backtop

Print 97 comment(s) - last by DockScience.. on Apr 28 at 8:29 PM
Mitsubishi i launches first in Hawaii

Nearly every automaker around the globe is looking closely at EVs and hybrids to help meet the ever more stringent CAFE standards that are being mandated. The latest automotive company to jump on the EV bandwagon here in the U.S. is Mitsubishi.

The car is called the Mitsubishi i and it carries a MSRP of under $30,000 before federal tax credits. The price after the $7,500 federal tax credit for the Mitsubishi i will be $20,490. That makes the car one of the cheaper EVs on the market. The EV comes in different trims with the low price being for the ES trim. The SE trim adds features like a 360W 8-speaker sound system, leather steering wheel and shift knob, as well as 15-inch aluminum wheels. The SE package adds $2,790 to the base price of the car.

One of the more impressive features of the Mitsubishi i is that with the DC quick charging port the battery pack can be recharged to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. The base car includes speed sensitive electric power steering, 120V 9-amp charge cable, four speaker stereo, and a 100W AM/FM/CD player. 

The Mitsubishi i is powered by a 63hp electric motor and has a targeted driving range of 85 miles.

The car will be offered first in Hawaii. Buyers in the Aloha State will be able to get the federal rebate along with an additional $4,500 rebate from the state.

The car went up for pre-order on April 22 with a non-refundable deposit of $299 via PayPal due when the person orders. Buyers will also normally have to pay a $99 inspection fee to be sure their home will support the charging of the EV. The first 2,000 that pre-order won't have to pay that fee though.

“We thank Mitsubishi Motors for choosing Hawaii as one of the first states to receive the new "i" electric car.  Electric vehicles use a fraction of the fuel needed by traditional cars, so each EV on the road means we're reducing our dependence on imported oil and increasing our ability to reach Hawaii's goal of 70 percent clean energy within a generation,” said Estrella Seese, Acting Energy Program Administrator, Hawaii State Energy Office.

While the Mitsubishi i is just hitting the market, the company plans to stop making three models in the U.S. this August. The three models that will be discontinued at the Normal, Ill. plant this summer include the Eclipse Coupe, Eclipse Spyder, and the Endeavour. The Galant will continue to be made at the plant.

There have been concerns recently that the Evo may be discontinued as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sign me up
By mcnabney on 4/26/2011 12:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is clearly a market for small, electric city-cars that can be purchased for under $20k. Their gasoline equivalents already start around $13k. Any family that currently has two vehicles and one of them is just for commuting should consider this as a good option.




RE: Sign me up
By BioHazardous on 4/26/2011 12:53:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wait a second. You saw the picture and you still want one?


RE: Sign me up
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/26/2011 1:05:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wait a second. You saw the picture and you still want one?


For $16K I'd want one too if I were in Hawaii.

I don't care if it looks like a whale mated with a warthog -- if it is around $15K, gets 75+ miles on a charge, and can drive reliably at highway speeds it seems worthwhile to me.

You know the one thing uglier than that car?

Staring down $4+/gallon gas at the pump.

Now I don't necessarily agree with the federal rebate as that seems like the federal government overstepping its intended function, but the Hawaiian one seems pretty reasonable -- after all if Hawaiians want to vote for state legislators who will approve it, well that's the definition of self-governance right?

Seems like a win-win.


RE: Sign me up
By mcnabney on 4/26/2011 1:14:19 PM , Rating: 1
Hawaiians have unique energy needs due the nature of living on a bunch of islands. If that gives them a great incentive to push grid-based energy sources, let them.

As to the look, I think it looks fine. It is a tiny car. The wheels are pushed to the corners to maximize space.

I am also not a big fan of the Federal tax credit for EVs. The government doesn't have enough money to be using carrots all the time. They should use sticks instead, and targeting a product that is about 50% imported makes a lot of sense. So slap on a hefty gas tax - say $1/gallon. That should be a decent incentive and reduce the deficit instead of growing it.


RE: Sign me up
By nolisi on 4/26/2011 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea, except that a tax like that would hit 90% of Americans. I don't think there exists a politician brave enough to endorse that in a country that hates taxes especially with the increasing market cost of oil in the first place.

The other option is to institute the tax, then institute price caps. But then you piss off the companies that are likely contributing to your campaign. You also get those in favor of completely unregulated markets whining about communism.*

*This comment is not targeted at any particular political party or leaning as lobbyists in the energy industry tend to donate large sums to all major campaigns.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
Great idea? Um, no. It's a absolutely awful idea. An additional $1/gal tax would cripple the economy. I don't know about you, but I sure enjoy being able to pay my mortgage, buy food, and occasionally go do something fun.

Why not just take over the industry all together? I mean, isn't that really what you'd like to see? Let the gov't set the price and collect all of the money? That way big bad oil companies couldn't gouge us, and we could ween the electorate off of oil and onto something better for "mother earth"?

When did we stop teaching American students about our Constitution, federalism, and enumerated powers?


RE: Sign me up
By gamerk2 on 4/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sign me up
By Solandri on 4/26/2011 3:38:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The powers of Congress are limited by what is listed in Article 1 Section 9 as being explicity not allowed. Everything else is permitted.

You have it backwards. To quote the 10th Amendment:
quote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Congress only has powers delegated to it by the Constitution. The broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause you're advocating is clearly incompatible with the 10th Amendment. If you were right, there would be no additional powers "not delegated" by the Constitution, and thus no need for a 10th Amendment. Therefore must be incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_claus...

