backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Qapa.. on Jan 28 at 8:34 AM

Obama wanted to increase federal subsidies for electric vehicles to almost $590 million, but Congress never gave the green light

U.S. President Barack Obama planned to increase federal subsidies for electric vehicles to almost $590 million, but Congress has not yet approved this hefty agenda.

The $590 million EV boost was presented in Obama's 2011 State of the Union address, where $200 million of that total would be put toward EV infrastructure development in up to 30 cities. The idea reflected bipartisan bills brought to light in 2010.

"With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015," said Obama in the 2011 State of the Union address. "We've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge."

Congress still hasn't approved the policy changes for EVs, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

"There are absolutely things that remain undone that need to be done that he will call on all of us to work together to get done in this address and beyond," said Carney.

Obama is expected to talk today about an "economy fueled by homegrown and alternative energy sources that will be designed and produced by American workers."

Funding and loans for alternative energy have been scrutinized lately. In October 2011, Mitt Romney, a candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination, blasted the $1 billion in loans given to Tesla and Fisker Automotive. That wasn't the first time he criticized aid to the auto industry, though. In 2008, he disagreed with former U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to give bailouts to U.S. automakers.

In September 2011, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), a Hyundai and Chevrolet dealer, suggested killing off the $7,500 tax credit for EVs entirely.


"The bottom line is, while our nation borrows 42 cents on every dollar, taxpayers are paying for an electric vehicle tax credit that has cost tens of millions of dollars, and that largely benefits upper-income Americans," said Kelly.

Obama, however, planned to convert the $7,500 federal tax credit for EVs into a rebate that would be given to customers upon purchasing an electric vehicle. He made this announcement in January 2011.

To make matters worse, EVs have been placed under the spotlight due to recent battery troubles associated with General Motors' Chevrolet Volt. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted a series of tests in May and November last year where three separate Volt batteries sparked or caught fire after side-impact tests.

Electric vehicles are not the only targets for alternative energy-related criticism. Back in September 2011, Silicon Valley-based solar panel company Solyndra went bankrupt after receiving a $535 million loan from the Obama administration in 2009. The move was set to stimulate economic growth through environmentally friendly jobs, but government employees warned back in 2009 that Solyndra would indeed go bankrupt in a matter of two years. The loan pushed through anyway in order to meet political deadlines.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

Hydrogen??
By GruntboyX on 1/24/2012 1:08:46 PM , Rating: -1
I really wish we could get over the electric car. the battery technology is just not there. We only get 100 miles, and the energy density of these batteries are so great that catastrophic impacts will cause violent chemical reactions. To the point that insurance companies and fire departments will not put out fires caused by electric cars. Nor will they attempt to rescue entrapped individuals.

I wish we would continue to look at alternatives. Such as Hydrogen.




RE: Hydrogen??
By cknobman on 1/24/12, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen??
By quiksilvr on 1/24/2012 1:36:39 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. Almost everything has been perfected except for on major thing: those pesky batteries. We are approaching the next major Lithium Ion upgrade, but it is still 3-4 years down the road. Once we get that major upgrades, batteries should not only half in size and weight, but also last substantially longer and charge a hellova lot faster.


RE: Hydrogen??
By ebakke on 1/24/2012 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Electric car is part of the future and is one of many viable options.
It might be part of the future, but for the vast majority of consumers it isn't anywhere close to a viable option today.


RE: Hydrogen??
By AEvangel on 1/24/2012 1:45:39 PM , Rating: 3
If they are so viable and such a part of the future remove ALL Govt Subsides and let them compete. If they are the future as you think and so needed then they will prevail with out any assistance.


RE: Hydrogen??
By yomamafor1 on 1/24/2012 4:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
If we took that route for the airplanes a century ago, they would've never taken off.


RE: Hydrogen??
By ebakke on 1/24/2012 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
Prove it.

Statements like that are just complete BS. There's now way we could possibly know what would've happened if a different course of action was taken. You might believe that airlines wouldn't have become large, profitable companies. But unless you have an alternate universe machine, you can hold off sharing your "facts".


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're kidding, right? Or maybe I should say Wright? The Wright brothers built in their garage.

What early US aircraft manufacturers were subsidized like we see today in the Volt? Civilians and later the companies they formed built them and then in a few short years the military saw them as weapons platforms. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/...

