backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 23 at 7:01 PM


Most EVs can charge off of a 120 volt standard outlet, but it will take eight long hours. Dedicated 240 volt charging stations can cut the time to less than three hours.  (Source: GM)

The U.S. government, along with state governments will give free charging stations to the first 4,400 Chevy Volt customers.  (Source: Brandy Baker/The Detroit News)

Ford, by contrast is paying its own way, offering free charging stations to the first 5,000 buyers of its 2012 Ford Focus Electric. However, its customers may still benefit from taxpayer funded initiatives to install chargers at public locations (or perhaps at a friend's house who owns a Volt).  (Source: Autoblog Green)

Michigan also has joined Wisconsin in a pledge to devote taxpayer money to fight human-driven carbon emissions, which it feels are responsible for global warming.  (Source: OurCommunity)
Both proposals will likely provoke a bit of controversy

Electric vehicles look like the vehicles of the future.  With the evolution of battery chemistries over the last decade, batteries can provide the same amount of power in a package about a quarter of the size (or less) and cost a quarter as much (or less).  With further improvements in store, it looks like it won't be long before customers can trade the pump for the plug.

However, before we get there, one critical challenge for the industry is charging.  For first generation GM, Ford, and Nissan EVs, set to hit the market this year and next, charging is a slow process.  There's also a relative lack of charging stations at public locations.

Michigan is aiming to change that with the deployment of 280 charging stations at homes, business, and community locations in the Dearborn, Flint, Ann Arbor and Detroit-metro area. 

The program costs $37M USD in taxpayer funding, $15M USD of which comes from a federal stimulus grant.  The charging stations will be provided free of costs to the individuals or organizations who have their proposals approved. 

The program is part of a larger national-scale program, ChargePoint America, aimed at deploying 4,600 charging stations nationwide. Among the goals there is to offer free charging stations to the first 4,400 2011 Chevy Volt EV customers.  GM is not paying for the new chargers itself.  Ford Motor Co., by contrast, is not relying on taxpayer handouts quite as much and will be shouldering the cost of offering free charging stations to the first 5,000 purchasers of the 2012 Ford Focus Electric.

Coulomb Technologies of Campbell, California (which will provide Ford's chargers) and San Francisco, California-based ECOtality are the primary players in this market.  Coulomb's charging stations cost between $1,700 USD and $5,700 USD, depending on the regional availability.  That cost doesn't include installation.

The good news is that unlike the EV batteries themselves, which will see their performance degrade over time,  the chargers should last for decades.  Typically connectors in the average U.S. household use 120 volts of electric potential, but the EV chargers use 240 volts, in order to pump electricity into the batteries faster.

For those who don't get a station in time, some electricity providers, like utility DTE Energy Co.'s Detroit Edison unit, have offered charging stations at a discounted rate ($2,500).  Customers can opt out of a dedicated charging station entirely and use their standard 120 volt outlets, but this dramatically raises charge time and mandates more careful planning.  Charge time on a 120 volt outlet for the Volt is estimated to be 8 hours, while it will be less than 3 hours with the 240 volt charging stations.

In related news, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Director Rebecca A. Humphries and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Secretary Matthew J. Frank signed a pledge vowing for the two midwestern states to join together in an effort to fight global warming.

Some scientists today believe that the Earth is currently in a warming trend, and believe humans are causing that trend by outputting carbon from fossil fuels and livestock digestion byproducts into the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide, methane, and other carbon-gases have been shown to trap heat, but no one can say precisely how much carbon the earth can reabsorb and the precise "forcing" or heating effect per unit of carbon that stays in the atmosphere.

None the less, advocates of fossil fuel reduction say that the dangers of global warming are too compelling to risk inaction while the research refines.  Michigan and Wisconsin under the new plan will work to develop joint actions plans to fight warming, including proposing taxpayer-funded projects and programs designed to fight global warming.

Ms. Humphries states, "As we move forward in addressing how climate change will impact our natural resources and environment, it is important that we recognize that these impacts are shared regionally.  By coordinating efforts with Wisconsin, we can be even more informed of how the Great Lakes watershed will be affected by climate change."

Despite its rich landscape -- a source for tourism -- the Great Lakes states have been hit hard by the recession and the decline of the U.S. auto industry.  Michigan in particular is in severe shape, with the nation's highest unemployment and long-term unemployment.  Thus any plan to devote additional tax resources to fight global warming will likely have to be flown under the radar to avoid the wrath of the local populus.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No 240?
By MrTeal on 9/3/2010 10:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Typically connectors in the average U.S. household use 120 volts of electric potential, but the EV chargers use 240 volts, in order to pump electricity into the batteries faster.


