereby increasing demand for those resources, which increases prices to consumers.

OK, let's play.

Electric cars are so much more efficent than gas cars that even if all the electricity was made from coal, there would still be far less greenhouse gases released.
20% of our electricity is from nukes, so zero tailpipe emissions in that case.

Coal use for generating electricity is in rapid decline, having fallen from 50% to 45% in just four years, and the race is on to convert existing coal plants to natural gas.
You may not be aware of the facts of how clean Nat Gas burns, compared to coal, there are virtually no emmisions.

Apparently you have little understanding of an idle electric plant. At idle, the turbines are hot but not spinning, and steam pressure is up.
The ONLY increaed cost is the fuel. Clearly more prodcution lowers the cost to consumers.

Many users can readily manufacture their own electricity. Ever tried making gasoline in your backyard?

Finally, the greatest benefits of all are national security and trade imbalance. No imported fuels at all are required by electric cars.

 

[Rune]

Again, they don't sell it at a loss and it is a massive price difference from the first line even with limited production.

While they haven't started producing the 50K model you can pre-order, and people do. Do you know why? Because their cars are frickin' AWESOME. Do you know why they don't pre-order to the Volt at the same rate? Because it sucks.

My "argument" (which is really just simply a restatement of the actual facts) holds up nicely even against this post. A car was created during a time that the President supposedly didn't like electric cars, one that doesn't sell at a loss because it is actually worth the money they ask for it. Their business model doesn't promise to sell the cars at a near $50K loss and they make a profit. They produce cars that do not suck.

If you want people to buy into Green energy you need to improve on the product we currently sell, Tesla did that.

Damo, you missed most of my commentary, it is burried inside your quote.

And, no, the second is a massively different car, which can't be compared with the first model.

 

[Damocles]

EV1 owners were vociferously opposed when GM retrieved their leased cars and destroyed them. How do you explain that?
Where have you derived the info that Volts "suck"?

I derived it by testing one and finding that cold weather issues make it unviable for our area, and that the ride was rough. There was no law that forced GM to retrieve them, they chose to, mostly due to upkeep costs and the fact that they simply lost money. They relied on government subsidies at a certain level, it only showed that the car wasn't viable on its own.

No, completely unrelated. I am talking about two aspects;

1. Public acceptance of electric cars.
2. Manufacture and distribution of electric cars by the big three.

Again, you don't need to worry about "acceptance" if you make it awesome. If you don't improve the product and people compare them to more standard versions they will buy the standard version.

Like viable oil and coal without government subsidies? Hypocritical.

True. Pretending that the subsidies are not, necessarily as it is less viable, at an incredibly higher percentage for Solar is truly hypocritical. Ignoring that it actually takes more energy to produce the Solar Cell than it will ever produce makes it actually funny.

I don't believe that, nor did I say or imply it. The truth is that they can't now, and almost without doubt, when Teslas become mainstream;

1. so will volts and all other makes of electric cars.
2. Tesla tech will be in affordable cars made by Toyota and other licensees, but the Tesla brand itself will remain a luxury marque as it began.

1. Only if they copy the model of the Tesla and actually produce an improved product.
2. I doubt that, they seem to be aiming at creating their own company with a full range of vehicles.

No. Newer models (completely different, sedans, not sport cars, and without the long range which makes the Tesla tantalizing).

Tesla lost (invested) money for 8 years and will not actually make a "profit" until all that money is paid back.

True. However they are more likely to pay it back considering their business model doesn't sell cars at a $49,000 loss for each car sold.

The Volt has been on the market for just over a year. Why do you hold GM to a different standard?

I don't. If they produced a car that was worth the money they needed to make, like the Tesla, they would not have had to sell it for a $49,000 loss. Their car wasn't worth the cost of production, even with government subsidies they still lost $49,000 per vehicle sold.

No, I think GM should have been forced to introduce viable electric cars sooner by increased CAFE standards, and yes, plenty of "viable" electric cars existed before the Tesla. I guess you never saw a Toyota EJ?

I don't think force is the same thing as innovation and that running companies at that level through government smacks of fascism.

Again, no. The Tesla sedan sells for 20% more than the Volt.

A 50K car is not mainstream yet.

Oops, turns out the model S (sedan) isn't even available yet in the 50k version. Only the 90k version. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

So much for your argument.

Again, they don't sell it at a loss and it is a massive price difference from the first line even with limited production.

While they haven't started producing the 50K model you can pre-order, and people do. Do you know why? Because their cars are frickin' AWESOME. Do you know why they don't pre-order to the Volt at the same rate? Because it sucks.