Their first mass production was for WWI. Those were bought straight out, not subsidized. You may be confusing "airplanes" for the airlines which early on were subsidized...just like rail companies...and GE's diesel electric locomotives...which continues today.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Paj on 1/25/2012 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
Great! While you're at it, lets remove all subsidies for fossil fuels too. Also, we should probably remove tax incentives for any industry altogether. The invisible hand will sort everything out!


RE: Hydrogen??
By tastyratz on 1/24/2012 3:09:38 PM , Rating: 1
part of the future? hardly. EV's will NEVER EVER be more than a novelty at best. The equivalent emissions is MANY times worse than gasoline per mile in all but the most alternative energy sourced areas.

Without a continuous generation (generator) or easily transported fuel medium (hydrogen/gasoline/flux capacitor/etc) it will just never be more than a novelty.
The amount of watt hours it takes to quickly charge any battery of that substance requires more energy than your local grid even puts out.

I actually calculated the math out on an old post with how much energy it would take to charge a battery in a reasonable and convenient time period. I wish the numbers were handy but the electrical grid could in no way accomdate those kind of draws or fluctuations. I remember it was something astronomical like 2,000 or 20,000 amps @ 120v. What do you think that means for your typical 200a panel at home? The best batteries in the world still need raw energy, except essentially the better they get? the more they can store.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Solandri on 1/24/2012 4:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I actually calculated the math out on an old post with how much energy it would take to charge a battery in a reasonable and convenient time period. I wish the numbers were handy but the electrical grid could in no way accomdate those kind of draws or fluctuations. I remember it was something astronomical like 2,000 or 20,000 amps @ 120v. What do you think that means for your typical 200a panel at home?

The Nissan Leaf is expected to get 75-100 miles on a 24 kWh battery. Ignoring charging losses and AC/DC conversion inefficiencies, most homes are rigged up for 240 V, but let's use 120 V. Also, probably only 20 kWh is actually used (the rest being held in reserve to minimize battery degradation), but let's use the full 24 kWh (because I'm lazy and it makes the math easier).

If you figure it takes 6 hours to charge this car, that's 24 kWh / 8 hours = 3 kW. To transmit 3 kW of power at 120 V, that's 25 Amps. Easily doable in any home.

The ridiculous amperages you cite come about when you try to charge one of these from empty to full in 5 minutes like you do at a gas station, not in the home. That is a problem which still needs to be licked (if it even can be - my bet right now is on biofuels). But for the time being, a daily commuter car with a consistent usage pattern charged overnight in the home is perfectly viable. Unfortunately, "consistent usage pattern" pretty much relegates it to second car status (you need a gas car for longer trips and vacations). That vastly decreases the number of households which will find an EV to be practical.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Solandri on 1/24/2012 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you figure it takes 6 hours to charge this ca

Should be 8 hours.


RE: Hydrogen??
By JediJeb on 1/24/2012 11:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ridiculous amperages you cite come about when you try to charge one of these from empty to full in 5 minutes like you do at a gas station, not in the home. That is a problem which still needs to be licked


I think this is what was being talked about above. To make EVs a replacement for current vehicles would take just such a setup. Being relegated to second vehicle status is similar to being a niche or novelty item. Until the economy is better many people are not looking to have one efficient vehicle to drive to work and another for weekend purposes, many are going back to one multipurpose vehicle. I even know a couple from work who just got married and the wife sold her car so they could save money to put towards a house.

A few vehicles recharged in say 10 minutes would not be a drain on the grid currently, but what happens when even 50% of our vehicles are electric and are being recharged in a 10 to 15 minute time frame? Our work vehicles can travel over 100 miles each day and if they needed to recharge mid trip, we would not be wanting to do that in a time scale of hours, we would want it to be in minutes. Replace half of the filling stations in a town with EV quick chargers where multiple vehicles are recharging concurrently most of the day and that would be straining the electrical grid quite heavily. I can't envision EVs becoming the majority for many many years unless there are some large leaps in technology.


RE: Hydrogen??
By tastyratz on 1/25/2012 8:30:34 AM , Rating: 4
precisely my point before I got voted down. I don't really care if you can charge an electric car in 6 hours, I don't have 6 hours. If i am driving to visit the in laws am I going to park every few hundred miles and hope a motel will let me draw that kind of energy overnight? am I taking the day off from work if I forgot to plug in the night before? what about getting towed home?