In practice, the clause extends only as far as the Supreme Court deems it to extend. In some times throughout history, SCotUSes have interpreted it narrowly, other times broadly. But no SCotUS in its right mind is ever going to interpret it to mean "everything else is permitted" as you have. That would be in direct violation of the 10th Amendment.


RE: Sign me up
By gamerk2 on 4/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Sign me up
By fraks on 4/27/2011 3:33:45 PM , Rating: 1
whoa, whoa... did you really call Alito, Thomas, and Schalia liberal?


RE: Sign me up
By Arsynic on 4/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sign me up
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 5:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually "promote" is in the preamble but not in Article 1 Section 8, where the word is not included so the quote without it is correct in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 4:31:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The powers of Congress are limited by what is listed in Article 1 Section 9 as being explicity not allowed. Everything else is permitted.
Dude, what?! Did you sleep through all of your history classes?

"[insert body of power] gets nearly unlimited power" is exactly the style of government that they were trying to avoid. Why would they secede from a country only to institute a governing system that would lead to the exact same oppression?

quote:
So yeah. Read the Constitution sometime.
I'd recommend you do the same. And take a gander at the Federalist Papers first. And then maybe a few history books about the US revolution, and the mindset/beliefs of those who wrote our Constitution.


RE: Sign me up
By nolisi on 4/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 4:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, I'd rather have a government that somewhat run by the voters in control of a resource (like oil) considered a necessity rather than a company in control of not only the necessity, but also has it's hands and money all over the government.
And here's where we'll never agree. I don't want the government to control any industries. If the problem is lobbying and corporate influence, then let's address that.

quote:
explain to me how that event didn't constitute gouging
I'm not arguing that price gouging hasn't happened, nor am I arguing that illegal activities haven't happened. They have in the past, and they will in the future. I am arguing, however, that you're not being gouged today nor is there evidence to support that the current spike in gasoline prices is due to illegal activities. I don't subscribe to the belief that there is systemic corruption in the oil (or broader energy) industry.

quote:
We're already paying an additional $1/gal tax- the tax simply goes to the oil companies rather than the government.
If we're comparing profit in private enterprise with government taxation, I'll choose more profit to private enterprise every single time.


RE: Sign me up
By nolisi on 4/26/2011 4:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want the government to control any industries. If the problem is lobbying and corporate influence, then let's address that.


Here's my problem with your viewpoint- corporate influence in government is only half the problem. You ignore the idea that corporate motivation having control over necessary resources is a problem. Again, review the energy crisis if you don't believe that this is a problem.

quote:
I am arguing, however, that you're not being gouged today nor is there evidence to support that the current spike in gasoline prices is due to illegal activities.


Fine, spikes can happen due to legal activities- I agree. Right now, the spikes are due to speculation- which is legal. This is not a supply and demand problem- it's a speculation problem. I am being gouged based on the fact that prices have increased without being affected by supply and demand. Gouging can happen under legal circumstances as well.

quote:
If we're comparing profit in private enterprise with government taxation, I'll choose more profit to private enterprise every single time.


I'm a little more thoughtful about the idea- taxation in almost every case has a strong er potential to benefit the people. Increasing corporate profit in this case does not benefit us in any way- if supply and demand hasn't changed and the oil companies are not creating jobs, not improving the quality of their product, and they haven't shown strong evidence of improving practices of resource collection then we're paying a higher price for no reason.

If paying the oil companies more would improve any of these aspects, I would support profiting them. At best, we're paying them more now after they've spilled oil all over the gulf, damaging other business interests and simultaneously wasting a precious resource, and subsequently given their executives bonuses after the event. This is a dangerous combination of incompetence, inefficiency, and greed.

The government might be incompetent and inefficient, but it can be controlled far more easily than a private company.

This is not about being green/environmental, etc. This is about energy companies threatening the general public welfare through illegal, incompetent, and unjustified activity. And guess what happens when someone (like a terrorist) threatens America's public welfare- we tend to like to respond with military action.*

*The conclusion of the last paragraph was partially a joke. I'm not suggesting we actually invade/assault/bomb the energy industry.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 5:55:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You ignore the idea that corporate motivation having control over necessary resources is a problem. Again, review the energy crisis if you don't believe that this is a problem.
If a single corporation controlled all of a single resource, I think you'd have a point. But that's not even close to the case with energy (specifically oil, coal, and natural gas). Which energy crisis are you referring to? Enron? California? 2008 gas prices? today?

quote:
Right now, the spikes are due to speculation- which is legal. This is not a supply and demand problem- it's a speculation problem.
Do you know how commodity markets work? The price of oil today is describing the industry's view of what the supply and demand will be in the future. Given the unrest in the middle east, and the continued prevention US domestic oil exploration, the price goes up. Furthermore, the US government continues to devalue the US Dollar. That sucks if you're trading barrels of oil in US dollars. If you buy a barrel today for $110 and then the feds go printing another few billion dollars so that your $110 tomorrow is worth the same as $100 today you've got a problem. And you're going to try to mitigate that problem, by jacking up the price so you don't get boned. This is not a speculation problem, and just saying it is over and over won't make it true.

quote:
I'm a little more thoughtful about the idea- taxation in almost every case has a strong er potential to benefit the people. Increasing corporate profit in this case does not benefit us in any way-
That's absolute garbage. Taxation hurts everyone. It removes money from those would could otherwise spend it, invest it, grow capital, and create wealth. Increasing corporate profit in this case, benefits everyone who owns the companies making profits, everyone who works for those companies, and in many cases others in the supply chain. If Honda turns a profit, they'll expand, and build another factory somewhere. Joe Blow just got a new job at the factory. And the steel mill just got another order. And the car dealership just got another sale. And the state just got more sales tax revenue. etc, etc, etc

quote:
The government might be incompetent and inefficient, but it can be controlled far more easily than a private company.
You honestly believe that?

quote:
This is about energy companies threatening the general public welfare through illegal, incompetent, and unjustified activity.
No, it's not. It's about the federal government intervening just enough so that it can claim the market has failed, and then claims justification to interject itself even more until it has the ability to dictate your decisions (either directly, or by making the alternatives ridiculously unfavorable).