My "argument" (which is really just simply a restatement of the actual facts) holds up nicely even against this post. A car was created during a time that the President supposedly didn't like electric cars, one that doesn't sell at a loss because it is actually worth the money they ask for it. Their business model doesn't promise to sell the cars at a near $50K loss and they make a profit. They produce cars that do not suck.

If you want people to buy into Green energy you need to improve on the product we currently sell, Tesla did that.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Again, show where I said federal taxes only. I didn't.
I did indeed say my tax rate, lo and behold you are wrong again. Try to pay attention, save us all some time.

I am not bitching about me paying taxes. I am bitching about others who pay much less taxes, as a percentage of their income. This will be my last clarifying post to you. Read my words, they indicate what I actually mean.

The reason others pay less in taxes than you do is a result if the progressive tax code you push. You get what you ask for

 

[Rune]

The reason others pay less in taxes than you do is a result if the progressive tax code you push. You get what you ask for

Sorry, you have that ass-backwards, try again.

 

[Damocles]

The reason others pay less in taxes than you do is a result if the progressive tax code you push. You get what you ask for

The reason some pay less of a percentage is based on investment income v. salary. The very rich pay higher rates if their earnings are from salary, they pay a lower rate if their income is from investment (capital gains).

This idea was based on the fact that pre-investing they paid the much higher rate as it was from salary, and that taxing earnings on investment at that rate caused people to restrict churn in investment, they would reduce capital gains to encourage more investment churn (selling to reinvest in other things, at that point you pay taxes on what you earned before you can reinvest the rest) causing an increase in revenue as more churn would allow the government to collect more often at the lower rate.

Now, very often the lower incomes pay a smaller effective rate, mostly because they get credits for their kids, they write off their houses, etc. and people who are in the lower 50% usually are net tax receivers rather than payers at all. Usually the effective rate of somebody who earns 60K is far less than even the rate that Romney paid (14%), while somebody who makes 100K or more pays a higher effective rate than Romney did.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Sorry, you have that ass-backwards, try again.

No no actually have it 100% accurate. We have one of te most progressive tax codes in the world. Look what you get. Doesn't matter to me any more. I learned how to play the game and can limit my liability greatly. If you can't then you are stupid.

 

[Rune]

No no actually have it 100% accurate. We have one of te most progressive tax codes in the world. Look what you get. Doesn't matter to me any more. I learned how to play the game and can limit my liability greatly. If you can't then you are stupid.

Read Damo's post above. The TOTAL amount of taxes I pay is aproximately four times what Mitt pays as a percentage. Hardly progressive, in fact quite recessive.

Keep banging your head against the wall, I will keep laughing at you, like I always do.

By the way, I am not complaining that I pay too much,just too much in comparison to Mitt.

 

[Rune]

I derived it by testing one and finding that cold weather issues make it unviable for our area, and that the ride was rough. There was no law that forced GM to retrieve them, they chose to, mostly due to upkeep costs and the fact that they simply lost money. They relied on government subsidies at a certain level, it only showed that the car wasn't viable on its own.

Admittedly the Volt is not a good choice for the extreme enviroment you live in. Doesn'tmean it sucks though.

Again, you don't need to worry about "acceptance" if you make it awesome. If you don't improve the product and people compare them to more standard versions they will buy the standard version.

Sheeple will buy them after they see other sheeple drive them, not before. People buying Teslas are not sheep, yet we need sheep to be able to drive electric cars.

True. Pretending that the subsidies are not, necessarily as it is less viable, at an incredibly higher percentage for Solar is truly hypocritical. Ignoring that it actually takes more energy to produce the Solar Cell than it will ever produce makes it actually funny.

Prove they use more energy to create than they ever make (in their as yet unlimited lifespan). Hilarious.

1. Only if they copy the model of the Tesla and actually produce an improved product.
2. I doubt that, they seem to be aiming at creating their own company with a full range of vehicles.

Tesla tech is licensed to Toyota and is being licensed to many other manufacturers. This is what is good about your claims, private industry inventing ground-breaking tech. Not sure that they received no subsidies though.

I don't think force is the same thing as innovation and that running companies at that level through government smacks of fascism.

By this standard, all gov regs constitute facism.

Again, they don't sell it at a loss and it is a massive price difference from the first line even with limited production.

Again, there are two seperate models. The first model is still the same price. Apples to oranges.

While they haven't started producing the 50K model you can pre-order, and people do. Do you know why? Because their cars are frickin' AWESOME. Do you know why they don't pre-order to the Volt at the same rate? Because it sucks.

Bottom line is that there is still no affordable Tesla. It is an awesome toy for the wealthy.

The EV1 also had long waiting lists, FYI

My "argument" (which is really just simply a restatement of the actual facts) holds up nicely even against this post. A car was created during a time that the President supposedly didn't like electric cars, one that doesn't sell at a loss because it is actually worth the money they ask for it. Their business model doesn't promise to sell the cars at a near $50K loss and they make a profit. They produce cars that do not suck.

I deal with manufacturing industry all the time. Costs are based on units sold versus tooling costs. When production increases cost drops. GM is not exempt from this fact.

If you want people to buy into Green energy you need to improve on the product we currently sell, Tesla did that.

Not yet.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Admittedly the Volt is not a good choice for the extreme enviroment you live in. Doesn'tmean it sucks though.










Sheeple will buy them after they see other sheeple drive them, not before. People buying Teslas are not sheep, yet we need sheep to be able to drive electric cars.







Prove they use more energy to create than they ever make (in their as yet unlimited lifespan). Hilarious.






Tesla tech is licensed to Toyota and is being licensed to many other manufacturers. This is what is good about your claims, private industry inventing ground-breaking tech. Not sure that they received no subsidies though.



By this standard, all gov regs constitute facism.




Again, there are two seperate models. The first model is still the same price. Apples to oranges.




Bottom line is that there is still no affordable Tesla. It is an awesome toy for the wealthy.

The EV1 also had long waiting lists, FYI




I deal with manufacturing industry all the time. Costs are based on units sold versus tooling costs. When production increases cost drops. GM is not exempt from this fact.



Not yet.

If the gobblement has to subsidize it, it is not economically viable. And before you descend to your libtard tripe of "they subsidize oil", let me stop you in your tracks. Oil can stand on its own without subsidies. Electric cars cannot. That oil companies have learned to suckle at the teat of big gobblement says more about big gobblement.

Enough already with your central planning bullshit. What makes you think you know better than 300 million Americans as to what is best for them? Do you realize how fucking arrogant that is?

 

[Rune]

If the gobblement has to subsidize it, it is not economically viable. And before you descend to your libtard tripe of "they subsidize oil", let me stop you in your tracks. Oil can stand on its own without subsidies. Electric cars cannot. That oil companies have learned to suckle at the teat of big gobblement says more about big gobblement.

Enough already with your central planning bullshit. What makes you think you know better than 300 million Americans as to what is best for them? Do you realize how fucking arrogant that is?

Do you realise how arrogant you are? lol.

Sorry pal, but this is what I do. I promote alternative energy for the good of mankind, Mother Earth, and the future of my children.

I do it here, I do it on other forums, and I do it in person. I talk the talk and I walk the walk, utilising alternative energy myself.

I will not stop on your sayso or anyone else's, nothing short of a bullet through my head will stop me. It is my avocation.

You are free to ignore everything I say.

By the way, Damo quite handily proved that electric cars can indeed stand on their own. Seriously, STFU.

 

[Callinectes]

OK, let's play.

Electric cars are so much more efficent than gas cars that even if all the electricity was made from coal, there would still be far less greenhouse gases released.
20% of our electricity is from nukes, so zero tailpipe emissions in that case.

Coal use for generating electricity is in rapid decline, having fallen from 50% to 45% in just four years, and the race is on to convert existing coal plants to natural gas.
You may not be aware of the facts of how clean Nat Gas burns, compared to coal, there are virtually no emmisions.

Apparently you have little understanding of an idle electric plant. At idle, the turbines are hot but not spinning, and steam pressure is up.
The ONLY increaed cost is the fuel. Clearly more prodcution lowers the cost to consumers.

Many users can readily manufacture their own electricity. Ever tried making gasoline in your backyard?

Finally, the greatest benefits of all are national security and trade imbalance. No imported fuels at all are required by electric cars.

Okay, I get it now. The electric car situation is going to be like Solyndra, right? And with the natual gas, you're okay with fracking, right?
I've got nothing against nuke power, either, but it takes 7-12 years to build ONE of them, and that's AFTER you get past the red tape and the courts. Damo is right, the Tesla is an awesome toy for a 1%er. A Volt is an over priced electric Cruze.

 

[tinfoil]

Yes, yes, no, and dumb question.


And yet with all that you still think they're cheating out of money and that they should be paying far more, because, I haven't ever gotten that far. Something about how it's not really theft if the state does it and how they don't really deserve possessions and how1st world countries should have medicare for everyone. Nobody has ever given me a decent answer on why it's ok to tax the rich more.

They have more to protect so they are easily bilked by frightening them and demanding they pay extra to ensure their comfy existence.

 

[Damocles]

Admittedly the Volt is not a good choice for the extreme enviroment you live in. Doesn'tmean it sucks though.

Yes it does. It isn't even viable to be the sole car of somebody who lives in Denver. The car simply isn't right for this environment, only the very rich can afford even the subsidized version sold at an extreme loss even with the subsidy so long as you must keep another car around just to get where you need to go all year round.

Sheeple will buy them after they see other sheeple drive them, not before. People buying Teslas are not sheep, yet we need sheep to be able to drive electric cars.

Sheeple will buy them if they give value over the standard vehicle regardless if they see others driving them.

Prove they use more energy to create than they ever make (in their as yet unlimited lifespan). Hilarious.

Nah, I was sarcastically exaggerating. With the subsidies (and only with the ones for companies, your house it takes much longer) they pay production costs back after 2 to 6 years, newer technology will reduce that to 1 to 3 years (with that subsidy). On your house it takes about 15 years to pay back the cost of installation, etc as you don't get the same subsidy that you get for a business. I think that is crap to tell you the truth. I want solar on my house so that I don't have to rely on the service from the IREA...

Tesla tech is licensed to Toyota and is being licensed to many other manufacturers. This is what is good about your claims, private industry inventing ground-breaking tech. Not sure that they received no subsidies though.

Not sure, eh? Well if they did your claims of Bush killing off the electric car are 100% flat wrong then... (they are anyway, as there was clearly a successful one produced in his tenure...)

By this standard, all gov regs constitute facism.

Nonsense, you are just babbling at this point. Controlling to the last detail what they produce regardless of whether it is good for business is exactly fascism, regulations do not do this. Basically, going in and making business decisions for the company through government force = fascism. Saying you have to make food that doesn't make people sick but letting them choose what food to produce =/= fascism. It isn't difficult to figure the difference. You said that the government should force companies to make something rather than simply creating incentives to create something and letting them decide...

Again, there are two seperate models. The first model is still the same price. Apples to oranges.

Yeah, because the Corvette is a different model the Camaro doesn't exist.. Apples to apples, Dune. Apples to apples... And there are three, one you have to pre-order, the lowest cost one.

Bottom line is that there is still no affordable Tesla. It is an awesome toy for the wealthy.

Bottom line, in this environment there is no affordable Volt. It is a mediocre toy for the wealthy.

The EV1 also had long waiting lists, FYI

And your claims here is wrong...

http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2006/06/gms-ev1----who-killed-common-sense.html

Bottom line, people would not commit to the vehicle because it would not perform effectively. You are trapped in the rumors about the EV1, this magical car that you think was there simply was not. Your "facts" are simply off base.

I deal with manufacturing industry all the time. Costs are based on units sold versus tooling costs. When production increases cost drops. GM is not exempt from this fact.

Nor is Tesla, who is making money on the car rather than losing it, paying off production costs.

Not yet.

Yes, currently. If the cars produced actually are an improvement on the current standard vehicle people will buy them, even if they cost slightly more. Build me a pickup that can pull all I need it to pull and works year round while using little to no gasoline and I will buy it for more money than I pay for my standard full size pickup, if you make it better (pulls more, more comfortable, better stereo, something simply better) I will definitely go that way and stretch the budget to get the better product. Tesla made a vehicle that is simply awesome, the people buying it aren't sheep and they get it because it is frickin' cool. If they give a bit more in the Volt than you get with the standard vehicle people will buy it, even if it has some small problems (like solve that horribly uncomfortable ride I experienced when I test drove the vehicle).

 

[Rune]

Okay, I get it now. The electric car situation is going to be like Solyndra, right?

If you say so. http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/top-electric-cars-2010/

And with the natual gas, you're okay with fracking, right?

You do realise that natural gas is also a by-product of oil production?
30 states have other plans for charging;

With renewable energy investment required of utilities in 30 states, these utilities are most interested in night time charging of electric vehicles with wind, geothermal, and hydropower. Utilities are also implementing smart grids and incentives for off-peak charging

I've got nothing against nuke power, either, but it takes 7-12 years to build ONE of them, and that's AFTER you get past the red tape and the courts.

Did you know that Obama has issued two permits for new Nuke plants? I agree it is unlikely that they will ever be built, but other forms such as solar, wind, hydro, and tidal are growing rapidly.

Damo is right, the Tesla is an awesome toy for a 1%er. A Volt is an over priced electric Cruze.

No, I am saying they are an overpriced toy for the 1%. Damo is saying they are cool.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

If you say so. http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/top-electric-cars-2010/


You do realise that natural gas is also a by-product of oil production?
30 states have other plans for charging;

With renewable energy investment required of utilities in 30 states, these utilities are most interested in night time charging of electric vehicles with wind, geothermal, and hydropower. Utilities are also implementing smart grids and incentives for off-peak charging


Did you know that Obama has issued two permits for new Nuke plants? I agree it is unlikely that they will ever be built, but other forms such as solar, wind, hydro, and tidal are growing rapidly.


No, I am saying they are an overpriced toy for the 1%. Damo is saying they are cool.

There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. Bottom line is that without gobblement interference fossil fuels would be our most efficient and cost effective means of production. Hands down. It wouldn't even be close. However, do gooders like you who think you are "saving the planet" think you know better than the market and try to FORCE people into things they don't want. Oh you say you aren't making them do it. You just make things so difficult for things they really want that you in effect ban it. Take the lightbulb. The incandescent lightbulb was perfection. But, no, that isn't good enough for liberal do gooders. They would rather have people pay $40 for a bulb instead of $1. How in the fuck does that help the poor? Just like you would want some poor person who you claim to care about to fork over $40,000 for a piece of shit electric volt to drive around the hood. You are a self absorbed idiot who should really mind her own business and let people be.

 

[Rune]

There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. Bottom line is that without gobblement interference fossil fuels would be our most efficient and cost effective means of production. Hands down. It wouldn't even be close. However, do gooders like you who think you are "saving the planet" think you know better than the market and try to FORCE people into things they don't want. Oh you say you aren't making them do it. You just make things so difficult for things they really want that you in effect ban it. Take the lightbulb. The incandescent lightbulb was perfection. But, no, that isn't good enough for liberal do gooders. They would rather have people pay $40 for a bulb instead of $1. How in the fuck does that help the poor? Just like you would want some poor person who you claim to care about to fork over $40,000 for a piece of shit electric volt to drive around the hood. You are a self absorbed idiot who should really mind her own business and let people be.

Seriously? Prove there is no such thing as renewable energy. Only fossil fuels are not renewable. All other forms are, as long as the Sun keeps shining, and if you want the whole truth of the matter, that is why we need to stop BURNING fossil fuels. They are far too valuable in manufacturing to be wasted by burning, when there are other choices. You want to a third world standard of living in America, just wait until oil is unavailable.
The government LOWERS the cost of fossil fuels, the true costs as astronomical.
Sorry, but the "market" would eat itself, if given the chance.
Yes, take the lightbulb.
I eliminated all my incandescents years and years ago, at $5 a pop and my ROI was less than a year. (I live in a place with VERY high electric costs, second only to Hawaii).
They now cost $1, not $40. If you must lie to make a point, you don't have much of a point, do you? Even LED lights, 5 times as effecient as fluorescent cost less than $20.

You really don't know the meaning of poor, do you? Sorry but no poor person can;
1. Buy a new car.
2. Buy an expensive new car like the Volt.

Furthermore, where did you get the idea I want to force anyone to buy them?

I am fighting for their availability, nothing more. Stop being such a partisan hack.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Seriously? Prove there is no such thing as renewable energy. Only fossil fuels are not renewable. All other forms are, as long as the Sun keeps shining, and if you want the whole truth of the matter, that is why we need to stop BURNING fossil fuels. They are far too valuable in manufacturing to be wasted by burning, when there are other choices. You want to a third world standard of living in America, just wait until oil is unavailable.
The government LOWERS the cost of fossil fuels, the true costs as astronomical.
Sorry, but the "market" would eat itself, if given the chance.
Yes, take the lightbulb.
I eliminated all my incandescents years and years ago, at $5 a pop and my ROI was less than a year. (I live in a place with VERY high electric costs, second only to Hawaii).
They now cost $1, not $40. If you must lie to make a point, you don't have much of a point, do you? Even LED lights, 5 times as effecient as fluorescent cost less than $20.

You really don't know the meaning of poor, do you? Sorry but no poor person can;
1. Buy a new car.
2. Buy an expensive new car like the Volt.

Furthermore, where did you get the idea I want to force anyone to buy them?

I am fighting for their availability, nothing more. Stop being such a partisan hack.

You are an idiot. Once the energy is consumed from any source it is finished. It is not renewable. Even the sun will burn out one day. So the term renewable is factually inaccurate.

The free market works. Statists like you don't like it because people of free will may not comport to your way of life. And statist/Marxists like you can't have that.

There s plenty of oil. Hacks like you have been predicting we would run out since the first drop was extracted from the ground.

I refuse to buy the bullshit bulbs. I have enough incandescents to lat a lifetime. If your bulbs were so great the gobblement would not have had to interfere.

As for the cost? Don't doubt me you dumbass liar

http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical...ENT_ID&langId=-1&storeId=10051&searchNav=true