If we simply extrapolated on the given analogy here of a 24 kwh battery and assumed 100% efficiency, that is 24,000 watts over 1 hour to charge, or 200 amps.
most homes do have 240v but it is easier to simplify in 120v because your average NEW home has a 200a @ 120v panel, half that counting 240v.
so the full draw of your home panel nothing else using power to charge in an hour, but what do we consider convenient... 6 minutes? drag that up to 2,000 amps then... the draw of 10 homes at once maximizing their entire electric output (never happens) to satisfy that 6 minute charge time. How many cars do you think it will take to take down a local substation? not many.
But that is a Nissan leaf, a short range small battery car. We need to increase our range if it is going to become a more practical car.

To support convenient charging of electric cars we would essentially need a completely new power infrastructure, something we have been saying we desperately need because they wont even change the old equipment we DO have... what makes you think they will run new 2,0000 amp drops to homes? we would need all new heavy gauge wire... poles... substations... power plants... you name it. What if a home has 2 cars? or even 3 cars if mom and dad work but their kid just started driving?

And what about the heat losses in efficiency... lithium ion can be in the 80-90% range depending (and this WIDELY varies)
but even considering that... a 200 or 400 amp heat discharge over 6 minutes? An electric stove burner might draw 20 amps... how do people think 400a of heat will bowl over?

The electric car is a novelty that says "I'm cameron diaz, I can afford to love the earth, and I'm better than you" no more, no less. The average American can never use the electric car as a sole means of transportation, and as such not prevail in this economy with many homes not able to afford multiple cars

sure sounds nice when you are giving presidential speeches though


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 9:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
+5 post. Irrefutable logic.

Ironically I see that Obama has given power companies absolutely NO reason to upgrade the grid at all. Because he's effectively waging war on energy development by choking off the supply of natural resources used to generate electricity. He's waging a complete regulatory assault on energy production.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Qapa on 1/28/2012 8:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow.. so you'd expect that if you could charge a car in 6 minutes, and you might want to have 3 cars, it would be ridiculous not to be able to quick charge, all 3 cars, in those 6 minutes, at the same time and... at home?!

I don't think the idea was ever that you can quick charge at home - even now usually people don't pump gas at home...

The idea should be:
- you can slow charge, usually: overnight, at home; during the day, at work; or partial charge, when doing whatever for a few hours, like: shopping / sports events / ...
- you can quick charge at an "electric pump station" in whatever amount of minutes and... pay for that, of course;

Also note that most people might not know but Nissan (Leaf) advises that "quick charging" should not be done more than 1 time per day. And that is another problem as you'd be limited to 300 miles in 1 trip, and then stop for a slow charge (1 day or 1 night).

But...

The fact that you change systems does not mean you will get a better system in every thing. It is better in some things, and worse in others. This means it is not for everyone, even not for most people, but for a few.

Now if you agreed it is "not for most people", than you must agree that it is for less than most (in other words: <49%). But I guess we can agree that, that value wouldn't be reasonable (yet), so lets say 5%?, 3%? Well, even at 1% that would still make it a viable car for millions.


RE: Hydrogen??
By siberus on 1/25/2012 11:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A few vehicles recharged in say 10 minutes would not be a drain on the grid currently, but what happens when even 50% of our vehicles are electric and are being recharged in a 10 to 15 minute time frame?


I have the solution. We need to setup a queuing system. Where premium members get to fuel up without waiting and at max amperage. Standard members get thrown into the queue and download err i mean refuel at a fixed rate and cant surpass a fixed cap of err recharge. We'll then start an affiliate program so that people can lessen their bills by providing some of the power themselves by running on a treadmill hooked up to a generator beside their vehicles. So now we get less pollution and people get healthier from providing their own power sounds like win win to me :o *goes and patents []dea* (removed the i to reduce the chances of being sued by apple)


RE: Hydrogen??
By tastyratz on 1/25/2012 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
sue by apple? more like shut down by the fbi.
You just found a way to convert the transportation system into megaupload.

Should I need to get captcha right if I want to recharge?


RE: Hydrogen??
By Qapa on 1/28/2012 8:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
This part: "The equivalent emissions is MANY times worse than gasoline per mile in all but the most alternative energy sourced areas."

Is just a lie!

Even if you consider that power plants are similar pollutants to cars (which they are not, they are less), having even 5% of nuclear / solar / wind / ... makes it around 5% cleaner.