RE: Sign me up
By nolisi on 4/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 7:43:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is an anecdote and is not evidence of anything that is actually happening.
So you just completely dismiss the notion of companies making profits, and reinvesting those profits because you can't extrapolate a simple anecdote into a real world example?

Let's use my company as an example then, shall we? My company made a profit, so it was able to pay me. I, in turn, was able to pay for a kitchen rennovation. Which gave the lumber yard, plubmer, electrician, taper, etc more work. Which let them... do whatever they wanted to with their increased incomes. Buy more materials, or a new truck, or take his wife out to dinner. I don't know. Doesn't really matter.

quote:
Show me that the oil/energy companies have expanded production and created more jobs/economic activity with their increasing profits.

* Shell Oil invests $4 Billion in Arctic (at a complete loss now, mind you) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-americ...
* Exxon Mobil pays dividends for last 20 yrs http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/investor_divid...
* Exxon Invests in Alt Energy http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/16/16greenwir...
* Chevron spends $1.4B on new plant http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=13929291
*ConocoPhilips invests $50M to improve refinery http://www.ordons.com/americas/north-america/4797-...

And that took about 2 minutes of Googling. I'm not just making this crap up. It isn't just a pipe dream that companies will invest their money. Companies exist to make money. If they've done so and now have more means to make even more money going forward, they're going to do that. And when they do, everybody wins.

quote:
increase of prices on a necessity (regardless if it's taxation or speculation) hurts everyone. Taxation, however, has a stronger potential to introduce/make programs/benefits more available and/or better for EVERYONE . Corporate profits do not have that same potential.

You're living in a fantasy land! Corporate profits are reinvested, or spent on another corporation's goods. Money taken away from individuals and away from corporations
(which are nothing more than groups of individuals) is money that can no longer be invested or spent. And as it changes hands along the way, you're at best going to come out even, but more realistically, going to lose money due to the inefficiencies of passing it through 8 hands before finally making it to the end person. When companies make money, it's just some CEO at the top. It's employees, shareholders, and everyone that company interacts with. My Honda example is perfectly valid. As are the links I listed above. If Exxon makes money, pays a dividend, and you own that stock in 5 mutual funds within your IRA (or maybe more aptly, state pension), you win! If Exxon makes money and continues employing XXX,XXX people they win! If Exxon makes money and expands its operations, the people building a new rig or working a new drill win! And then if they make more money from that expansion, you win again when they pay next quarter's dividend! If the government taxes the bajeezus out of Exxon so that it makes no profits, then everyone loses (except for the guy who got his 'free' $7500 tax credit).

quote:
Yes, because the Bush administration forced Enron...
You keep going back to Enron. A single data point. If you're trying to make the point that the Enron execs were crooks, I agree. If you're trying to claim that they are somehow representative of all oil companies or all corporations, you're wrong.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 7:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
When companies make money, it's *not just some CEO at the top.

(wish I had an edit button)


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 9:43:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It certainly isn't just one as you are implying.
I never said it was just one. I said repeatedly using Enron as justification that all corporations are evil, doesn't hold much weight in my eyes.

quote:
Shall I list all 422 results? Books full of multiple examples?
No, that's ok. But you could list a couple of those specific facts, if you'd like. Instead of hiding behind some book search results.

quote:
This proves what? Anybody can cherry-pick facts that suit them, all national media relies on it. You rely on it, Mick relies on it.
Did you read the post I was replying to? The previous poster wanted examples of "oil/energy companies [that] have expanded production and created more jobs/economic activity with their increasing profits." I obliged.

quote:
If someone in your family was a victim of a Ford Pinto (God forbid) and your research showed that they knew the car had problems would you be so inclined to offer the opinion you're offering here and now?
If my family was injured and someone was at fault, would I still advocate that corporations are good for the economy, and good for growing wealth in a country? Would I still argue that increased profits are a benefit to far more people than just some exec at the top? Would I still want that, and every other corporation to remain privately held and not run by the government. Yeah, I would. And then I'd probably go support another corporation by hiring a lawyer to go after those who wronged me.

quote:
Yeah they're ain't much corporate corruption on this world.
I never claimed there's no corruption. Or that there's trivial amounts of it. But I certainly object to your insinuation that it's everywhere, or that it's the norm. And as I stated before, I also reject the notion that the current spike in gasoline prices is due to oil industry corruption.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:16:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did you read the post I was replying to?

Sorry, I hit the wrong reply button.

quote:
I also reject the notion that the current spike in gasoline prices is due to oil industry corruption.

