Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[mhaze]

Prima sapientiae clavis definitur, assidua scilicet seu frequens interrogatio

"Constant and frequent questioning is the first key to wisdom." That's the qote from Abelard. So, in your paraphrase you are saying constant and frequent Googling is the first key to wisdom.

As usual, this is the dodge you use when others ask you what your evidence i is for your assertions. Here's the story: We want to know specifically what sources you are using. I'm sure if I google the subject on which you speak, I can find varying views, many of which will contradict yours.

Again: You've made assertions. It's not up to the rest of us to ferret out your sources. It's up to you to back up what you assert. So far, requesting that from you only elicits sneering.

Regarding WHAT? The fact that I said I wasn't concerned about UN actions, chicanery, etc? That makes no sense, it's as if you are directly asking someone to discuss something they already told you they were not interested in.

And FYI it's not your knowing my sources which is the key to wisdom, it is your knowing the diversity of opinion and sources, the general as well as the eccentric opinions, as is found through Google, that my little latin quip illustrates. Prima sapientiae clavis definitur, assidua scilicet seu frequens interrogatio

 

[mhaze]

According to this site, Toyota and Honda make a profit of $3,100.00 on each hybrid they sell. This site says the same thing, as does this one.

I do not disagree, let me clarify my statement - I meant they can not show a profit to the purchaser, on his higher initial investment even with lower gas costs.

 

[TimCallahan]

I do not disagree, let me clarify my statement - I meant they can not show a profit to the purchaser, on his higher initial investment even with lower gas costs.

Okay, here's what you actually wrote:

I'm glad that you've answered questions for me from Private-Dectective-Marlow-AKA-Tim_Callahan. Solar increases net electric costs, hybrid cars never show a net profit after investment cost is considered, and HSR...oh, we're talking about that one.

So, apart from the sneering, you said that hybrid cars don't show a profit. Of course they don't show a profit to the purchaser. The idea is meaningless. Tell me, do gas guzzling SUVs show a profit to the purchaser? BTW, I'm asking your opinion of this; so don't tell me to google it.

 

[Neally]

So, apart from the sneering, you said that hybrid cars don't show a profit. Of course they don't show a profit to the purchaser. The idea is meaningless. Tell me, do gas guzzling SUVs show a profit to the purchaser? BTW, I'm asking your opinion of this; so don't tell me to google it.

I suspect that the point was that the difference in price for a hybrid vs comparable standard is never recouped in the cost of gas savings. That being said, many people buy them just to feel good about helping the environment, or something.

 

[mhaze]

I suspect that the point was that the difference in price for a hybrid vs comparable standard is never recouped in the cost of gas savings. That being said, many people buy them just to feel good about helping the environment, or something.

Right, that's what I meant. And I think in some circles the hybrid may have become something of status symbol.

Certainly I see a lot of them on routine long 20-30 mile transits, which is their weak, not their strong, point. The advantage is start and stop traffic with duty cycle matched to battery capacity, where I use the phrase duty cycle to relate to ratio of drive vs start/stop.

 

[mhaze]

I suspect that the point was that the difference in price for a hybrid vs comparable standard is never recouped in the cost of gas savings. That being said, many people buy them just to feel good about helping the environment, or something.

Right, that's what I meant. And I think in some circles the hybrid may have become something of status symbol. In turn that means the hybrid price can be jacked up. In addition, the price can be jacked up due to government credits for purchasing such a vehicle.

Certainly I see a lot of them on routine long 20-30 mile transits, which is their weak, not their strong, point. The advantage is start and stop traffic with duty cycle matched to battery capacity, where I use the phrase duty cycle to relate to ratio of drive vs start/stop.

Oh, and some of us certainly do think of our cars and trucks as showing a profit (or not)...Guess that's more people using them for business, maybe.

 

[Trakar]

Got support?
At least a logical, reasoned argument if not supporting evidences.

Hey, no problem!

Prima sapientiae clavis definitur, assidua scilicet seu frequens googleio

A simple "no" would have been sufficient.

 

[dc1971]

No history does not tell us that. History tells us that most large scale projects were designed and analysed up front for positive effects and/or profitability, and then reasonably so, built.

There is another history, of projects where this was not the case, which were never built, half built, or built, and which remain total boondoggles.

...and those are...?

 

[dc1971]

China is even now facing a crisis with their own high-speed rail project, for example. It's turning into a fiscal disaster.

So that means the United States should have nothing to do with high speed rail, eh?

 

[WildCat]

So that means the United States should have nothing to do with high speed rail, eh?

Let me know when someone makes an actual case for HSR in the US. It's a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Trakar]

Let me know when someone makes an actual case for HSR in the US. It's a solution in search of a problem.

I thought the thread was about general infrastructure projects.

 

[Ziggurat]

So that means the United States should have nothing to do with high speed rail, eh?

No, it means that the claim that large infrastructure investments are always beneficial is wrong.

As for HSR in the US, we should build it when and where it will provide sufficient benefit to justify the cost. The current California plan definitely does not.

 

[dc1971]

Let me know when someone makes an actual case for HSR in the US. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Ummmm, being able to get from point A to point B in a hell of a lot less time than what it takes now for one!

Environmentally friendly - lighter materials used to produce high speed rail. And if more HSR systems are built, this means fewer cars on the highways which equals less pollutants.

Cost effective - might have to fork over a lot of dough in the beginning to build the system, but will pay off on down the road.

We would finally have what other countries such as Japan and China, as well as European countries have had for years!

And of course, any advance in transportation technology is going to have it's problems - what's your point?

 

[dc1971]

No, it means that the claim that large infrastructure investments are always beneficial is wrong.

As for HSR in the US, we should build it when and where it will provide sufficient benefit to justify the cost. The current California plan definitely does not.

How do you know? It's not even operating!

 

[mhaze]

...and those are...?

The Big Dig, and the Shoreham nuclear reactor are examples. Of course the New Orleans levees with their substandard materials used qualify.

Hmm....all those were in Leftist territory...

 

[Neally]

How do you know? It's not even operating!

Sounds like Pelosi on Obamacare:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

I guess we just have to fund and build every HSR and any other infrastructure project to find out if they are worthwhile!

 

[WildCat]

I thought the thread was about general infrastructure projects.

So you were in favor of the Alaska "bridge to nowhere"?

Hey, it's infrastructure! Surely it would have been a wise thing to build?

How about a bridge across Lake Michigan, from Michigan to Wisconsin? Wouldn't that be a great idea? It can't go wrong, because it's infrastructure! Or maybe a tunnel, that would be great too, yes?

 

[WildCat]

Ummmm, being able to get from point A to point B in a hell of a lot less time than what it takes now for one!

Nope, you can fly it in 2.5 hours less than the train would take.

Environmentally friendly - lighter materials used to produce high speed rail. And if more HSR systems are built, this means fewer cars on the highways which equals less pollutants.

It's even more environmentally friendly not to build it at all. And much, much cheaper.

Cost effective - might have to fork over a lot of dough in the beginning to build the system, but will pay off on down the road.

Evidence? Looks like a long-term money loser to me.

We would finally have what other countries such as Japan and China, as well as European countries have had for years!

Oooooh, let's build a 5,500 mile wall across the USA! China has one, we should have one too! And castles, we just don't have them here and Europe is full of them. This is a compelling argument you have here!

And of course, any advance in transportation technology is going to have it's problems - what's your point?

It was advanced technology... in 1950.

The future is electric cars, not HSR.

 

[dc1971]

Nope, you can fly it in 2.5 hours less than the train would take.

But not that a high speed train would take.

It's even more environmentally friendly not to build it at all. And much, much cheaper.

But just because YOU say so doesn't necessarily mean that HSR is something that is still going to be considered for the future of this country.

Evidence? Looks like a long-term money loser to me.

Of course. Anything having to do with progress in this country looks like a loser to you, WildCat, we all know that by now!

Oooooh, let's build a 5,500 mile wall across the USA! China has one, we should have one too! And castles, we just don't have them here and Europe is full of them. This is a compelling argument you have here!

I didn't say anything about building walls or castles. I'm talking about building high speed rail systems. I thought you were too??!!

It was advanced technology... in 1950.

Ahh okay, so in other words we should all just live like we did in the 1950's and forget about any further advances in technology. Good solution! Yes, times were better then weren't they??

The future is electric cars, not HSR.

Okay then. when everyone on the planet owns an electric car and YOU are stuck in a traffic jam that causes you to be 5 hours late to work, you'll probably say to yourself - "Damn, there's got to be a better way!"

 

[dc1971]

Hmm....all those were in Leftist territory...

Leftist territory? Pray tell? Is this another Glenn-Beck-ism of yours Mr. Haze?