Maybe it's different in the States, but every house I've ever seen in Canada has 240V into the residence, with a least a couple 240V plugs. I can't imagine many places have only 120V, so I don't see why this would be an issue.




RE: No 240?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 11:01:56 AM , Rating: 3
No no. We have 240v, but it's reserved for larger appliances like stoves, water heaters, etc etc. All of our plugs are 120V for regular devices. No home here only has 120V, and yeah, it's not really an issue.


RE: No 240?
By amanojaku on 9/3/2010 11:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think it has to do with the home's age. America is filled with older homes (average build date of 1960-1970), most of which use 120V exclusively. Newer homes, or homes that have seen electrical upgrades for modern equipment, may include 240V. My mom's house is 80 years old and only has 120V outlets, but I think her boiler and stuff runs off of 240V due to renovations.


RE: No 240?
By Spivonious on 9/3/2010 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 3
240V is just two 120V hooked together. Nothing needed except for a new fuse/breaker, and a different socket (and probably new wires depending on the current draw).


RE: No 240?
By zozzlhandler on 9/3/2010 1:00:01 PM , Rating: 3
Not quite. You need two different phases of 120. Some old homes do not have this.


RE: No 240?
By mcnabney on 9/3/2010 1:34:56 PM , Rating: 5
Correct.

But it is easily fixed by dropping in a second line. Those old buildings probably only had 60amp service too, which will not be enough to do things like recharge a car in addition to the regular usage.

Also, this has nothing to do with combating global warming. Energy sources will shift from oil to mostly coal, with some nuclear and other renewable. However, it does shift dollars from going to our 'pals' in the Middle East (and Canada/Mexico) to domestic energy producers. I can get behind that.


RE: No 240?
By MrTeal on 9/3/2010 2:34:59 PM , Rating: 5
Be careful using phases when discussing 240V, it causes a lot of confusion. Home 120V/240V is still single phase; the transformer on the pole out back is 240V and center-tapped. The center tap is your neutral, and two ends of the transformer are the two 120V lines. Take power across L1 and L2 and you have 240V. It's technically called split-phase; but it is still single phase.


RE: No 240?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 9/3/2010 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 3
Technically, it's 120 Vrms two phase (180 degrees out of phase). If you are referencing ground, it's not possible to get 240 volts out of it. Never tie either of the phases to ground.

Don't try explaining this to a tradesman.


RE: No 240?
By Samus on 9/3/2010 6:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
I had commercial service (480v) installed in my garage years ago, but it cost a shitload of money. They (ComEd - Illinois) also didn't do it how you'd think.

I thought they were going to upgrade the house and run another (I already had three providing 240v) 12ga 480v-copper line through the underground conduit in the yard to the garage.

Instead, they added an entirely seperate meter to the garage and just dropped three-phases from the pole to my garage. I don't know if this is standard or if they just wanted to do the job quick, but it's strange paying two electric bills when one is just my garage...nobody lives out there.

For those wondering why I needed 480v three-phase power: welding, lighting, climate control, industrial motors, hydrolics, and soon...charging my car.


RE: No 240?
By MrTeal on 9/3/2010 6:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately you can't just add another wire and have three phase power. Even if they did just run another cable and switch you to 3phase, nothing else in your house would work anymore.

Re. HoosierEngineer5's post, it's not two phase. It's a single 240V line, with a center tap. It's single phase. Two phase power is something completely different. Check wikipedia on two phase power. Hence my original post on this. :P


RE: No 240?
By monkeyman1140 on 9/4/2010 11:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Some people still have knob and tube wiring in their house too, but let's not worry too much about people who are such luddites that they are passed over by the miracles of modern technology.


RE: No 240?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 9/5/2010 10:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
More specifically, the scheme outlined by the Wikipedia article is quadrature (90 degrees out of phase). The advantage of this scheme is that there is always power available to drive the load, plus the fact that since the two signals in quadrature, they provide a fixed amount of power to a 'real' (as opposed to imaginary/reactive) load, since power is the square of the voltage divided by the resistance. If the phases are out of phase by 90 degrees, that can be written as a sine wave and a cosine wave. Recalling high school math, sine^2+cos^2 = 1.