It's stock market speculation, which caused spikes in silver and sugar in the past. As to whether this type of speculation was corrupt or not, we'll probably never know.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 10:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's stock market speculation
Well, it's not. But I'm sure that's what the general public will believe (if they don't already) after people say that enough times.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
So what is the cause?

quote:
But I certainly object to your insinuation that it's everywhere, or that it's the norm


I'm not saying it's everywhere, I'm saying it's too common.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/27/2011 8:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what is the cause?
Check out my posts above.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 5:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is an anecdote and is not evidence of anything that is actually happening. Show me that the oil/energy companies have expanded production and created more jobs/economic activity with their increasing profits.


This is an excellent example of being downgraded without any childish nonsense. It's a pattern here, you deal with it, or make light of it, or you leave for more logical pastures. What you don't accomplish is shedding any light on minds that are already made up.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 4:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, I'd rather have a government that somewhat run by the voters in control of a resource (like oil) considered a necessity rather than a company in control of not only the necessity, but also has it's hands and money all over the government. And if you honestly believe that people have not been gouged and manipulated by the energy industry and that they're not as big and bad as they might appear,


That's already taking place. Obama has declared all out war on the "evil" oil speculators. And what has happened? Gas is going up up UP. Maybe if you understood how this country worked and how we need a viable energy industry, your post wouldn't read like a Liberal fantasy.

It's funny how you claim they are gouging us, but every time we get more Government regulation and laws to "save us", the price goes up.

Speculation is the underpinning of our entire economy, the very foundation of capitalism. It’s what has made America the greatest nation in world history. Profit - the end result of speculation - is why Americans are willing to take risks with their hard-earned money. It’s why they invest in business, which creates jobs for Americans.

Without speculation (i.e. financial risk), America’s corporations could not raise capital. Without speculators or investors, we’d have no economy. Without speculation, we’d have no jobs. Speculation sets the fair price for goods, products and services. One investor or speculator offers to buy a product at a certain price, while another offers to sell at a different price. This price-seeking mechanism redirects the economic engine of producers to best fulfill the needs of consumers.

Without speculation there is no free-market economy - only a socialist state with industry, prices and wages controlled by the government. You can ask Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or remnants of the old Soviet Union how well that worked out.


RE: Sign me up
By nolisi on 4/26/2011 5:05:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Without speculation there is no free-market economy - only a socialist state with industry, prices and wages controlled by the government. You can ask Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or remnants of the old Soviet Union how well that worked out.


This is what comes from a limited perspective. There are alternatives to a completely unregulated free market and socialism. You can still have the benefits of a free market under a perfect market system. Do some research on that, and get back to me. A perfect market is NOT socialism.

I'm not going to substantively argue with any other point you made because you won't actually respond to the evidence or use common sense (yes, prices can rise with regulation, but with deregulation they rise faster and have the potential to damage the entire market, this is what's happened with the financial collapse).

Unfortunately Obama hasn't declared war on anything, he just put GE's CEO to head up the economic advisory panel- you think he's going to do anything that might harm the profits for the energy industry as a whole?


RE: Sign me up
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 6:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is what comes from a limited perspective.
The real issue today, IMO, is the "limited perspective" demonstrated by both sides of the house. Both of you are right and both of you are wrong. Most of your points are irrelevant. What should be discussed is what will work best using the most efficient and effective way possible. All we hear is idealistic rhetoric. In reality, as long as we all agree, there's no freedom lost or rights trampled on. That's the whole point of this country, rights and freedoms. If you have choice, you are free. If WE tax ourselves because it benefits us in some way, then we freely chose ie we're not slaves nor are we subjects.

Also, we're the government. We elect them, we re-elect them. If they're NOT representing you, THEN STOP RE-ELECTING THEM!!! This is really simple sh!t. I hear all of this whining yet you all vote for the same sh!tty people. You get what you pay for.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 6:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If WE tax ourselves because it benefits us in some way, then we freely chose ie we're not slaves nor are we subjects.

Also, we're the government. We elect them, we re-elect them. If they're NOT representing you, THEN STOP RE-ELECTING THEM!!!
That's true, to a degree. But that logic only really holds so long as we're talking about voting to tax ourselves. It falls apart when we're talking about voting to tax others. If Bob's voting to take money from Bill and there are 200 Bobs for every 1 Bill, then Bill's f'ed. Even if there's 1 more Bob than Bill, Bill and all of his ilk are done. And that's exactly what's happening. Those with less resources outnumber those with the most resources, and they're using those numbers to steal from their neighbors.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 8:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All we hear is idealistic rhetoric. In reality, as long as we all agree, there's no freedom lost or rights trampled on. That's the whole point of this country, rights and freedoms. If you have choice, you are free. If WE tax ourselves because it benefits us in some way, then we freely chose ie we're not slaves nor are we subjects.


No it's not rhetoric. It's at the very heart of the matter. The Government of the United States has no legal grounds for running or taking over industries. In fact what he's suggesting is completely unconstitutional.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 7:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama has declared all out war on the "evil" oil speculators. And what has happened?

Can you expand on that? Would prices have gone up regardless of his actions?

quote:
Profit - the end result of speculation - is why Americans are willing to take risks with their hard-earned money.

But with a well stacked deck you can profit without risk. Just ask a banker.


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 9:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But with a well stacked deck you can profit without risk. Just ask a banker.
Absolutely! You can pass the risk off on the taxpayer, while keeping the profits for yourself. Then just watch the ensuing crash after you've made your [m|b]illions What amuses me is that we blame the industry for doing this, yet completely shrug off the government actions that also played a significant part.


RE: Sign me up
By Skywalker123 on 4/27/2011 12:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
Do you realize how many banks have gone under?


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 1:53:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Can you expand on that? Would prices have gone up regardless of his actions?

What about these terrible questions R77? Aren't you going to call me all kinds of names for these as well?


RE: Sign me up
By DanNeely on 4/26/2011 3:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right about no politician having the spine needed to propose a significant increase in the gas tax rate. It needs to be done though.

Federal highway spending is financed from the fuel tax. The rate hasn't increased since early in the Clinton administration (93?), and the cost of building/maintaining a mile of highway/bridge/etc is significantly higher now than it was then. This is one of the factors in our inability to properly maintain our roads and expand them to handle capacity problems. The increases in CAFE targets are making the problem worse because newer cars are putting more wear and tear on the roads/gallon of fuel used.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 5:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is just flat out wrong. States collect plenty of money for the highway funds without raising the gas tax. The problem is they SPEND it on other crap instead of fixing the roads!

Point is simply gouging the public to give more money to government isn't the answer. Spending MUST be brought under control before we even think about more taxation.


RE: Sign me up
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 6:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't agree with his statement at all. California has a gas tax on top of the fed one. And we have the highest gas prices in the country. Like Rec77 said, the politicians just spend that revenue on BS. More taxation is NOT the answer, keeping those funds for highway use ONLY is the answer. Indeed spending in general needs to be reigned in first before more taxes can be considered.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Sign me up
By AssBall on 4/26/2011 3:39:18 PM , Rating: 1
Slap these people who want more tax is more like it.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 1:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Another down rating, apparently nobody can question your tactics. Being omnipotent must be grand.

Hell of an audience you have here DT. Fair and balanced.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 1:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Uh-oh, looks like a whole new batch of down graders has just gotten out of bed. Quick, force Brandon to allow lower than -1 votes!


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/27/2011 4:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think more accurately, you're both being downrated because you're both acting like children.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 4:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, there are plenty of times the downraters simply refuse to accept how things are. What you state does occur, but its overall percentage here is not that high. Say anything that criticizes tech in any way, regardless of research that backs up your point, and the results will be the same.

I pointed out weaknesses in an argument and got personally slammed. It is what it is. And frankly standing on the sidelines without comment (armchair quarterbacks) and grading others is the really chilidish practice.


RE: Sign me up
By BZDTemp on 4/26/2011 2:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Staring down $4+/gallon gas at the pump.


Don't ever pull up at a pump in Europe. When I filled up the other day gas was around $9.50/gallon!

Even back in the seventies oil crisis prices was lower (compensating for inflation and all). The only up side is that eventually there is gonna be more room on the roads and that makes driving more fun :-)


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 2:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't ever pull up at a pump in Europe. When I filled up the other day gas was around $9.50/gallon!


Oh don't worry. There are idiots here who think we need a VAT tax too. Taxes, you know, are the answer to everything :(


RE: Sign me up
By Souka on 4/26/2011 3:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Regular gas is already over $5/gallon in some Cali areas...and prices will surely continue to rise this summer


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 5:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regular gas is already over $5/gallon in some Cali areas...and prices will surely continue to rise this summer


Well yeah, look at the fuel taxes you guys pay! :(


RE: Sign me up
By gamerk2 on 4/26/2011 3:33:22 PM , Rating: 1
A sales tax of any kind is far more recession resistent than any other form of tax. Anti-competitive to small business though...Plus, its impossible to hide from, as every part of the supply chain feels the effect.

And to be fair, $700 Billion of the current deficit is due to the Bush Tax Cuts. I'm still waiting to hear how we can afford that extra level of debt...[Heck, Increases to defense spending, the Bush Tax Cuts, and Medicare Part D alone comes to 1.5 Trillion/year. Coincidentally, we're about 1.3 Trillion deficit. Hmmmmm.....]


RE: Sign me up
By Solandri on 4/26/2011 3:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A sales tax of any kind is far more recession resistent than any other form of tax.

The irony in this is that if the government were running surpluses, this wouldn't be an issue. They could tax only the richest people (whose income fluctuates wildly with economic times). In boom years they could sock away extra money in a Federal Savings Account, and in bust years they could withdraw from it to even out the tax revenue.

A stable year-to-year tax base is only necessary because our government continually runs deficits, and thus has no "savings" to even out the year-to-year revenue. If you want to tax rich people more without it causing year-to-year budgetary problems, you have to eliminate debt first.


RE: Sign me up
By AssBall on 4/26/2011 3:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to be fair, $700 Billion of the current deficit is due to the Bush Tax Cuts.


You Bush blamer 'tards just still don't get it, do you? There is only a deficit if there is more SPENDING than income.

quote:
And to be fair, $700 Billion of the current deficit is due to the Bush Tax Cuts.


To be fair, 700 billion is a pretty small portion of the current deficit if you ware going to base your metrics on money spent divided by time in office.

Cut spending below income and run tax & spending like something with a responsible plausible business model, not a dead end emotional greed based redistribution system.

Or just keep cashing checks you don't have the backing for and go on blaming someone else.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You Bush blamer 'tards just still don't get it, do you? There is only a deficit if there is more SPENDING than income.


No they don't, it's really sad. In fact, cutting taxes ALWAYS leads to MORE tax revenue for the Government. I know it sounds backwards, and people like him can't understand it, but we do NOT have the deficit we do now because of a tax cut. Not even close. The deficit was due to spending, NOT tax cuts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bus...

