• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

65 MPG Ford But not in America

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Ford has a Diesel car that gets 65 mpg but will only be sold in Europe. Thank you Liberals and all your Green Hoax!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/the-65-mpg-car-ford-won%27t-sell-in-us.aspx
 

don

Well-known member
by and large american auto manufacturers did not want these cars imported into north america because they had segregated the market here. when we wanted to import a european car in the eighties a canadian customs officer told us that it would be very difficult to find a dealer who would certify the car to canadian standards for safety or emissions even though it would only require alterations to the seat belt assemblies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Ford has a Diesel car that gets 65 mpg but will only be sold in Europe. Thank you Liberals and all your Green Hoax!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/the-65-mpg-car-ford-won%27t-sell-in-us.aspx

Ford is tooling up a factory in Mexico to mfg this car. It will be sold all over North America and South America. It will not help the American workers at all. As Walmart only helps us by selling cheaper stuff and we do not need as much money. It is just a matter of time until America's jobs are gone and then we will be in deeper do do than now. And this will happen regardless of consertives or liberals because we will be pointing fingers at each other and saying your to blame. Two gays wanting to marry will not affect my our your life at all, it is just a wedge issue to keep us on fighting for God's side while everything else goes down the tube.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I don't know what gays have to do with making cars, but do you think that the UAW wages might have something to do with making the car someplace other than the US?
 

fff

Well-known member
Gee, A+, the Prius, rated at about 55 mph on regular fuel, has been available here in the us for about 20 years. How many of those do you see on the road? :roll:

We need fuel efficient cars. There's been no reason for US automakers to not build them except greed. The more efficient, the less fuel we burn and the fewer emissions we create.

BTW, the UAW didn't make the decision to spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress/the White House to avoid higher fuel standards. Management did that.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
fff said:
Gee, A+, the Prius, rated at about 55 mph on regular fuel, has been available here in the us for about 20 years. How many of those do you see on the road? :roll:

We need fuel efficient cars. There's been no reason for US automakers to not build them except greed. The more efficient, the less fuel we burn and the fewer emissions we create.

BTW, the UAW didn't make the decision to spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress/the White House to avoid higher fuel standards. Management did that.

25 years?? Where did you hear that??
 

Mike

Well-known member
but do you think that the UAW wages might have something to do with making the car someplace other than the US?

Yes, that......... plus the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, which I fear would be first.... if not for a few Republicans thrown in the mix...............

Do away with corporate taxes and the U.S. economy would skyrocket!!!!!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Gee, A+, the Prius, rated at about 55 mph on regular fuel, has been available here in the us for about 20 years. How many of those do you see on the road? :roll:

We need fuel efficient cars. There's been no reason for US automakers to not build them except greed. The more efficient, the less fuel we burn and the fewer emissions we create.

BTW, the UAW didn't make the decision to spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress/the White House to avoid higher fuel standards. Management did that.

Before you roll your eyes at me you might make sure you have your facts straight. Fist off the Prius has only been in existence for 9 years now. You are off by 11 years on your example. And I actually see a lot of Prius's on the road. Also the 2008 Prius was rated at 48 mpg City and 45 mpg HWY. Not sure what world you live in but 45 mpg HWY vs 65 mpg HWY is a big difference! Now for the :roll: You really need to watch your facts on here before you post, you do not want to get a reputation like OT does! :wink:

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2008&make=Toyota&model=Prius&trimid=-1

Plus how did greed play into them not making fuel efficient cars? They are in the business of selling cars that people wanted. People have wanted SUV's and large Pickups. Granted the Big three have been a few years behind on keeping up with changing times. But they generally made what people wanted.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I don't know what gays have to do with making cars, but do you think that the UAW wages might have something to do with making the car someplace other than the US?

I was just trying to point out that gays marrying will not affect me or you Sandhusker. It will only affect you if you are gay. There is always some group somewhere that keeps America stirred up trying to fight God's battles. Most of these groups would like to have a little money sent to them to keep the fight going. These battles if won would not create any better place to live. I try not to fight any of God's battles, I figure he is big enough to take care of His self.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
Sandhusker said:
I don't know what gays have to do with making cars, but do you think that the UAW wages might have something to do with making the car someplace other than the US?

I was just trying to point out that gays marrying will not affect me or you Sandhusker. It will only affect you if you are gay. There is always some group somewhere that keeps America stirred up trying to fight God's battles. Most of these groups would like to have a little money sent to them to keep the fight going. These battles if won would not create any better place to live. I try not to fight any of God's battles, I figure he is big enough to take care of His self.

There are many ways that gays marrying do affect me and you. It can have money affects such as forcing Insurance premiums for spouses to go up. It can affect Social Security benefits in future. It can have a affect on desensitizing my children to the morality of it. You are not looking at the big picture, you are trying to over simplify it when in reality there are many ways Gays marrying could affect me and you!
 

gcreekrch

Well-known member
I have often wondered how much influence the oil companies have with the manufacture of NON fuel efficient autos.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Yet another distraction is that we should just increase the required miles per gallon under the CAFÉ standards for the production of new vehicles. This is no answer to the oil and gas price problem because it involves only restricting consumer freedom of choice, and ultimately reducing the American standard of living. It means that consumers should be prohibited from buying the vehicles they want, and instead should be allowed to buy only the vehicles the government wants them to have. The SUV explosion was all about the American consumer wanting bigger, more powerful vehicles rather than vehicles with better fuel economy. There have long been low cost vehicles available for sale in the U.S. operating with close to 50 miles per gallon in fuel efficiency. But consumers have failed to choose those cars, while close to half of sales of new vehicles have been SUVs with low fuel efficiency exempt from the CAFE standards.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Most of the Majors (oil companies) have been investing in Renewable energy for quite awhile.

I'll try to find some numbers on what they put into the automobile industry, but here are some numbers from Shell.

Shell is also a major wind power developer, participating in projects with a capacity of over 1,100 MW (Shell share, approximately 550 MW), enough to power more than half a million homes. This includes the launch of the Mount Storm wind project in the USA, which the joint venture expects to bring into full operation during 2008.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/energy_for_the_future/renewable_electricity/renewable_electricity_18042008.html
 

VanC

Well-known member
fff said:
Gee, A+, the Prius, rated at about 55 mph on regular fuel, has been available here in the us for about 20 years. How many of those do you see on the road? :roll:

We need fuel efficient cars. There's been no reason for US automakers to not build them except greed. The more efficient, the less fuel we burn and the fewer emissions we create.

BTW, the UAW didn't make the decision to spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress/the White House to avoid higher fuel standards. Management did that.

The first Prius was sold in Japan in 1997, and was not available in the U.S. until 2002.

The reason U.S. automakers haven't been making hybrid cars is because few people want them. Businesses seldom make products that no one will buy. That's why governments are offering tax incentives for people who buy them. When gas is cheap people want their big gas guzzlers. Right or wrong, they feel safer in them and driving a huge car or truck makes them feel special. If gas goes back up to $4 a gallon and stays there, look for more people to want smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Until then, the automakers are going to keep making what people will buy.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
4:03 a.m. April 3, 2007

LONDON – The following are details of the main investments of the largest fully publicly-traded oil companies in the world, by market capitalisation, in wind power, solar, hydrogen, geothermal energy and biofuels.

Purchases of biofuels and the relatively small investments in new facilities needed to allow blending of biofuels are not included. These largely relate to government mandates requiring biofuels use.


Advertisement
2006 capital expenditure budgets are included to facilitate comparison with investment in hydrocarbons.

Exxon Mobil Corp

The world's largest non-government-controlled oil company by market value sold its solar power business in the 1980s and now has no investments in renewable energy.

Exxon does not believe renewables are commercially viable on a significant scale without government incentives and opposes such incentives.

However, if technological breakthoughs made wind, solar or biofuels more competitive with oil and gas, Exxon said it might consider investing in them.

Exxon has committed $100 million over 10 years to the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University, which seeks to make lower carbon energy technologies including solar more economic.

Exxon executives privately accuse rivals like BP and Shell of exaggerating their commitment to renewable energy.

Total 2006 Capex: $19.9 billion

Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

Shell has invested over $150 million in hydrogen energy research, development, and commercial applications since 1999.

Additionally, Shell has extensive investments in green transport fuels, aimed at developing “second-generation” biofuels – products produced from waste biomass, rather than food crops such as corn and rape seed.

In 2002, Shell bought a stake in Iogen, a Canadian company which plans to produce ethanol from waste biomass, for $29 million.

In 2005, Shell bought a minority stake in CHOREN Industries GmbH, which plans to produce biodiesel from biomass.

Shell is funding research into geothermal energy – the generation of electricity by injecting water into hot rocks deep under the ground to create steam that drives turbines.

Total since 1999: Around $1.25 billion

2006 Capital investment: $23.1 billion

BP Plc

The world's third-largest fully publicly-traded company by market value has built one of the largest solar panel manufacturing businesses in the world since 1980, with around $500 million invested 1999-2005, BP sources said.

The oil major is ramping up its wind business with around $300 million invested in wind generation and turbine manufacturing businesses in the past 15 months, according to published figures and BP sources.

BP, like Shell, is focusing its biofuels investments on developing second-generation technology.

The London-based company is to spend $500 million over the next 10 years to fund an Energy Biosciences Institute, based at the University of California Berkeley, that will explore how bioscience can be used to increase energy production.

BP has been working with DuPont on biofuels development since 2003 and later this year plans to launch a biofuel that can be mixed with gasoline called biobutanol.

BP is building facilities at its Bulwer Refinery in Queensland, Australia to produce, from later this year, 110 million litres per annum of renewable diesel from tallow.

BP is also funding a 10-year, $9.4 million project in India to examine the possibilities of using Jatropha, a non-edible oil bearing crop which can be grown on marginal land, as a biofuels component.

Total: around $900 million

2006 Capital expenditure: $16.9 billion.

TOTAL SA

The fourth-largest Western oil company has modest investments in renewable energy.

Total has a five-turbine wind farm near its Les Flandres refinery complex in northern France. The facility has an installed capacity of 12 MW a year and cost around 15 million euros, according to the Total website.

Total is 50 percent partner in a 100 million euros plan to build a 90 MW wind farm in the south of France and is examining other schemes capable of generating several dozen megawatts.

Total has been involved in solar power since 1983. It has a 50-50 joint venture with French utility EDF called Tenesol, that has a solar panel factory in South Africa that manufactures 35 MW of capacity per year and plans another in Toulouse with a capacity of 15 MW per year.

Total was a founding investor and currently holds a 47.8 percent stake in Belgium-based photovoltaic cell manufacturer Photovoltech, which has capacity of around 22 MW per annum. Total's initial investment was around 7 million euros.

Total is investing in biofuels research in partnership with a number of Dutch and German companies and helping fund research programmes run by the European Union and a French foundation.

The company has no biofuels manufacturing capacity and in February the company scrapped plans to build a biodiesel manufacturing plant with Finland's Neste Oil, at Total's Dunkirk refinery because of rising costs.

A spokesman said Total plans to invest 250 million euros on wind power and solar projects 2005-2010 and another 100 million euros for research but added little of this had been spent yet.

Analysts estimate the company has invested less than $100 million and the Total spokesman did not dispute the figure.

2006 Capex: 11.85 billion euros.

Chevron Corp

Chevron promotional documents supplied by spokespeople said the company spent $2 billion between 2002 and 2006 on renewable and alternative energy projects and energy efficiency schemes.

Chevron also says it is the largest producer of renewable power among the big oil companies, thanks to its geothermal power projects in Indonesia and the Philippines which have installed capacity of 1152 MW.

Nonetheless, investments seem relatively modest. The California-based company said in its 2004 Corporate Responsibility report that it invested approximately $60 million in renewable energy projects between 1999 and 2004.

Significant investments during 2005 and 2006 included spending on a $128 million expansion to its Indonesian geothermal operations which is due to be completed in 2007 and the purchase of a 22 percent stake in biofuels manufacturer Galveston Bay Biodiesel for a reported sum of $3.5 million in 2006.

The fifth-largest “supermajor” as the five biggest western oil companies are known, is investing in biofuels research.

In 2006 Chevron agreed to provide the University of California, Davis with up to $25 million over five years for research into converting cellulosic biomass into transportation fuels.

Chevron has also committed up to $12 million for advanced research into cellulosic biofuels and hydrogen at the Georgia Institute of Technology and is working with the U.S. Department of Energy on biofuels research.

Chevron has some small solar operations including a 500 kW solar array at Bakersfield, California.

Subsidiary Chevron Energy Solutions designs and installs renewable energy systems for customers.

Total: 1999-2006 – around $200 million.

2006 Capital investment: $16.6 billion
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
A close friend is a 40 year expert on alternative energy, a PhD physicist, and has helped in both the policy and breakthrough research in energy. He is the source of my discussion of the CAFE standards and is an impeccable source.

Ask him what it would cost in capital costs to get to 20% wind production, as a total of electrical use, in the US?
 
Top