I suppose that since a reference is needed to measure phase, if you define 240 V power as single phase, 120 V power has no phase, but that would really confuse the issue more.


good to see
By kattanna on 9/3/2010 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some scientists today believe that the Earth is currently in a warming trend, and believe humans are causing that trend by outputting carbon from fossil fuels and livestock digestion byproducts into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, methane, and other carbon-gases have been shown to trap heat, but no one can say precisely how much carbon the earth can reabsorb and the precise "forcing" or heating effect per unit of carbon that stays in the atmosphere.


that was a breath of fresh air. its good to see people open to the idea that all might not be as dire as made out in the main stream media.




RE: good to see
By zozzlhandler on 9/3/2010 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 3
Before spending billions on attempting to reduce CO2 etc, would it not be a good idea to spend a few millions making sure we know what these (AGW pushers) claim we know?

Maybe the planet is warming, but what is the cause? See http://www.jerrypournelle.com for a good discussion on whether we can even measure the temperature of the planet (let alone to an accuracy of .1 C as these people claim to). It is probably a stupid idea to pump CO2 into the atmosphere without any thought to possible consequences, but it is an even more stupid one to bankrupt ourselves fixing a problem that may not exist.

Maybe we need warming to stave off another ice age... who knows?
Lets find out.


RE: good to see
By cornelius785 on 9/3/2010 2:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
My issue with spending money to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (for GW? to keep some crazy people quiet? to push society into a cleaner state? for whatever?) is that money seems to be spent on expensive things that don't have much bang. My college built a new 'green' dorm hall, yet there are plenty of places where cold air is pouring in (bad insulation, old windows, people just opening up windows when it is 20F or colder, etc.). Hybrid only parking is also a ridiculous idea. I say make parking spot only for enormous, fuel ineffiecent trucks/SUV/old vehicles as the sooner they park, the less emissions they'll make.

Wind power? solar power? why not nuclear power so it'll produce clean power in a small(er) foot print, produce stable power output, and not be so unsightly. I don't mind spending money on trying to reduce emissions, but when 'bang for the buck' is completely ignored (along with what things can be done for cheaper and are easier to do) that really gets me. Also, are you really saving money by going off the grid by buying a solar power system when the return is often 15+ years?


RE: good to see
By LoweredExpectations on 9/4/2010 2:14:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Some scientists today believe that the Earth is currently in a warming trend, and believe humans are causing that trend by outputting carbon from fossil fuels and livestock digestion byproducts into the atmosphere.


No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. I've been following the AGW debate here in the DailyTech blogs for quite some time now, and I've come around to the consensus view among the skeptics: AGW isn't just bad science, it's a global conspiracy by the socialist left to "ban capitalism outright in the rich West and give away all our money to the 3rd-world poor."

A good friend say the cows are behind it all: he thinks the cows are tired of standing around eating grass and farting all day long. He says they want a change of diet and Japanese toilets - you know, with heated seats and a jet of warm water the shoots up and rinses out your butt-crack, like those poofter bidets you find everywhere in Europe. Europe! The socialists again! Damn, it all makes sense in a crazy way. The cows are being funded by Japanese toilet manufacturers who are acting as front men for European leftists trying to neuter the American male by getting us all using socialist bidets. Next thing you know they'll be little shops with surly Frenchmen selling bagguettes and brie on every corner teaching our kids to play bocce and sing L'Internationale.

I've got to send this post off to Fox double quick - anybody have Rush's email address?


RE: good to see
By Kurz on 9/4/2010 9:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
Its bad science that progressives cling to get votes, power, and cash.


RE: good to see
By LoweredExpectations on 9/4/2010 10:27:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its bad science that progressives cling to get votes, power, and cash.


Is that our position for this article? Cause I'm pretty sure in the last piece on climate change, the 'socialist conspiracy to destroy capitalism' narrative was real popular among the skeptics. If you're correct, and it's corrupt scientists and progressives hoodwinking the public to steer money their way, far from being a socialist conspiracy, that seems like classic capitalist behavior to me. So how do we deal with the contradiction?


RE: good to see
By Kurz on 9/4/2010 8:22:06 PM , Rating: 3
Look over the history we have the scare of global cooling back in the 1960-1970. Progressive policies have always been about passing laws to regulate capitalism and further expand government, since the people who are productive scare the progressives into a false dichotomy thinking the rich are stealing the money from society. When in fact government is actually doing the stealing.

This innate fear tends to see anything happening in the world like the supposed global warming as complete confirmation at the fear of technology we rely on and rich selling you a product that improves your lifestyle.
At least that's my perspective.

In a system such as ours with a massive government if everyone in government positions believes we have global warming there will be internal pressure to fix this. Thus pass laws limiting choices of the citizens at an attempt to curb consumption of energy and goods. This massive effort doesn't seem like a conspiracy on the inside... but small decisions over decades looks like conspiracy on the outside.

Its just the evolution of a small government to a large government to a failed government. Its happened so many times throughout history thats how governments fail is they get too large to be supported by the people and they revolt.
Though I am curious will it happen across all countries at once since we live in a network of central banks.


RE: good to see
By LoweredExpectations on 9/5/2010 10:39:34 AM , Rating: 1
There's clearly some work to be done on AGW before the question is settled one way or the other. But what I find obvious in all this is how political preconceptions spin our take on the underlying science. It's mostly the conservative right that thinks it's all a swindle, and it thinks so for contradictory reasons. The same guys who see AGW as corrupt scientists passing off fake science to increase funding for pet projects and get a little attention, in the next breath claim it's a vast socialist conspiracy to destroy capitalism, or shadowy global government attempting to expand and take over all life as we know it. These are all just long-standing rightwing theories now applied to a different topic - the AGW debate. Clearly a guy's party affiliation predicts his position of AGW. Isn't that just a bit suspect?

It's a little like what happens with creationists who view evolution strictly though the lens of biblical literalism. Right-wing conservatives are no more likely to think AGW could be happening than Christian Fundamentalists are to believe that man evolved from non-human hominids. In both cases, the only science that is considered legit is that which supports one's prior ideological position. This is how the human mind works: nothing is seen for what it is; everything is interpreted according to some larger encompassing narrative that we tell ourselves to make sense of the world. I suspect something similar is happening with liberals. (A theory dear to my own heart is that the Republican party is just a front for rich people whose only concern is to increase their own wealth.)

AGW should be argued from the science. To think it's all a global socialist conspiracy to destroy capitalism, or that the world's climate scientists are all part of a secret society dedicated to duping the public and enrich themselves - that's nuts. It's no different from claiming that it was Bush who blew up the Twin Towers to provide a pretext to start the Iraq War and enrich Halliiburton - just to give a crazy conspiracy theory from the left. (I'm sure that someone is now going to post his 'proof' that it really was a bomb that brought down the towers.)

And there are vested interests on both sides of the debate. When you focus on the money coming from the environment orgs and ignore the millions flowing in from the oil and coal companies to the anti-AGW voices, you again betray your lack of objectivity.


RE: good to see
By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2010 11:11:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's mostly the conservative right that thinks it's all a swindle, and it thinks so for contradictory reasons. The same guys who see AGW as corrupt scientists passing off fake science to increase funding for pet projects and get a little attention, in the next breath claim it's a vast socialist conspiracy to destroy capitalism, or shadowy global government attempting to expand and take over all life as we know it.


You might have a point if only Conservatives were saying this. But the fact is the biggest champions for this line of thought are the very ones pushing AGW as well as many Democratic and Liberal politicians. I mean what the hell do you think Carbon Taxes are all about? Saving the Earth!? You can't be THAT stupid.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=110031

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69081

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

And please, don't embarrass yourself by claiming these are all Right Wing biased sites. They are using direct quotes from these people.

quote:
AGW should be argued from the science.


We agree! Show the science. Michael Mann, author of the famous "Hockey Stick" AWG model, was recently asked to hand over his data for review. He refused.

Let's think about that for a minute. You apparently just discovered that the world is in danger. Don't you think someone would want everyone to know about that up to and including sharing his data and models so that others could ratify and uphold your findings? Nope, apparently not.

I would bring up Climate-gate, but I know all too well what side of that debate you're on. Yup, it was all just another wacko Conservative attack on good sound science. Something like that?

And these are just the most notable of examples. If you want to argue purely science, the truth is the AWG theory for a purely scientific standpoint, is barely a legitimate theory. The amount of real undoctored and verified evidence to support it is almost insignificant compared to findings that state otherwise. Or when a large enough roadblock appears, they simply change the entire theory to try and make it fit. Remember Global Warming? Now it's "Climate Change". How quaint.

It's funny, you spin platitudes about people focusing on the truth and science, but then clearly only apply that to one side of the political parties. So basically one side is genuinely passionate about the environment, and one side are crazy money grubbing science denouncing conspiracy theorists. Yeah, real believable. You must have a huge paintbrush to make such broad strokes.


RE: good to see
By LoweredExpectations on 9/5/2010 1:55:23 PM , Rating: 1
If AGW is correct, it's a global problem that requires global solutions. To expect that rich countries should make no more sacrifice than poor countries is absurd. Would you expect the Central African Republic with a per capita GDP of $700 to make a contribution of the same magnitude as the US? Some amount of financial aid will unavoidably be necessary; call that wealth redistribution if you want, but then so is supplying Africans with mosquito nets. But how does that equal a global socialist conspiracy to destroy capitalism? The US also spends vast sums policing the world, because we have(had) the money and it is in our interests to do so; is being the world's policeman and having all those bases in foreign countries not then wealth redistribution as you define it? How would our spending more than our numerical share on ameliorating climate change differ?

So is that what you guys are referring to by a socialist plot - foreign aid? So when Bush committed the US to spend billions of tax money to combat AIDS in poor 3rd-world countries, was that also a socialist plot to destroy capitalism? What about the trillion Bush spent in Iraq to bring democracy to the Arabs, cause we certainly paid a s**t lot more than we got in return.

In any case, you confuse cause and effect. You've got people on the left like Sunstein saying that utilizing rich-country wealth to combat AGW can also be an effective way to aid the poor, which I admit is a liberal conceit, but that is far from saying that AGW was invented to enable such aid.

Similarly, we had this guy arguing in the evolution threads that evolution was invented to help atheists negate the religious implications of creationism; it was pointed out that tho evolution could be seen as an effective rebuttal of biblical literalism, it was ridiculous to think it had been invented solely for that purpose.

To ignore the spin from your sources and concentrate on Sunstein's words:

"If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

All Sunstein is saying is that if you want to do good in the world, you can't always hope to make a profit out of it, and that aid to fight AGW might be a more effective way than traditional foreign aid. He uses leftist geek talk, but that's all he meant.

Frankly, I don't see the socialist plot in Hansen's argument for a carbon tax; unless of course you think all taxation is socialism. But then pure libertarianism is just as much an impractical social arrangement as Communism; both have very illiberal consequences.

I'll have to get to the remaining two links some other time.


RE: good to see
By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2010 5:25:55 PM , Rating: 1
Oh I see. So just because, coincidentally, AWG is the fastest ticket to make all these peoples fantasy of a united centralized one world government Liberal Utopian society etc etc happen, doesn't mean the science isn't also sound right?

I'm trying to figure out if you're being purposely naive, or just being an apologist. Because you obviously think you can explain all this away and still arrive at the conclusion you want.

quote:
All Sunstein is saying is that if you want to do good in the world, you can't always hope to make a profit out of it, and that aid to fight AGW might be a more effective way than traditional foreign aid. He uses leftist geek talk, but that's all he meant.


No offense but I think HE knows what he meant more than you. If that's what he meant, that's what he would have said. See? This is what I'm talking about. Stop fooling yourself!

quote:
Frankly, I don't see the socialist plot in Hansen's argument for a carbon tax; unless of course you think all taxation is socialism.


Then you're blind! The carbon tax isn't the goal, the goal IS the wealth redistribution. AWG fear mongering is simply the best way to achieve that. How can you possibly read anything different than the obvious truth in this words? They are LITERAL!!

You don't think Carbon Taxes are a socialist "plot"? Is there an assembly line somewhere where they stamp out drones like you by the hundreds? Use your brain!

I also find it ironic that the people pushing hardest for Carbon Taxes, are also those who stand to benefit the most financially from them. Like Al Gore, who's already made millions selling imaginary "carbon offsets" to himself in the form of stocks and sees a huge return on this. But I guess that's another wacko "conservative" attack huh?

quote:
If AGW is correct, it's a global problem that requires global solutions.


So why can't we wait to see if it's correct first? Why are we having Copenhagen and people like you clamoring for us to spend trillions on something we don't even fully understand and don't even know if we CAN fix?

It's honestly insulting how you refuse to concede that AWG has more to do with politics than it does with science at this point. I feel like I'm wasting my time. You just don't get it or pretend not to.

quote:
I'll have to get to the remaining two links some other time.