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 4:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
Oops left out:

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

So yeah...about that 700 billion "deficit" from cutting taxes?


RE: Sign me up
By AssBall on 4/26/2011 6:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea what kind of hole he pulled that number out of, but I knew it didn't sound right.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2011 9:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no idea what kind of hole he pulled that number out of, but I knew it didn't sound right.


Politicians count on you being stupid. And if a lie is repeated enough, enough idiots like him will believe it.

So yes, in their minds, if you cut 700 billion in taxes, you have just cost the government 700 billion. Third grade mathematics.


RE: Sign me up
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 6:45:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.
Wow! Always interesting how truth is continually buried under an ocean of lies. I've also just discovered how we can quickly get rid of our deficit AND how how full of sh!t some of these economists are. I guess fear sells afterall.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 9:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
And how much did spending rise during that same time period? Was that the same period people were also spending way beyond their means? Please put it in a more complete perspective for us.

By the way what was Halliburton's take during that period?


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 5:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Spuke,

Thanks for not calling me all sorts of names because I asked a few questions you may not have liked.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 9:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

1. Is this number adjusted for inflation or just a flat out number?
2. How do we know how much of this revenue increase is a direct result of the tax cut? How much would have occurred without it? The implication is ALL OF IT comes from the tax cut, but where's the proof?

Suppose for a second the economy peaks and dips no matter what to a certain degree. Now show a timetable of those peaks and dips and add points to the timetable where all tax cuts occurred. Did those tax cuts happen during the peaks in the economy? Or where they more likely to occur during harder times, which would be followed by better times regardless?

Without such information the facts presented in the article are half baked at best, which is a bi-partisan technique to manipulate each party's followers. So let's take a look at the Washington Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

quote:
The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America. The Times is known for presenting socially and politically conservative views.


I don't think I need to add anything to that.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2011 1:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
LOL Yash, this is low even for you. You're covering your ears mumbling "la la la la I can't hear you". Honestly, grow up.

Of course I had to use a Conservative site to find the truth about tax cuts. Hello? 90% of the media out there is horribly Liberally slanted, and we all know where they stand on tax cuts. Good luck finding honesty there.

quote:
Suppose for a second the economy peaks and dips no matter what to a certain degree. Now show a timetable of those peaks and dips and add points to the timetable where all tax cuts occurred. Did those tax cuts happen during the peaks in the economy? Or where they more likely to occur during harder times, which would be followed by better times regardless?


This is the dumbest thing I've read today. Was there even a point in there? And why all the questions? Guess what, YOU have to answer them, assuming they are relevant which they aren't. I already presented my proof, the burden of proof is now on you if you wish to dispute them.

Like or not the numbers were pulled straight from the IRS, and it doesn't take analysis or a bunch of conjecture to make the correct conclusions. I don't care who owns the Washington Times, you're simply engaging in underhanded slander and more ad homenum attacks.

I guess it's just another Conservative lie that Reaganomics produced the same result? Massive tax cuts = massive federal revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_recei...

According to a United States Department of the Treasury economic study,[27] the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, in the short term, increased total tax revenue and reduced the tax burden on the economy (~-1% of GDP). The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a reduced tax burden on the economy (~-3% of GDP) and an increase in total tax revenues (the largest tax cuts ever enacted)


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're covering your ears mumbling "la la la la I can't hear you". Honestly, grow up.

Ironically you're the one using this technique in your response, deflecting all the questions. Ask any economist if the questions are valid, not someone with such limited vision like yourself.
quote:
Was there even a point in there?

That it was beyond what you consider complete and rational thought?
quote:
Like or not the numbers were pulled straight from the IRS

Half-baked facts delivered by the moonies, the same group that had bald guys hanging out at airports, are hardly impressive. If you don't understand inflation adjustments or consumer overspending that's your own clear bias. The return of the ad hominem attacks shows what you truly are.
quote:
you're simply engaging in underhanded slander and more ad homenum attacks.

Don't be a simpleton, I addressed the quality of your source, it was your decision to use Moonies, Faux pundits, or solar flares to make your point.

Feel free to respond when you're done pouting.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2011 1:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. We're talking 700+ billion over only a 4 year period. Exactly how much "inflation adjustments" do you really think would matter over such a short span? Inflation would have to rise something like 800% to invalidate those gains. Hello?

quote:
I addressed the quality of your source


No you attacked the source as a means of trying to discredit the message. Like it or not, those are the facts.

I notice you aren't linking anything from a "better" source that clears this up for all of us.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 1:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
And the ad hominem attacks continue. Are you saying that your argument can't stand up for itself? Oh, clearly you are.

quote:
Exactly how much "inflation adjustments" do you really think would matter over such a short span?

No you should be comparing this period of big income to other periods of big income. Is there a reason you needed that explained to you? But ultimately what you've replied to the question is, "I don't know, and I can't admit it." Any other conclusions would be hard to justify.

quote:
No you attacked the source as a means of trying to discredit the message.

No I simply identified the source and allowed the rest of the facts to come out. Really, you didn't question any aspect of your source, that's my problem?

quote:
I notice you aren't linking anything from a "better" source that clears this up for all of us.

And you blame me for "shifting the goal post?" Kinda ironic, no?

My post was all questions to show that you close the door on everything that doesn't suit you, eliminating even the slightlest possibility you could be wrong. What do you do? You have another temper tantrum. I suppose that's my fault and you take no responsibility for your actions.

But you do as you always do, expect others to believe what you state with the same ease you accepted it, and then have a cyber meltdown whenever anyone dares to question you.


RE: Sign me up
By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2011 7:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
What you are asking of me is a MASSIVE research project, pulling hundreds of data points etc etc. Who do you think you are? And I bet even if I did do it, you still wouldn't accept that lowering taxes has a positive economic benefit that equals larger tax receipts. So what's the point? Dude, I'm not getting paid to post here.

Look it's this simple, 700 billion doesn't fall out of trees in only a four year period. Your position that I'm wrong simply because YOU can't explain why I'm right isn't winning debating.

quote:
My post was all questions to show that you close the door on everything that doesn't suit you, eliminating even the slightlest possibility you could be wrong.


I'm not wrong because "I'm" not the one who stated it. It's a well known fact. Plenty of economists repeat this. I notice, again, you can't explain why the two times Republican president's in recent times have severely relived the tax burden, the IRS gross record returns. How much more evidence do you need?

quote:
But you do as you always do, expect others to believe what you state with the same ease you accepted it


I backed a statement up with third part sources, so again, I'M not just making this stuff up. But of course, you didn't like the source. How many more would you like me to dig up? Sorry I can't find a Liberal blog touting this position, but I should think it's obvious as to why.

You really just have no idea how this country works. The fact that I'm wasting so much text to argue an economic maxim is sad.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 8:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you are asking of me is a MASSIVE research project

Why the change of heart? A short while ago I was an idiot. Now all of a sudden there's some validity to what I said?
quote:
Your position that I'm wrong simply because YOU can't explain why I'm right isn't winning debating.

I questioned only the magnitude of your response. How could that not be clear?
quote:
It's a well known fact. Plenty of economists repeat this

And apparently they have no political preferences. Yeah, that's reasonable.
quote:
I backed a statement up with third part sources, so again, I'M not just making this stuff up.

You threw a temper tantrum because you found out your source wasn't as solid as you imagined it would be. It seems with a minor effort a more respectful conservative group could and should have been found. But who's being pummeled for not doing this?

Your closing statements once again deal only with absolutes. Everything is black or white. You're with us or against us. And despite the fact that I have on numerous times stated I don't vote on the infantile 2 party bandwagon you continue to call me a liberal. Why? Because I am not "with you."

I suspect you'll spend all your days in a 2 dimensional world. Remember, that's your decision.


RE: Sign me up
By Arsynic on 4/26/2011 4:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be paying $4 a gallon for a few months. You'll be staring at this ugly POS car for at least 48 months!


RE: Sign me up
By FITCamaro on 4/26/2011 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's not $16K. It's almost $30K where others then give you $12K.


RE: Sign me up
By sleepeeg3 on 4/26/2011 8:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Quit giving yourself 5's, Mick.

Why are American tax dollars paying for Japan automobiles? If the car can't sell for $27,990, then electric vehicles are still too inefficient to be practical.

This push for electric vehicles is absurd. This will not save us any money. Oil companies and governments will continue to raise prices and taxes to make sure they still get the same amount of money. Consumers will be the ones to pay for this switch. Pure electric vehicles are far too inefficient to be practical. Hybrids still burn oil. Trucks that transport most of our goods and add to the cost of everything will continue to run on diesel, because electric lacks the power/energy density.

What will happen is we will pay even more money for smaller, slower, less powerful, less safe and more limited range vehicles, while shifting our reliance from oil, which we at least produce half domestically or import a large portion from Canada/Mexico, to reliance on lithium and rare earth metals like neodymium (required for electric motors), which are controlled by Chile/Bolivia and China. The US will have almost no economically recoverable reserves of these metals so we will have even less control over our future. On top of this, we would have to extract 50% of the world's known lithium reserves to power every vehicle on the planet - prices are bound to skyrocket.

The solution is we need to massively scale down the size of government so they quit inflating our dollar and making gas cost $5/gallon, start allowing drilling more domestically and build meltdown proof, modern nuclear power plants to support electric vehicles if/when they finally do become efficient. Hopefully by then fusion power will also be online.


RE: Sign me up
By Jedi2155 on 4/26/2011 11:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
While I can't hide the fact that I love electric vehicles, having them in Hawaii does not make much sense as I heard that most of the grid power in that state is powered by oil power plants already. Now if they started harvest wind/solar/tidal or nuclear, that might be another story but currently you're still using oil. Hell, even coal would make sense from a national security stand point but burning oil in a slightly more efficient power plant versus a car does not make that big of a difference.


RE: Sign me up
By phantom505 on 4/27/2011 8:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah because transportation and economic security are WAY outside the Federal purview.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 7:20:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You saw the picture and you still want one?

Actually I saw who makes it and ran for my life.


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Give my downrating I need to ask if the makers of the Yugo released an EV and I criticized it would I still be downrated? You bet I would.

Despite all the dead messengers found at the gates of DT I will state tech does not trump reality.

I'll wait right here while you reload.


RE: Sign me up
By HrilL on 4/27/2011 4:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to kick my own ass if I owned one of those.


RE: Sign me up
By MeesterNid on 4/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Sign me up
By MrTeal on 4/26/2011 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
At $16k, it's a great deal for a small city commuter. Too bad the car isn't $16,000 and it requires $11,500 in tax credits to reach that price. It's a false economy if the government has to subsidize 40% of the cost of the car just to spur demand. Do they have $10B set aside in the budget to support these credits if they get their eventual wish and a million+ of these start going out the door each year?