So yes, the more cleaner energies you use, the better.

And also this is about not being so dependent on importing oil.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 4:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Electric car is part of the future and is one of many viable options.


When is that future going to happen? The Volt is on it's way out, the writing is on the wall. The Nissan Leaf is doing a little better, but still terrible sales comparatively to other models. The future? Sure, but let's be clear, it's an extremely DISTANT one. In the meantime, what do we do?

Gas has gone up 85% under Obama and the man is blocking viable pipelines and drilling while talking about a plan that will only be viable at some undetermined point in the future, DECADES after he's left office. People, that is the OPPOSITE of a plan. It's garbage.

Affordable energy is the lubricant of any free economy; it's essential. Obama knows this, which explains his decisions. Because he supports anything BUT a free market economy in this country.

At some point reality has to set in for you people. What's it going to take?


RE: Hydrogen??
By OoklaTheMok on 1/24/2012 5:48:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gas has gone up 85% under Obama...


Where? This is a flat out lie that only serves to support your ideology. My gas prices are the same as they were under Bush.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/12, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 7:27:57 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

Still quoting the Moonie's propaganda machine.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 8:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh speaking of quotes, I left out:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”


-Steven Chu-
Obama's Energy Secretary


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 8:47:46 PM , Rating: 1
RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 8:56:09 PM , Rating: 1
RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:33:33 PM , Rating: 1
You post more opinions about everything everywhere and I'm the troll?

Hell you post on Apple products for the sole purpose bashing them, no other reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 9:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Having an opinion makes you a troll? Okay. If that's the case at least I'm a good one.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:39:46 PM , Rating: 1
Doing nothing but dissing Apple 100% of the time makes you an Apple troll. Day in day out the anti-Swash. Proof you're an extremist.

You last comment is a prime example of your reading comprehension.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 9:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
The anti-Swash would be someone who's-

Reasonable
Articulate
Sane
Unbiased
Honest
Ethical
Lives on Planet Earth


I mean hell, the list goes on. But I think no higher compliment could have been paid to me. Thank you :)


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yash - no matter what the source, the national average of gas was $1.80/gal when Obama took over in late January 2009. Today, three years later almost exactly, it is $3.30.

My math shows that as a 83% rise in prices on a nationwide average. In Atlanta the rise is even higher at 95%, and in Chicago has even seen a higher spike than that. It depends on where you live actually.

http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country...$/G


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 9:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yash thinks anyone who criticizes or points out the reality of the utter failure this administration has been, is an "extremist" and it's his duty to troll, muddy the facts, and distort the argument until it turns into a personal slug-fest.

Appreciate the dose of reality Nfarce, but he'll just somehow find a way to criticize your source, you, the numbers, the Earth being round - whatever, he'll find a way to argue beyond all reason and call YOU the crazy one.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention "racist" there RC...don't forget that one.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any references or citations to back that up or are you also just part of the blowback I'm experiencing from yesterday's colonoscopy?

I never voted for Obama kNownFARCE.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yash - anyone who says anything negative about Obama or says anything negative against his policies is labeled a racist by those who support him. That is reality. That is the truth. It's an everyday event in with media pundits and with Democrat politicians. Where I am, the gravity naturally goes down, not up, and the sun rises in the mornings facing east, not west. Not sure where you are, bud.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 9:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never voted for Obama kNownFARCE .


Don't you love the way he's made you a "known farce" already after like 3 posts of you pointing out facts, not even really engaging him directly in a hostile matter. But just making posts that don't agree with him = enemy.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't you love the way he's made you a "known farce" already after like 3 posts of you pointing out facts, not even really engaging him directly in a hostile matter. But just making posts that don't agree with him = enemy.

I did that after his self incriminating bigoted comment, same reason you befriended him.

And since you call everyone an idiot all I can remind you of is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if you're practicing willful blindness or premeditated ignorance. I never voted for Obama and never will. I don't participate in the 2 party dictatorship. So even if what you said was true of them I have no part in it.

Your quarter should arrive soon. Wait for it.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 10:15:55 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody said you voted for him. Who cares? Doesn't change the fact that you viciously attack anyone who points out anything negative about his presidency. Or even outright facts (like this discussion).

And if you don't participate in our political system, why don't you just shut the fuck up when those of us who DO express concern about how our country is being ran? If stupid assholes like you would get off your apathetic trip and get involved, maybe you would actually GET the government you bitch about not having. Food for thought.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody said you voted for him.

He implied it, or doesn't your reading comprehension absorbed such info?

quote:
Doesn't change the fact that you viciously attack anyone who points out anything negative about his presidency.

I have referred to Bambam as Bush 3 here and elsewhere, what more is there to say? I have yet to say anything positive about the guy. You seem to think that when in reality it's your own fault you routinely build your logic on a foundation of Swiss cheese. I just enjoy aiming for the holes, there's so many of them.

quote:
And if you don't participate in our political system, why don't you just shut the fuck up

I can't tell if that's your lack of reading comprehension, your narrow mindedness, or both. I said I don't play the fool on the 2 party bandwagon, I never said I didn't participate. If your reading comprehension continues to devolve you could end up work on Faux. Food for thought.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 10:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
No. He didn't. He said Obama supporters pull the race card. In no way, shape, or form did he allude that you voted for him. NOTHING was implied.

Anyway I'm done with your stupid ass for tonight. Give mommy a kiss for me when she tucks you in.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
And he said it while you were replying to me.

Was reading comprehension even offered while you were in school?


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wow that chart got jacked up in the carry-over. Oh well, you can play with the numbers starting here and plug in different cities and year ranges...

http://atlantagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.asp...


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
You can set this chart to a max of 6 years and get an idea of how the stats were manipulated.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so now the "stats" were manipulated, eh Yash? So Gasbuddy.com is lying now? RC was right. You really are a waste of time.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Out in left field with "farce" facts again.

I never addressed the legitimacy of GasBuddy. Check your PayPal account I'm sending you a quarter so you can buy a clue.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 9:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
My gas in January 2009: $1.83 for 87 octane.

My gas in January 2012: $3.42 for 87 octane.

My rise in percentage: 85%.

Deal with it.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:56:05 PM , Rating: 3
My gas prices July 2007 - $4.12 for 87 octane.

My gas prices January 2012 - $3.70 for 87 octane.

Price drop 10%.

Just as valid as your stats.

Deal with it. Did the quarter arrive?


RE: Hydrogen??
By Nfarce on 1/24/2012 10:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
What city? Post it so I can look it up. You have to be the only city I know of that has seen gas go DOWN. Did you food prices and energy prices go down unlike everyone else in the nation too?

Anywaay, you claimed the 85% rise in gas under Obama was a lie (the average of course), I proved you wrong.

And you don't need me to tell you what you can do with that quarter...


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Set your chart to the national average 6 years then just look at the peak and the last entry.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 10:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Bush didn't leave office in 2007 last time I checked.

Obama ran his campaign on, among other failed promises, lowering the price of gas. I can't imagine how the price of gas is going to get lower when you block drilling, block pipeline projects, and cause massive debt and inflation. Also hiring an energy secretary who thinks we need European gas prices doesn't help. Oh and that little issue of Obama himself proposing a MASSIVE gas tax increase of $.15 a gallon by 2013. Hello?

You can play around all day with the numbers like the child you are, but you're missing the entire point of the discussion. Why don't you fire up that dictionary site again and look up the word "context".


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't imagine how the price of gas is going to get lower when you block drilling, block pipeline projects

Yeah and no mention of BP and their oil spill.

Corporate ass kiss like Obama much?


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't deal with your context (propaganda) which is why I pushed for a total average over the entire time in office. Anybody can pick out 2 dates and make their target look bad.

So why haven't you looked at the whole package? What are you afraid of? You started it when you said average, remember? Or was that a Faux claim?

PS I never considered you the enemy, rather you are simply someone who gave up the addiction to street available pharmaceuticals for the addiction of standing in a group so you can shout loser and pretend to have some viability. Overall pretty sad.


RE: Hydrogen??
By chiechien on 1/26/2012 6:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't logged in here in years, but this prompted me to. Do you know why gas was $1.80/gal when Obama took office? The entire economy had collapsed six months earlier. Manufacturing and thus legitimate demand for oil, and oil speculation all collapsed at the same time. Recession = lower gas prices.

That extreme drop was an *over* correction, though, and prices rebounded to an extent pretty quickly. Oil-producing companies/countries also cut their production then, to drive the prices back up to where they could make the most profit. The economy has also continued to slowly improve since then, bringing demand, and thus prices, back up.

If you'll think back, you might remember that gas was hanging out in the $3-$4 range before the economy collapsed.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 7:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
News from June 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/08/news/economy/gas_p...

Unless people think that was made up.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 7:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/20...

Another real life number, 5/13/2008. Add 85% to that and ask yourself is that what you're paying today?


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 8:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently Yash doesn't understand what the word "average" means.

But hey since my first source wasn't good enough, I suppose the Wall Street Journal would be acceptable? You know how FAR right they are...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487033...

Yash you don't seem to realize that the price of oil is tied to the value of the dollar. As Obama drives the worth of the dollar lower and lower through quantitative easing and massive debt, the price of oil (and most all other goods) goes up.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
But as your stats imply gas would have to be $2/gallon to go up 85% and now cost $3.70/gallon. When was the last time you paid $2/gallon for gas?

Your 2nd citation is owned by Rupert Murdoch who expects payment to read the entire article, and provides no numbers one way or the other.

In a more open form of propaganda we see this:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-price-...

quote:
When Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the city average price for one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.79, according to the BLS. (The figures are in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation.) Five months later in June, unleaded gasoline was $2.26 per gallon, an increase of 26 percent. By December 2011, the price of regular unleaded gas per gallon was $3.28, an 83 percent increase from January 2009


Interesting how it says the first number $1.79 is an average while not making the same claim on the latter number of 2.26, only saying 5 months later. Are they both averages or is one an average and the other is a faux average? By $3.28 the "average" business is all but history. Guess it wasn't convenient anymore?

But then look at the graph on
http://capitolcommentary.com/2010/04/10/gas-prices...
Which shows a 72 month average retail price chart showing as a much broader sense of what's going on.

But overall I'm still waiting for any source to back your claim, that the average under Bush Was $2/gallon, which with an 85% increase adds up to $3.70/gallon.

Could it be this?
http://www.davemanuel.com/charts2/gas_prices_1949-...

from

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/12/30/historical-ga...

With his annual printed figures Bush's average is $2.36/gallon. Are now paying $4.37/gallon? A simply yes or no.

According to this chart
http://capitolcommentary.com/2010/04/10/gas-prices...

Gas under Obama stayed below $3/gallon up until February 2010. You figure out what Obama's overage average is, then report back.

Really, Moonies can't even get married without permission, you expect them to do math on without permission as well?

You now if I did math like your sources I could factually state gas is down 25 cents from it's $4.12 high during the Bush administration. But I have no use for faux news.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 9:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
So we're going to play the game of arguing over "how much" it's gone up under Obama instead of talking about why it HAS in regards to his so called "energy policy"? Umm no, sorry, not playing that game with you.

You even called it a "deflection" when I quoted the expressed mission statement of Obama's energy secretary to give us Euro gas rates? Come on man! You'll stop at nothing to fight the truth, get a new hobby.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 9:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
I stated with 100% completeness what gas cost under Bush, you didn't even come close. I'm asking you to do the same for Bambam and let us know what his average is.

Are you going to go with the complete picture of your claim or are you going to continue to play dumb? It's up to you.

The quote was non-sequitir, still is. If I looked up Ken Lay quotes I'd bury that in material.


RE: Hydrogen??
By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2012 10:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I stated with 100% completeness what gas cost under Bush,


LOL!!!! I'm dying over here. You cherry picked the two months where gas was highest and approximate that to being what "gas cost" under Bush's 8 years. And that's being open and honest?

When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national average gas price was $1.06 per gallon. six and a half years later, the national average gas price had jumped to $1.22, roughly 15% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 2% jump each year.

George W Bush took office in 2001 where the price of gas was $1.52 a gallon. When he left in 2009 it was $1.84. Over Bush's entire term of office, gas increased at a compounded annual rate of approximately 2.85% per year.

Now why don't you plug in Obama's numbers and see where that takes you. Talk about someone who's playing dumb.


RE: Hydrogen??
By YashBudini on 1/24/2012 10:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
No, not there, but in here
1/24/2012 9:25:51 PM
Try following the thread, yeah that's a tough one.


RE: Hydrogen??
By FastEddieLB on 1/24/2012 3:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
We would have Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars today if Obama hadn't killed it within his first 6 months in office.


RE: Hydrogen??
By gladiatorua on 1/25/2012 6:58:37 AM , Rating: 1
Hydrogen?!
Do you understand how volatile hydrogen is? Do you understand what happens when it burns?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM7LgHgyN90


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














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