They were just examples, not the foundation of my argument. Frankly there is so much evidence to support my statement it's not like I really have to look hard to find this crap. And don't bother, because you'll just try and interpret what they "meant" to suit your beliefs, instead of the plain facts as they are presented.


RE: good to see
By LoweredExpectations on 9/6/2010 1:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I feel like I'm wasting my time.

If the point is to bring the other guy around to our way of thinking, then we're both wasting our time. I've been involved in these on-line ideological disputes from day one of the internet, and in my experience, no True Believer has ever had his mind changed by anything said by an opponent in a forum argument. Not once. People jealously defend their cherished opinions like a starving man his last crust of bread. Evolution, the Twin Towers, vaccination causes autism, taxation - regardless of the side one takes, it's always the other guy who is deaf, dumb and blind. As a Brit friend is always saying, "There's nowt so queer as folk."


RE: good to see
By Kurz on 9/6/2010 12:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
The issue actually comes from poor education of issues on both sides of the debate. Though after looking at data and the political might behind the Climate Change debate I am not going to believe that a politician is going to save the world.

There is history that we all know full well.
Countless civilizations failed at the point we are at now.
Massive taxation, politician's stealing from the populous.

The most prosperous times for majority of people were always at the beginning of a country's founding. Since the infrastructure of control and manipulation hasn't been entrenched by laws.


RE: good to see
By mindless1 on 9/5/2010 3:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's not at all nuts. For as many different people as there are, there can be as many combinations of reason they support the GW, AGW theories, and/or if there's something we should do about it.

One thing is clear. Every day a majority of the population carry on their lives motivated to some extent by greed. They are not eliminating poverty, homelessness in their own towns let alone if it effects children dying on the other side of the world.

I find it unlikely that this majority in the US cares about whether the temperature will go up a degree or two (as if we could do anything about it), nor do they really understand much about science. This leaves other motivators, one of which is likely to be the (feel good being a responsible politically correct person) mythical bubble people live in that suggests all their bad deeds are cancelled out by a few token gestures.

Even so, they choose to focus on this topic instead of other feel good subjects that are more likely to improve the quality of life.

Several factors in combination contribute to the GW and AGW campaigns. You can argue away one at a time but it would be like stating that throwing one rock at someone and hitting them in the leg didn't kill them, ignoring that if lots of other people are also throwing rocks it has a cumulative effect.


RE: good to see
By Kurz on 9/6/2010 1:08:37 AM , Rating: 3
Capitalism is Greed channeled into improving life for Everyone in society. Get that straight... even if you don't believe it, its true. Its the only reason why US has grown into such a powerful country.

You can't eliminate poverty by throwing money at the problem all you get is a welfare state where everyone suffers.

I agree with pretty much the rest you said however.


RE: good to see
By mindless1 on 9/23/2010 7:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be assuming if it's capitalism it has to be "like this". Greed can be done to excess at which point it is canceling out a lot of the potential benefits of our society.

I don't suggest hand-outs to combat poverty any more than needed to get people healthy enough to work. Use the money to build infrastructure that employs them at a livable wage, by making people more productive we increase the amount of money circulating in society instead of only being hoarded away in banks, stocks, etc by the rich.

Lastly, the US is a young country that can't sustain itself so claiming the US is powerful ignores the economic realities of not just our recession, but the growing national debt, the increasing development of 2nd world countries as global economic competitors with cheaper labor.

Greed doesn't improve life for everyone in society anymore. The rich are getting richer but the % falling under the poverty level is growing. Our children's educations are falling behind those of other 1st world countries and what are they learning instead? How to friend someone on Myspace.

The reason why the US really grew into a powerful country as that it was settled at a point in time when mankind had evolved enough to recognize the strength in unity, to create a government over the entire land instead of letting petty differences break us up into small unions... and that civil war when that started to happen over slavery.

To put it another way, if Europe had simply developed later than it did it would have had a similar outcome and we can indeed say there were enough capitalist countries to make that the majority in an area large enough to be a superpower.


RE: good to see
By mkrech on 9/5/2010 2:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So how do we deal with the contradiction?

I say we start by correcting our education so that it no longer produces your level of idiocy.


Moving up in the world.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 11:05:45 AM , Rating: 1
No surprise here. Michigan has excelled at spending taxpayer money for a long time now. Which explains why it's in the deplorable condition that it's in.

I rather take it up the butt than live in Michigan.




RE: Moving up in the world.
By MeesterNid on 9/3/2010 11:11:40 AM , Rating: 4
I think that's pretty much synonymous.


RE: Moving up in the world.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 11:14:56 AM , Rating: 1
Haha, good point. If you live there you already ARE taking it!


RE: Moving up in the world.
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2010 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 3
They're not just spending their tax payer money, but the rest of ours as well.

But this is no surprise for a bankrupt and complete failure of a state like Michigan. And because of the idiots in Washington, we have to help fund them ruin themselves further.


RE: Moving up in the world.
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2010 12:21:08 PM , Rating: 1
And Great Lakes states are being hit hardest by the recession because labor unions in those states have driven out all the jobs. The only industries moving there are those who are being paid by the federal government to do so.


RE: Moving up in the world.
By torpor on 9/3/2010 5:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Neither Wisconsin nor Michigan have any money to spend on anything whatsoever, beyond current commitments. Hell, they can't even cover that much....

Wisconsin has a chance to elect a cost-cutting governor this year, but the current state leaders are doing their damndest to loot Wisconsin before it happens.

I hope Michigan has something better on their horizon too, but with the UAW influence there, I doubt it.


RE: Moving up in the world.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/4/2010 1:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither Wisconsin nor Michigan have any money to spend on anything whatsoever, beyond current commitments. Hell, they can't even cover that much....


Well if the last two years have taught us anything, it's that governments don't have to actually have money to spend money.


RE: Moving up in the world.
By Ammohunt on 9/3/2010 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Way to make even more tax payers move away from Michigan real geniuses running things up there.


Not in this liftime
By Beenthere on 9/3/2010 11:44:15 AM , Rating: 1
No one is going to effectively force EVs on consumers in this lifetime. Politicians are good at pissing away tax payer money and many cater to the tree huggers.




RE: Not in this liftime
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2010 12:16:55 PM , Rating: 1
If the federal government instituted a $5/gallon tax on gas, raised emissions standards high enough, and set mileage standards high enough, they could easily "force" everyone to EVs.

We used to say the government would never own car companies or control banks either. Nevermind control health insurance companies, all student loans, sue states and county sheriffs for enforcing the law, the list really doesn't end...

Point is with the idiots in Congress and the White House now, there really is no "that could never happen".


RE: Not in this liftime
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 4:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
Did you hear the latest? Congress issued a subpoenas for the CEO's of Chucky Cheese to appear and answer questions about why they are "marketing" to children. I'm not making this up, seriously.

I mean come on, in the middle of a war, record debt, massive unemployment and a destroyed economy, our "representatives" are trying to demonize and penalize people who sell greasy pizza to kids!?!? That's really an important issue? And where in the hell was Congress granted that kind of power and interference into business in the first place?

Their insane. Our government is 100% insane. I thought it was crazy when they went after steroid using professional baseball players. But Chucky Cheese!!!??


RE: Not in this liftime
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2010 11:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
I sincerely hoped you were joking. But sadly you're not....


heyyy
By shin0bi272 on 9/3/2010 10:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
YOURE WELCOME MICHIGAN!

Since youre getting charging stations from OUR tax money you can go straight to hell you environmentalist pricks




RE: heyyy
By monkeyman1140 on 9/4/2010 11:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Turn off your internet and go back to paper and quill pens then, luddite.


RE: heyyy
By Kurz on 9/6/2010 5:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... how is what he said incorrect?
They are using Tax money on something that isn't competitive yet.

Pen was better and cheaper than Quil,
Internet/Computers are faster, and cheaper, and less wasteful than using pen and paper.

So far electric is more expensive, less reliable (batteries),
The technology would be awesome if the batteries held more charge, charged faster, and was cheaper.

Why purposely push a product on the America when it clearly can't compete with gas cars yet.


never was about ACTUAL science
By rika13 on 9/4/2010 8:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
GW is real, but so insignificant that nobody should care (less than 1C for the ENTIRE 20th century).

AGW is a complete lie, the Vostok, EPICA, GRIP and NGRIP ice cores all state that the CO2 levels and global temps have been rising sharply and falling time and again since long before man even existed, let alone before we had tools more useful than spears and hammers




RE: never was about ACTUAL science
By rika13 on 9/4/2010 8:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry for double post, preview only works when brain works.

What the whole AGW crap is about is Big Green, the Democrat version of Big Oil. Gotta give kickbacks to the "green" donors. These would be all the "environmentally friendly" industries like wind/ocean current power (blades of death and kills wind/water speeds), solar power (just plain worthless), electric vehicles (why pay republican states, canada, and mexico for oil when you can steer those dollars to donors?), etc.


By monkeyman1140 on 9/4/2010 11:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah solar power sucks, its not like the earth runs on solar or anything.


Did you miss this -
By Dr of crap on 9/3/2010 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
"and believe humans are causing that trend by outputting carbon from fossil fuels and livestock digestion byproducts into the atmosphere."

Yea , I had some beans last night and now have digestion byproducts released into the atmosphere! HA!




RE: Did you miss this -
By Schrag4 on 9/3/2010 1:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
If I hadn't seen you around here before, I would swear you created your account with that name just so you could post that comment.


RE: Did you miss this -
By monkeyman1140 on 9/4/2010 11:44:59 PM , Rating: 1
Humans, cows, etc don't add anything to the carbon cycle, since they re in a closed system.
You only add carbon to the ecosystem when you drill deep in the earth and pump out the carbon that was formerly permanently locked deep in the crust.


Michigan?
By clovell on 9/3/2010 11:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
It'd make more sense in Illinois - we've got more nuke plants than anyone, as compared to Michigan's coal.




RE: Michigan?
By theArchMichael on 9/3/2010 12:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ah I think it's an infrastructure investment meant to spur infrastructure investment in other places like Illinois, etc. I think they figure being an early adopter will help in launching this new era of vehicles and since Michigan is home of the big three if others jump on the bandwagon then they end up winners.


Criminal
By sleepeeg3 on 9/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Criminal
By FITCamaro on 9/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Criminal
By jeepga on 9/3/2010 2:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know Chrysler paid back all of their "loans". GM is the one that paid back their "loans" from the giveaway money to make it sound like they did the right thing.

I have a Jeep as well and will likely buy a Chrysler/Jeep product again.


RE: Criminal
By sinful on 9/6/2010 12:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's criminal that Ford is having to compete against the government. I am amazed they are able to compete and succeed after having to battle against private corporations and bottomless, taxpayer funded pits like Government Motors and Chrysler. I own a Jeep now, but all of my future cars will be from a company that is not already stealing from me.


Yeah, all my cars will be built & made in Communist China from now on.

Dang liberal government, trying to keep jobs in America...
Any good Republican knows that we should just do whatever is cheapest, even if it costs us 10x as much in the long run.

Because it's better to be taken over by Communists than let Capitalism be saved by a temporary "Socialist" act.

Brilliant!


This will be DOA come November
By NesuD on 9/3/2010 2:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michigan and Wisconsin under the new plan will work to develop joint actions plans to fight warming, including proposing taxpayer-funded projects and programs designed to fight global warming.


The Democrats here in Michigan are in a bind. The State is broke and it happened on their watch. There will be a power shift in Lansing in November that will surely make this DOA. The State cannot meet its scholarship obligations to it graduating H.S seniors. Where are they going to find money to fund this kind of fluff?

Sorry but this is nothing more than the lame duck party trying to influence state policy after they leave office. I predict any commitment for this initiative will remain unfunded for the immediate future as well it should.




By shin0bi272 on 9/3/2010 10:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
sorry no it wont... they are just like north carolina... they might switch the president they vote for but they will always be run instate by democRATS. Nothing you can do in Michigan or Wisconsin will ever change that and SENATOR al frankin proves it.


120v?
By rocky12345 on 9/3/2010 2:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
I do not know how it is down in the states but here in Canada I have never seen a house with just 120v it is always 240V meaning 2 120v legs of power & those 2 legs of power are spread out so they can handle all of the houses power demands. A single 120v power lead could never handle a whole house hold. Crap my Apt even have 2 120v power legs in the fuse box. Also a lot of places also have 3 phase power which is 3 legs of power coming in. 120v nope don't think so if so those houses are surely lacking.




Same Crap Different Day
By mindless1 on 9/5/2010 2:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
It is very frustrating when our elected officials decide for us what our tax money will be used for "when we did not vote for them having that in their agenda".

People usually vote based on either party lines or specific issues, NOT to give someone carte blanche control over our lives on every random issue that pops up!!




Nice waste
By Overtone on 9/6/2010 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Living in MI myself I hope that we find something else to invest into besides the auto industry. Whats that old saying...don't put all your eggs in one basket.




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki