Ooops there goes another one.... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ooops there goes another one....


Mr981
10-16-2012, 16:40
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/electric-car-battery-maker-a123-systems-files-bankruptcy.html?cmpid=yhoo

The first question that comes to mind is what has been the failure rate of these green industry companies that received government dollars and had Obama bundlerers as shareholders vs. that of Bain's investing in companies while Romney was there.

MadMonkey
10-16-2012, 16:49
Glad they're only getting rid of the automotive side, I know a lot of people who use A123 batteries on a daily basis. They're good stuff, but I went directly to lithium ferrite instead.

dango
10-16-2012, 16:53
It is way simple , when you got 3 and 4 generations vested in OIL what do you expect....?

I'm about ready to puke about this ! WHY do YOU ALL think these
GREEN companies fail when there is proof IT WORKS..?

The powers that be have a GUN to the heads of people whom YOU
think have any power.....! OIL , OIL , OIL.........! I give up , think what you will..............!

fnfalman
10-16-2012, 17:38
It may work, but it ain't cheap.

dango
10-16-2012, 17:40
It may work, but it ain't cheap.

Waring for oil reserves ain't free , really costly , blood and money!

pipedreams
10-16-2012, 17:44
When it can stand on it's own and cost effective the people will buy.

nursetim
10-16-2012, 17:50
I'd rather see us on hydrogen, but everybody tells me it's impossible due to infrastructure. I still say the arguments don't make sense and thus are horse flop to me.

Tax breaks to stations that put x number one then x number the next and so on. It's been proven tha hydrogen is a legitimate alternative. I'm not green, I'm greedy. Hydrogen is cheap, or can be. MVA have potential to suck bad but if ruptures happen, the volatile gases float away, not pool in a low area.

Jonesee
10-16-2012, 18:19
I'd rather see us on hydrogen, but everybody tells me it's impossible



Absolutely not true.

Toyota already has plans to roll out fuel cell technology in 2015 for sale to the general market.

686Owner
10-16-2012, 18:44
I'd rather see us on hydrogen, but everybody tells me it's impossible due to infrastructure. I still say the arguments don't make sense and thus are horse flop to me.

Tax breaks to stations that put x number one then x number the next and so on. It's been proven tha hydrogen is a legitimate alternative. I'm not green, I'm greedy. Hydrogen is cheap, or can be. MVA have potential to suck bad but if ruptures happen, the volatile gases float away, not pool in a low area.

Cars running on hydrogen? Possible, but you have to produce hydrogen somehow.

jpa
10-16-2012, 18:47
Absolutely not true.

Toyota already has plans to roll out fuel cell technology in 2015 for sale to the general market.

Cool, I'll be getting close to time to trade in my Camry Hybrid by then.... ;)

dango
10-16-2012, 18:51
Again , 7 gal.oil =1 tire , all paints , all plastics , all etc. , OIL !

Peak oil production-1970ish , on the down , energy spent -vs-
energy produced , what exactly does this mean......?

Who would of thunk.....? :shocked:

droidfire
10-17-2012, 07:48
I'd rather see us on hydrogen, but everybody tells me it's impossible due to infrastructure. I still say the arguments don't make sense and thus are horse flop to me.


Those same people would have posed that argument at the dawn of the time of the automobile. You can see how that turned out.

With a viable product the infrastructure will be created. It will create jobs, tax breaks (as you mentioned) will help, 'ground floor' investing opportunities, the whole regular business rigamarole.

The problem it will suffer that gasoline did not, is in this case there already is an existing infrastructure to compete with, whereas with gas the closest competition was a railroad...yeah...so no competition. Just build.

Now you have to build at a loss and at the expense of the already existing infrastructure trying to get you to fail.

Cars running on hydrogen? Possible, but you have to produce hydrogen somehow.

They already trained plants to synthesize hydrogen instead of oxygen. Old news, few years old now. (sorry no cite - but first picked up the trail on that from an article in Discover magazine - yes, a physical copy - and went out to learn what I could from there. Interesting stuff. Haven't thought about it in a while.)

...better not let any of those seeds out of the greenhouse. That's on the 'messing with our ability to survive as a species' level. Genetic manipulation - Like an atom bomb without a desk to hide under.

Edit:

Again , 7 gal.oil =1 tire , all paints , all plastics , all etc. , OIL !

Peak oil production-1970ish , on the down , energy spent -vs-
energy produced , what exactly does this mean......?

Who would of thunk.....? :shocked:

...that modern science and the technology resulting from it allow us to do much more with much less?

We're getting better?

nursetim
10-17-2012, 07:59
Cars running on hydrogen? Possible, but you have to produce hydrogen somehow.

It takes electrical energy to produce hydrogen. Easy as all get out. Heck they were using it in WWII in blimps. Not hard at all.

Sveke
10-17-2012, 08:04
We just need alt energy to run the non moving stuff like homes and buildings. We need to invest in it, some will fail (that's called biz), but eventually we'll get it, cheap, and can power or cars and trucks with the oil.

I'll shoot myself before I drive a hybrid of any sort.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 08:32
It is way simple , when you got 3 and 4 generations vested in OIL what do you expect....?

I'm about ready to puke about this ! WHY do YOU ALL think these
GREEN companies fail when there is proof IT WORKS..?

The powers that be have a GUN to the heads of people whom YOU
think have any power.....! OIL , OIL , OIL.........! I give up , think what you will..............!

Because it DOESN'T work

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 08:34
I'd rather see us on hydrogen, but everybody tells me it's impossible due to infrastructure. I still say the arguments don't make sense and thus are horse flop to me.

Tax breaks to stations that put x number one then x number the next and so on. It's been proven tha hydrogen is a legitimate alternative. I'm not green, I'm greedy. Hydrogen is cheap, or can be. MVA have potential to suck bad but if ruptures happen, the volatile gases float away, not pool in a low area.

Not necessary when we have plenty of natural gas.

droidfire
10-17-2012, 08:36
I'll shoot myself before I drive a hybrid of any sort.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

...and I said i'd quit when smokes went above $2 a pack...

...and found out that it didn't bug me as much as I thought. (don't confuse that with a like for paying it.)



...and I swore i'd never own another cell phone...

...do I need to address that now with the tech landscape just over a decade later?



...and nowadays I wait and see before pre-judging something off my radar based on an emotional response in the tech sector.

I like me some gas engines - believe me - but we are being saturated with an exponentially increasing dose of new technology. It's at the point now where we have more capability then ability to use it well but in scattered patches here and there.

The different ways all the tech is interacting also creates new and unforeseen advantages/possibilities.

Idle thoughts...

Sveke
10-17-2012, 08:38
...and I said i'd quit when smokes went above $2 a pack...

...and found out that it didn't bug me as much as I thought. (don't confuse that with a like for paying it.)



...and I swore i'd never own another cell phone...

...do I need to address that now with the tech landscape just over a decade later?



...and nowadays I wait and see before pre-judging something off my radar based on an emotional response in the tech sector.

I like me some gas engines - believe me - but we are being saturated with an exponentially increasing dose of new technology. It's at the point now where we have more capability then ability to use it well but in scattered patches here and there.

The different ways all the tech is interacting also creates new and unforeseen advantages/possibilities.

Idle thoughts...


I should have phrased it better. If they get the performance the same I'll consider it.

But what about the phenomenal sound of a big boy V8?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

AtlantaR6
10-17-2012, 08:42
Buy a Tesla and play a CD of a roaring engine. Check and Check.

Hell, the new M3 BMW pumps the soundtrack of an engine through the cabin to match the actual sound and RPM's.

SC Tiger
10-17-2012, 08:46
Cars running on hydrogen? Possible, but you have to produce hydrogen somehow.

Easy to do, and Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

The problem is fueling infrastructure. How does the accountant that lives down the street, or the nurse next door, or the machinist across the street get it for his or her car? Will the one or two stations that open up still be open in 5 years? 10 years? How long before people believe in it enough to actually plunk down $20K or more for a vehicle that burns it?

Sveke
10-17-2012, 08:47
Buy a Tesla and play a CD of a roaring engine. Check and Check.

Hell, the new M3 BMW pumps the soundtrack of an engine through the cabin to match the actual sound and RPM's.

Haha, I've heard it. It's not the same.

Like trying to tell a Harley guy to ride an electric scooter.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

SC Tiger
10-17-2012, 08:47
Buy a Tesla and play a CD of a roaring engine. Check and Check.

Hell, the new M3 BMW pumps the soundtrack of an engine through the cabin to match the actual sound and RPM's.

I read about that. The first cars that did that used a tube through the firewall. Now they (BMW, VW, probably MB too) either play it through the audio system or put speakers behind the dashboard.

A lot of people are a bit POd about it. They feel like they are being lied to.

domin8ss
10-17-2012, 08:48
A123 is just another example in the long history of why government subsidized companies don't work. There was an article I read about a year from a Harvard economics professor. He used a shipping company subsidized by the government versus a shipping company started and operated by Vanderbilt as an example. Point being, there are examples of this that are over 100 years old, yet the government still pisses away our money.

Btw, somebody in this thread says that gas cars never had to compete to create their infrastructure. Not true. Most cars were electric over 100 years ago. Gas won out because it was more reliable.

droidfire
10-17-2012, 08:52
Haha, I've heard it. It's not the same.

Like trying to tell a Harley guy to ride an electric scooter.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

...an electric scooter with a boombox.

See? Now it's better! :rofl:

domin8ss
10-17-2012, 08:53
I should have phrased it better. If they get the performance the same I'll consider it.

But what about the phenomenal sound of a big boy V8?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Ford has been testing a supercharged V10 short bus running on hydrogen for several years in California. I think we're in good shape there with hydrogen.

Sveke
10-17-2012, 09:01
Ford has been testing a supercharged V10 short bus running on hydrogen for several years in California. I think we're in good shape there with hydrogen.

I'm all for hydrogen, but the cost of infrastructure upgrades is astronomical.

Would have to change every gas station in the country. Daunting task.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Dennis in MA
10-17-2012, 09:55
A123 is just another example in the long history of why government subsidized companies don't work. There was an article I read about a year from a Harvard economics professor. He used a shipping company subsidized by the government versus a shipping company started and operated by Vanderbilt as an example. Point being, there are examples of this that are over 100 years old, yet the government still pisses away our money.

Btw, somebody in this thread says that gas cars never had to compete to create their infrastructure. Not true. Most cars were electric over 100 years ago. Gas won out because it was more reliable.

Yeah, but they had big oil behind them! Lol

A123 was destined to fail. A local company that I kept saying, "Uh, this can't work. Why are they dumping money into this?"

Hopefully this will come up, with Dolyndra snd others, at the last debate.

nursetim
10-17-2012, 10:33
I'm all for hydrogen, but the cost of infrastructure upgrades is astronomical.

Would have to change every gas station in the country. Daunting task.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

My BS detector just pegged. Not directed towards you personally as I have heard it ad infinitum like a canned response or excuse. It's absolute BS. Storage is not much different than propane, nor is transfer. There are propane and LNG run vehicles on the road.

The infrastructure is in place now, just needs some fine tuning with incentives. Of course getting auto manufacturers and retailer together, which is like herding cats.:steamed:

SC Tiger
10-17-2012, 10:50
My BS detector just pegged. Not directed towards you personally as I have heard it ad infinitum like a canned response or excuse. It's absolute BS. Storage is not much different than propane, nor is transfer. There are propane and LNG run vehicles on the road.

The infrastructure is in place now, just needs some fine tuning with incentives. Of course getting auto manufacturers and retailer together, which is like herding cats.:steamed:

The fact that you've heard it is a clue to the actual problem. The public will not be willing to buy enough Hydrogen fueled cars to make them economically viable. Too many will be worried about what happens when the one Hydrogen station breaks down or goes out of business.

686Owner
10-17-2012, 12:02
It takes electrical energy to produce hydrogen. Easy as all get out. Heck they were using it in WWII in blimps. Not hard at all.

That was my point. What powers those electric plants?

Sveke
10-17-2012, 12:04
The fact that you've heard it is a clue to the actual problem. The public will not be willing to buy enough Hydrogen fueled cars to make them economically viable. Too many will be worried about what happens when the one Hydrogen station breaks down or goes out of business.

Ok I'm sold.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

nursetim
10-17-2012, 12:42
That was my point. What powers those electric plants?

Coal, hydro, or nuclear, same as always. It doesn't eat up an enormous amount of electricity.

nursetim
10-17-2012, 12:53
The fact that you've heard it is a clue to the actual problem. The public will not be willing to buy enough Hydrogen fueled cars to make them economically viable. Too many will be worried about what happens when the one Hydrogen station breaks down or goes out of business.

I worked in a rescue squad that resistited anything new by saying, "we've already tried that and it didn't work, so no."

"The public will not be willing to buy enough Hydrogen fueled cars to make them economically viable."
Is this what happened to diesel cars in America as well? Meh, I don't but that excuse either.

"Too many will be worried about what happens when the one Hydrogen station breaks down or goes out of business"

Same thing as current gas stations, except less problem with ground water contamination.

I'm telling you, it would work. I think I will call resistance to the whole idea, "The Hindenberg phenomenon"

As in " Ah zo, you obviously are suffering from ze Hindenberg phenomenon, herr Ubenstanken."

SC Tiger
10-17-2012, 13:33
I worked in a rescue squad that resistited anything new by saying, "we've already tried that and it didn't work, so no."

"The public will not be willing to buy enough Hydrogen fueled cars to make them economically viable."
Is this what happened to diesel cars in America as well? Meh, I don't but that excuse either.

"Too many will be worried about what happens when the one Hydrogen station breaks down or goes out of business"

Same thing as current gas stations, except less problem with ground water contamination.

I'm telling you, it would work. I think I will call resistance to the whole idea, "The Hindenberg phenomenon"

As in " Ah zo, you obviously are suffering from ze Hindenberg phenomenon, herr Ubenstanken."

I think you missed my point - the problem is the PERCEPTION of these issues, whether they really exist or not.

The problem with the one hydrogen station breaking down is that, at first, there may not be any more stations for miles.

You can get diesel at any truck stop. It would be less convenient than going to the corner gas station but you will still be able to get fuel. Actually now you can get diesel at a normal gas station but that hasn't always been the case. The biggest challenge to the Diesel car is the EPA.

I'm actually in favor of diesel cars. Biodiesel is a very good solution since it is compatible with normal diesel (so you don't have to worry about fuel availability), although there are challenges there.

If enough Hydrogen fueling stations were built then hydrogen (don't know why I keep capitalizing hydrogen) will work. But these stations will have to be built and sit idle (or below capacity) while the cars are produced and the public warms up to the idea. The best case scenario is to roll it out with the cars on a lease and in a limited area (say southern California) and let it spread gradually.

None of the challenges are insurmountable, but they are difficult.

Now, if you could somehow make a car that would run either fuel (gas/hydrogen or diesel/hydrogen) then you would really have something. Would it be bifuel-ual? :rofl:

There are a few cars that can burn either gasoline or compressed natural gas, and a conversion kit is available.

Personally, I agree we need something other than dead dinosaur juice to move a car. We just have to find something that people will accept.