RE: Sign me up
By mcnabney on 4/26/2011 1:21:59 PM , Rating: 4
They really shouldn't be selling the cars this way.

This car could be sold for about $12k (batteries not included). Seriously, this car doesn't have an engine, intake, exhaust, catalytic converter... Just a frame, brakes and some relatively inexpensive electric motors. The car itself doesn't cost that much. So Mits should just sell the car.

The battery packs (which should be standardized) would be leased. That way the most expensive part of the car does not get in the way of the automobile transaction. It also guarantees tighter tracking of the batteries and their reuse (since they are still very valuable after many years of use).


RE: Sign me up
By chick0n on 4/26/2011 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know how much it cost to make a "reliable" 63 hp electric motor ? and you also forgot all the "safety" stuff that the law requires?

Yea you have no idea wtf you're talking about, if you want to say something next time, just stfu. Thanks :)


RE: Sign me up
By shiftypy on 4/27/2011 6:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
Most of us don't so enlighten us!

Safety is mostly the frame and the airbags, every cars has those

I still wish Mitsubishi i MiEV would be what it originally stood for - in-wheel electric vehicle. I guess 4 smaller motors would be cheaper?


RE: Sign me up
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 7:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Note the total lack of specifics for comparison of the electric motor cost versus the ICE, ECU, EFI, pollution control equipment, and a transmission with its many small and high tolerance parts.

Please enlighten us with more information.


RE: Sign me up
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 5:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is you still have to pay the full price upfront, then recoup some of it later. But does the tax credit work like a mail in rebate where you get all the money back, or does it just knock some off of your taxes that won't actually equal the full amount?


RE: Sign me up
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 6:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's a tax credit, not a deduction. So if your tax bill is $500, you'll get a tax refund of $7000.


RE: Sign me up
By JediJeb on 4/27/2011 12:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, always wondered about the specifics of that.

Problem is you still have to come up with the full amount at purchase then wait for the credit, not so bad if you purchase in December but if you purchase earlier in the year it stinks.


RE: Sign me up
By AssBall on 4/26/2011 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
here is clearly a market for small, electric city-cars that can be purchased for under $20k.


They are called scooters.


Federal Budget Woes
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
Any chance the upcoming battle royal over the federal budget will usher in the elimination of this ridiculous $7500 tax credit? I cannot believe that we stripped funding for the Yucca Mountain project in the latest 'compromise' even though we are legally obligated to deal with the nuclear waste and will start having to dole out billions in fines for not doing so, yet we still found money to pay people to buy EVs.




RE: Federal Budget Woes
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/26/2011 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Havent you figured it out yet? They only cut funding for programs IF the cuts will result in more spending down the road. Remember, the sole purpose of this government is to bankrupt its citizens.


RE: Federal Budget Woes
By ebakke on 4/26/2011 1:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
[sad face]


RE: Federal Budget Woes
By Ammohunt on 4/26/2011 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
and destroy America as we know it only to rebuild it as a communal utopia where everyone "just gets along"


What an Atrocity!!!
By Arsynic on 4/26/2011 4:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like a Diamante raped an electric lawnmower and the lawn mower refused to get an abortion...




RE: What an Atrocity!!!
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Looks like a stretched a Smart car to me.


Step in the right direction
By Stuka on 4/26/2011 1:22:17 PM , Rating: 3
Given the Leaf costs a few grand more, this is a good alternative. I see this car being a great choice for a multi-car family with child coming of driving age, in lieu of getting them a Scion or Civic that they will rice-out. The kid can drive the "i" to school, work, or the mall and you know they ain't going joy riding for long, racing, or getting speeding tickets in it. When they turn 18, the next kid can drive it. After that, they got a commuter that will get them to work for pennies a day.

Would love to see it at $15000 without rebates, but we're not there yet.




The Evo died for this!??
By EricMartello on 4/26/2011 3:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about your atrocities against cars... I can't believe Mitsubishi axed the Evolution to produce this crap. Once you kill a car that defines your company and gives it an image, there is little to differentiate your company from the others. Even if the Evolution was a loss leader (which I doubt it was), keeping it alive would attract more people to the Mitsubishi brand, even if they ended up buying a different car.




By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Is this car comparable in size and power to the Prius? More or less? Why ask?

Well the Prius is able to stand on its own 2 feet (economically viable) at $23K. So perhaps the Mit should have be granted a subsidy to make it competitive with a Prius, not significantly cheaper.




simpler idea
By DockScience on 4/28/2011 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of having the government seize >$10,000 from your neighbors (at least those who still have jobs)for your car, why not just steal your neighbor's stuff and buy a larger, nicer, yet cheaper car without the middleman?




By Beenthere on 4/26/2011 2:01:09 PM , Rating: 1
You got it, anyone who pays taxes is subsidizing not only the production of these cars with hundreds of millions in incentives to the car makers but also tax breaks for those who buy them. So we are getting it rammed up our butt twice while the tree huggers laugh all the way to the bank. Will we get tax rebates for the toxic waste used to build and recycle the batteries in these EVs? Of course not. SOS, DD.




By CharonPDX on 4/26/2011 2:17:52 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know why Hawaii isn't pushing EV more. They *SHOULD* have an easy time with renewable energy (although most Hawaiian electricity is petroleum-powered.) And with guaranteed short drives, (Even a drive all the way around the biggest island is less than 300 miles,) it should be a no-brainer.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki