domino

From : gosi

Q: on 13 nov 1341 ilbeba...@gmail.com ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote on nov 12 800=a0am hls nos...@nospam.nix wrote - basically it appears to be bailout or bankruptcy reid wrote in his note. the exact outcome is near impossible to predict with any certainty as its now highly political. democrats seem to be leaning toward a bailout. =a0no matter what happen= s it is a very serious situation. how many more huge financial hardships can our government take before a domino effect the domino is already falling .

Replies:

From : leftie

peterd wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 115930 -0500 tim jmeth111@yahoo.ca wrote nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. except for the defacto tax on low sulphur fuel which doesnt get to the government the tax on diesel is roughly the same as on gasoline. the problem is that the epa mandated ultra low sulphur fuel and we are paying an extra dollar per gallon for that. no the problem is that it doesnt cost them anywhere near a dollar to remove the sulfur. .

From : 631grant

uh do you know what a breeder reactor is the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. we dont have an unlimited supply of uranium -- its just oil of a different color. if we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our energy i dont think the supply of uranium would last 50 years though its been a long time since ive looked at those numbers... .

From : peterd

on sun 30 nov 2008 115930 -0500 tim jmeth111@yahoo.ca wrote nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. except for the defacto tax on low sulphur fuel which doesnt get to the government the tax on diesel is roughly the same as on gasoline. the problem is that the epa mandated ultra low sulphur fuel and we are paying an extra dollar per gallon for that. .

From : jim beam

on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. not true. gasoline grades are now produced by catalysis not just distillation so the heavy grades are there to begin with. and you can go the other direction too - the g.t.l. gas to liquid processes used for production of heavy grade base oils in synthetic lubricants are produced in such quantities and so cheaply those grades are sold as diesel in some markets. bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. .

From : nothermark

on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. snipped .

From : nothermark

on tue 09 dec 2008 055306 -0800 jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote matthew fedder wrote on dec 8 816pm jim beam spamvor...@bad.example.net wrote on sun 07 dec 2008 120354 -0800 matthew fedder wrote bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. we should use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. how does that work thermodynamic efficiency is t1 - t2 / t1. if it were so easy why isnt anyone be doing it already you make it sound like an awful great boon for the auto industry and i have to imagine whoever came out with it first would have quite a competitive advantage in the market. it was the subject of a great deal of aerospace and automotive research until emissions came along. first there was emissions without catalysis so mixtures had to be stoichiometric not lean. then there was problematic slow and not terribly efficient catalysts facing tougher and tougher legislation. i say 1. run lean hot and thermodynamically efficient. 2. do more catalyst research. 3. be more lenient on emissions if #1 serves to give lower overall emissions though lower consumption. thats all well and good but my question how does that work was intended more to prod you to list what existing reasonably economic solutions there are to deal with the nox issue under the ideal conditions you posit. do more catalyst research is not a fulfilling answer to me. er pretty much by definition if im proposing a policy *change* its not being done already. most changes are done because somebody found a better way. the tech side of thermodynamic efficiency is proven - there was a ton of research on implementation in the 70s along with a lot of materials research to cope with the operating conditions. and nobody found an answer. get the research done then ask for change. .

From : jim beam

matthew fedder wrote on dec 8 816pm jim beam spamvor...@bad.example.net wrote on sun 07 dec 2008 120354 -0800 matthew fedder wrote bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. we should use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. how does that work thermodynamic efficiency is t1 - t2 / t1. if it were so easy why isnt anyone be doing it already you make it sound like an awful great boon for the auto industry and i have to imagine whoever came out with it first would have quite a competitive advantage in the market. it was the subject of a great deal of aerospace and automotive research until emissions came along. first there was emissions without catalysis so mixtures had to be stoichiometric not lean. then there was problematic slow and not terribly efficient catalysts facing tougher and tougher legislation. i say 1. run lean hot and thermodynamically efficient. 2. do more catalyst research. 3. be more lenient on emissions if #1 serves to give lower overall emissions though lower consumption. thats all well and good but my question how does that work was intended more to prod you to list what existing reasonably economic solutions there are to deal with the nox issue under the ideal conditions you posit. do more catalyst research is not a fulfilling answer to me. er pretty much by definition if im proposing a policy *change* its not being done already. the tech side of thermodynamic efficiency is proven - there was a ton of research on implementation in the 70s along with a lot of materials research to cope with the operating conditions. .

From : matthew fedder

on dec 8 816=a0pm jim beam spamvor...@bad.example.net wrote on sun 07 dec 2008 120354 -0800 matthew fedder wrote bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. =a0we shoul= d use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. =a0hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. how does that work thermodynamic efficiency is t1 - t2 / t1. if it were so easy why isnt anyone be doing it already you make it sound like an awful great boon for the auto industry and i have to imagine whoever came out with it first would have quite a competitive advantage in the market. it was the subject of a great deal of aerospace and automotive research until emissions came along. =a0first there was emissions without catalysi= s so mixtures had to be stoichiometric not lean. =a0then there was problematic slow and not terribly efficient catalysts facing tougher and tougher legislation. =a0i say 1. run lean hot and thermodynamically efficient. 2. do more catalyst research. 3. be more lenient on emissions if #1 serves to give lower overall emissions though lower consumption. thats all well and good but my question how does that work was intended more to prod you to list what existing reasonably economic solutions there are to deal with the nox issue under the ideal conditions you posit. do more catalyst research is not a fulfilling answer to me. .

From : jim beam

on sun 07 dec 2008 120354 -0800 matthew fedder wrote bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. we should use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. how does that work thermodynamic efficiency is t1 - t2 / t1. if it were so easy why isnt anyone be doing it already you make it sound like an awful great boon for the auto industry and i have to imagine whoever came out with it first would have quite a competitive advantage in the market. it was the subject of a great deal of aerospace and automotive research until emissions came along. first there was emissions without catalysis so mixtures had to be stoichiometric not lean. then there was problematic slow and not terribly efficient catalysts facing tougher and tougher legislation. i say 1. run lean hot and thermodynamically efficient. 2. do more catalyst research. 3. be more lenient on emissions if #1 serves to give lower overall emissions though lower consumption. .

From : jim beam

on sun 07 dec 2008 204601 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 07 dec 2008 155059 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on sun 07 dec 2008 083902 -0600 nothermark wrote actually they are all using the same technology. india is on par with europe for the cutting edge technology. they are also a poor country so they have a lot of older equipment still running but that is a different issue. you are ignoring the different standards for diesel and gasoline engines. yes low sulphur fuel electronic injection and particulate filters can drop the particulate emission to a low level that combined with the better fuel economy drops some of the emississions to meet the same specifications as gasoline. nox is still a problem. the only treatment i see for nox is urea injection no dude. heres the elephant in the room combustion conditions that produce nox are excellent in almost all other respects - most importantly higher combustion temperatures give better thermodynamic efficiency and thus lower fuel consumption. i really do not think you will ever get the clean air folks to ignore nox. if you could it would help both gasoline and diesel engines. im absolutely /not/ saying ignore nox im saying deal with it through catalysis. bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. we should use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. if somebody can come up with a cost effective way to do it. assuming they can i wonder why they have not done it. they have. its highly efficient. but higher operating temps require higher temp materials that means a little more cost and besides our emissions legislators spend all their time pandering to the oilcos not the consumer. legislation and cost increases - keeps the car companies in line. if legislation was focused on economy not emissions youd watch this balance shift real fast. with your subtle anti-diesel fud you wouldnt happen to work for an oil company would you i wish i did i would make more money. ;- i am just the kind of person who looks a gift horse in the mouth. i owned one of the early diesel rabbits and made the car payments with the fuel cost savings. i may be in the market for a heavy duty diesel in the next few years so i am interested enough to bother researching what you are saying. i wouldnt buy a domestic heavy duty diesel id buy german. and by that id include domestic brands that are now german owned like freightliner. seriously those guys have got this stuff /way/ out there technologically - absolutely phenomenal advances in the last 10 years. so that they start pumping ammonia out of theexhaust pipe. that has a whole new set of issues as we contaminate the ground water with ammonia. that is assuming folks keep dumping bottles of mix into the injection tank every time they fill up the fuel tank. the other option is food based diesel that looked good until they were hit with the high cost of food as material was diverted from the food stream to the fuel stream of the economy. if you were paying attention that was last summer. dont get me wrong i like diesel. i just recognize that there are better alternatives for car sized vehicles. european diesel is largely driven by tax policy not practicality. the only diesel that would make sense to me is a diesel hybrid. using a constant speed diesel engine optimized for pollution to power an alternator to supply power to the battery bank of an electric powered vehicle has possibilities. other than that i do not see an advantage to diesel on a level playing field. this pretty well sums up what i think about small diesels. i think we are going to see a shift to electric drive trains with various power options assuming somebody can lick the battery problem. fuel cells are more efficient than any combustion engine so i expect small combustion engines to go away over the next 10 to 20 years. if clean diesel is really developed i expect it will be on large vehicles or as power to the float charger. snip .

From : nothermark

on sun 07 dec 2008 155059 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on sun 07 dec 2008 083902 -0600 nothermark wrote actually they are all using the same technology. india is on par with europe for the cutting edge technology. they are also a poor country so they have a lot of older equipment still running but that is a different issue. you are ignoring the different standards for diesel and gasoline engines. yes low sulphur fuel electronic injection and particulate filters can drop the particulate emission to a low level that combined with the better fuel economy drops some of the emississions to meet the same specifications as gasoline. nox is still a problem. the only treatment i see for nox is urea injection no dude. heres the elephant in the room combustion conditions that produce nox are excellent in almost all other respects - most importantly higher combustion temperatures give better thermodynamic efficiency and thus lower fuel consumption. i really do not think you will ever get the clean air folks to ignore nox. if you could it would help both gasoline and diesel engines. bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. we should use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. if somebody can come up with a cost effective way to do it. assuming they can i wonder why they have not done it. with your subtle anti-diesel fud you wouldnt happen to work for an oil company would you i wish i did i would make more money. ;- i am just the kind of person who looks a gift horse in the mouth. i owned one of the early diesel rabbits and made the car payments with the fuel cost savings. i may be in the market for a heavy duty diesel in the next few years so i am interested enough to bother researching what you are saying. so that they start pumping ammonia out of theexhaust pipe. that has a whole new set of issues as we contaminate the ground water with ammonia. that is assuming folks keep dumping bottles of mix into the injection tank every time they fill up the fuel tank. the other option is food based diesel that looked good until they were hit with the high cost of food as material was diverted from the food stream to the fuel stream of the economy. if you were paying attention that was last summer. dont get me wrong i like diesel. i just recognize that there are better alternatives for car sized vehicles. european diesel is largely driven by tax policy not practicality. the only diesel that would make sense to me is a diesel hybrid. using a constant speed diesel engine optimized for pollution to power an alternator to supply power to the battery bank of an electric powered vehicle has possibilities. other than that i do not see an advantage to diesel on a level playing field. this pretty well sums up what i think about small diesels. i think we are going to see a shift to electric drive trains with various power options assuming somebody can lick the battery problem. fuel cells are more efficient than any combustion engine so i expect small combustion engines to go away over the next 10 to 20 years. if clean diesel is really developed i expect it will be on large vehicles or as power to the float charger. snip .

From : matthew fedder

bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. =a0we should u= se engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. =a0hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. how does that work if it were so easy why isnt anyone be doing it already you make it sound like an awful great boon for the auto industry and i have to imagine whoever came out with it first would have quite a competitive advantage in the market. .

From : mac davis

on sun 23 nov 2008 110349 -0500 larry in az usenet2@delete.thisljvideo.com wrote waiving the right to remain silent jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net said i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. bmw et-al dont have the legacy union retirement and health benefits to pay which cost those who do something like $2500 per vehicle built. they also have newer more efficient plants.. as stated they also dont have the baggage of the past... mac please remove splinters before emailing .

From : jim beam

on sun 07 dec 2008 083902 -0600 nothermark wrote actually they are all using the same technology. india is on par with europe for the cutting edge technology. they are also a poor country so they have a lot of older equipment still running but that is a different issue. you are ignoring the different standards for diesel and gasoline engines. yes low sulphur fuel electronic injection and particulate filters can drop the particulate emission to a low level that combined with the better fuel economy drops some of the emississions to meet the same specifications as gasoline. nox is still a problem. the only treatment i see for nox is urea injection no dude. heres the elephant in the room combustion conditions that produce nox are excellent in almost all other respects - most importantly higher combustion temperatures give better thermodynamic efficiency and thus lower fuel consumption. bottom line we should drop this bullshit red herring about not / producing/ nox - the only beneficiary is the oil industry. we should use engines of high thermodynamic efficiency and deal with resultant higher nox production through catalysis. hc and c emissions for higher combustion temps are practically zero. with your subtle anti-diesel fud you wouldnt happen to work for an oil company would you so that they start pumping ammonia out of theexhaust pipe. that has a whole new set of issues as we contaminate the ground water with ammonia. that is assuming folks keep dumping bottles of mix into the injection tank every time they fill up the fuel tank. the other option is food based diesel that looked good until they were hit with the high cost of food as material was diverted from the food stream to the fuel stream of the economy. if you were paying attention that was last summer. dont get me wrong i like diesel. i just recognize that there are better alternatives for car sized vehicles. european diesel is largely driven by tax policy not practicality. the only diesel that would make sense to me is a diesel hybrid. using a constant speed diesel engine optimized for pollution to power an alternator to supply power to the battery bank of an electric powered vehicle has possibilities. other than that i do not see an advantage to diesel on a level playing field. on thu 4 dec 2008 152338 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote biased against india thats not the point at all. you used the paper as proof that diesel emissions are much higher than gasoline. while admittedly india has some very talented people they are not even close to being in the same league as western europe as far as emission controls go. go away!!!!! you are totally out of touch mr. patel. our jobs are being moved there solely because they are cheap. it has nothing to do with talent since we have just as talented people here who would love to have the jobs! heck if youve spent any time on a customer service call to india you would welcome the return of the jobs to the us. you are too busy being biased to look at what is going on. india is one of the reasons diesel fuel is in short supply. a significant number of their vehicles are diesel and they are trying to do something about the pollution. the article was about what they are doing. it is more current than your article talking about the problems with new diesel technology. i am no fan of india but i do recognize that they have one of the best engineering universities in the world. it is one of the places your job is moving to because they have a lot of highly talented folks who work cheap. they also expect to have more cars than the us in a few years as does china. on wed 3 dec 2008 190629 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote what in the hell are you talking about. its an indian paper. the last time i checked india was not part of europe........................ omg!!!!!!! on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. snip you might also find his interesting it looks like the eu is going to gasoline http//www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/04/high-diesel-prices-and- pollution-concerns-put-off-potential-buye/ better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. right. see http//auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works2.htm excerpt more new products are on the horizon. honda ha

From : nothermark

actually they are all using the same technology. india is on par with europe for the cutting edge technology. they are also a poor country so they have a lot of older equipment still running but that is a different issue. you are ignoring the different standards for diesel and gasoline engines. yes low sulphur fuel electronic injection and particulate filters can drop the particulate emission to a low level that combined with the better fuel economy drops some of the emississions to meet the same specifications as gasoline. nox is still a problem. the only treatment i see for nox is urea injection so that they start pumping ammonia out of theexhaust pipe. that has a whole new set of issues as we contaminate the ground water with ammonia. that is assuming folks keep dumping bottles of mix into the injection tank every time they fill up the fuel tank. the other option is food based diesel that looked good until they were hit with the high cost of food as material was diverted from the food stream to the fuel stream of the economy. if you were paying attention that was last summer. dont get me wrong i like diesel. i just recognize that there are better alternatives for car sized vehicles. european diesel is largely driven by tax policy not practicality. the only diesel that would make sense to me is a diesel hybrid. using a constant speed diesel engine optimized for pollution to power an alternator to supply power to the battery bank of an electric powered vehicle has possibilities. other than that i do not see an advantage to diesel on a level playing field. on thu 4 dec 2008 152338 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote biased against india thats not the point at all. you used the paper as proof that diesel emissions are much higher than gasoline. while admittedly india has some very talented people they are not even close to being in the same league as western europe as far as emission controls go. go away!!!!! you are totally out of touch mr. patel. our jobs are being moved there solely because they are cheap. it has nothing to do with talent since we have just as talented people here who would love to have the jobs! heck if youve spent any time on a customer service call to india you would welcome the return of the jobs to the us. you are too busy being biased to look at what is going on. india is one of the reasons diesel fuel is in short supply. a significant number of their vehicles are diesel and they are trying to do something about the pollution. the article was about what they are doing. it is more current than your article talking about the problems with new diesel technology. i am no fan of india but i do recognize that they have one of the best engineering universities in the world. it is one of the places your job is moving to because they have a lot of highly talented folks who work cheap. they also expect to have more cars than the us in a few years as does china. on wed 3 dec 2008 190629 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote what in the hell are you talking about. its an indian paper. the last time i checked india was not part of europe........................ omg!!!!!!! on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. snip you might also find his interesting it looks like the eu is going to gasoline http//www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/04/high-diesel-prices-and-pollution-concerns-put-off-potential-buye/ better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. right. see http//auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works2.htm excerpt more new products are on the horizon. honda has announced a next-generation diesel engine that it plans to release in the u.s. by 2009. the honda engine will utilize a dual-stage catalytic converter that converts nitrogen oxide exhaust emissions into ammonia and then into harmless nitrogen gas. honda claims the new engine will meet bin 5 requirements and achieve emissions as clean as a gasoline engines. the whole thing is worth reading to see what is required to make that happen. read this one if you dont like the indian source. is anybody ahead of honda in small engines like we are talking about they swap technology with bmw if you did not know that. so does hyundai. .

From : larry in az

waiving the right to remain silent jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net said i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. bmw et-al dont have the legacy union retirement and health benefits to pay which cost those who do something like $2500 per vehicle built. -- larry j. - remove spamtrap in allcaps to e-mail a lack of common sense is now considered a disability with all the privileges that this entails. ** posted from http//www.tera.com ** .

From : peterd

on tue 2 dec 2008 151743 -0500 mike hunter mikehunt2@lycos/com wrote goofy is a disney dog as well but for some reason only one of them can talk the other only barks! lol well thats pretty goofy if you ask me. anyway the half-life of gooftonium is about 75 years iirc. 631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium i know i know. pick me ! ! ! the first one is a planet the second one is a disney character a dog. .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

goofy is a disney dog as well but for some reason only one of them can talk the other only barks! lol 631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium i know i know. pick me ! ! ! the first one is a planet the second one is a disney character a dog. .

From : 631grant631grant

biased against india thats not the point at all. you used the paper as proof that diesel emissions are much higher than gasoline. while admittedly india has some very talented people they are not even close to being in the same league as western europe as far as emission controls go. go away!!!!! you are totally out of touch mr. patel. our jobs are being moved there solely because they are cheap. it has nothing to do with talent since we have just as talented people here who would love to have the jobs! heck if youve spent any time on a customer service call to india you would welcome the return of the jobs to the us. you are too busy being biased to look at what is going on. india is one of the reasons diesel fuel is in short supply. a significant number of their vehicles are diesel and they are trying to do something about the pollution. the article was about what they are doing. it is more current than your article talking about the problems with new diesel technology. i am no fan of india but i do recognize that they have one of the best engineering universities in the world. it is one of the places your job is moving to because they have a lot of highly talented folks who work cheap. they also expect to have more cars than the us in a few years as does china. on wed 3 dec 2008 190629 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote what in the hell are you talking about. its an indian paper. the last time i checked india was not part of europe........................ omg!!!!!!! on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. snip you might also find his interesting it looks like the eu is going to gasoline http//www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/04/high-diesel-prices-and-pollution-concerns-put-off-potential-buye/ better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. right. see http//auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works2.htm excerpt more new products are on the horizon. honda has announced a next-generation diesel engine that it plans to release in the u.s. by 2009. the honda engine will utilize a dual-stage catalytic converter that converts nitrogen oxide exhaust emissions into ammonia and then into harmless nitrogen gas. honda claims the new engine will meet bin 5 requirements and achieve emissions as clean as a gasoline engines. the whole thing is worth reading to see what is required to make that happen. read this one if you dont like the indian source. is anybody ahead of honda in small engines like we are talking about they swap technology with bmw if you did not know that. so does hyundai. .

From : nothermark

you are too busy being biased to look at what is going on. india is one of the reasons diesel fuel is in short supply. a significant number of their vehicles are diesel and they are trying to do something about the pollution. the article was about what they are doing. it is more current than your article talking about the problems with new diesel technology. i am no fan of india but i do recognize that they have one of the best engineering universities in the world. it is one of the places your job is moving to because they have a lot of highly talented folks who work cheap. they also expect to have more cars than the us in a few years as does china. on wed 3 dec 2008 190629 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote what in the hell are you talking about. its an indian paper. the last time i checked india was not part of europe........................ omg!!!!!!! on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. snip you might also find his interesting it looks like the eu is going to gasoline http//www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/04/high-diesel-prices-and-pollution-concerns-put-off-potential-buye/ better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. right. see http//auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works2.htm excerpt more new products are on the horizon. honda has announced a next-generation diesel engine that it plans to release in the u.s. by 2009. the honda engine will utilize a dual-stage catalytic converter that converts nitrogen oxide exhaust emissions into ammonia and then into harmless nitrogen gas. honda claims the new engine will meet bin 5 requirements and achieve emissions as clean as a gasoline engines. the whole thing is worth reading to see what is required to make that happen. read this one if you dont like the indian source. is anybody ahead of honda in small engines like we are talking about they swap technology with bmw if you did not know that. so does hyundai. .

From : jim beam

on wed 03 dec 2008 174901 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. no theyre not. emissions for modern diesels are lower both out of the tail pipe /and/ per mile. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. no that was a speculative article on a bunch of maybes not a report of facts. on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as

From : 631grant

yes i do and did you know that plutonium can also be used in a pwr power plant in fact near the end of the fuel cycle of present reactors there is plutonium in them that was produced a breeder reactor is the future..... 631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. we dont have an unlimited supply of uranium -- its just oil of a different color. if we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our energy i dont think the supply of uranium would last 50 years though its been a long time since ive looked at those numbers... .

From : dillon pyron

thus spake gosi gosinn@gmail.com on 13 nov 1341 ilbeba...@gmail.com ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote on nov 12 800am hls nos...@nospam.nix wrote basically it appears to be bailout or bankruptcy reid wrote in his note. the exact outcome is near impossible to predict with any certainty as its now highly political. democrats seem to be leaning toward a bailout. no matter what happens it is a very serious situation. how many more huge financial hardships can our government take before a domino effect the domino is already falling no dominos is doing quite well. .

From : gosi

on 14 nov 0314 dillon pyron invaliddmpy...@austin.rr.com wrote thus spake gosi gos...@gmail.com on 13 nov 1341 ilbeba...@gmail.com ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote on nov 12 800=a0am hls nos...@nospam.nix wrote 8c4- basically it appears to be bailout or bankruptcy reid wrote i= n his note. the exact outcome is near impossible to predict with a= ny certainty as its now highly political. democrats seem to be leaning toward a bailout. =a0no matter what hap= pens it is a very serious situation. how many more huge financial hardships can our government take before a domino effect the domino is already falling no dominos is doing quite well. other manufactuters are not very excited that gm is going bankrupt. it is probably best for everyone concerned that the company will decrease slowly rather than all of a sudden. then again it will be a prolonged and painful process. for the us in the long run a quick bankruptcy will be best. .

From : gosi

http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=gmus&sid=ao.4vvigtehg pr wire detroit nov. 14 detroit nov. 14 /prwire/ -- the following is being issued by if congress thinks a bailout of general motors is expensive it should consider the cost of a gm failure. lets be clear. the alternative to government cash for gm is not a dreamy chapter 11 filing a reorganization that puts dealers and the uaw in their place ensuring future success. no even if gm could get debtor-in-possession financing to keep the lights on which it cant chapter 11 means a collapse of sales and a spiral into a chapter 7 liquidation. gms 100000 american jobs will die. health care for a million americans will be lost or at risk. hundreds of gms 1300 suppliers will die. their collapse could take down ford motor co. and chrysler llc perhaps even north american transplants. dealers in every county of america will close. the government will face greater unemployment more americans without health insurance and greater pension liabilities. criticize detroit 3 executives all you want. but the issue today is not whether gm should have closed buick years ago been tougher with the uaw or supported higher fuel economy standards. in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. the $25 billion in loans that congress approved to partially fund improvements in fuel economy irrelevant. dead automakers do not invest in technology. the collapse of the global financial system has crushed the american car market dried up revenues for the detroit 3 and highlighted their weaknesses. each of the detroit 3 is in crisis. but ford which borrowed big two years ago and thus has more cash today may skip a bailout and the strings attached. cerberus which bought chrysler last year doesnt deserve money. government cash might help sell chrysler to a strategic owner. some detroit critics want their pound of flesh throw the bums out and install a government czar. treasury secretary henry paulson wont use any of his $700 billion bank bailout money to help manufacturers. in any case hed need a guarantee that a bailout would make detroit viable. well nobody -- not even aig -- is insuring guarantees for viability. the taxpayer needs protection and an upside. gms top management may need to go. government-as-shareholder deserves a big voice. those details can be worked out. the detroit 3 ceos and uaw president ron gettelfinger had better tell two critical congressional hearings next week what sacrifices they are prepared to make. but the stark fact remains absent a bailout gm dies and with it much of manufacturing in america. congress needs to do the right thing -- now. founded in 1925 automotive is the paper of the automotive industry. the tabloid weekly and its web site auto.com is read by north american car and truck manufacturers their franchised dealers and original-equipment suppliers. it is published by crain communications inc. automotive keith crain -- publisher peter brown -- associate publisher and editorial director .

From : 631grant

oh it is difficult to not say what i want to say................. i chose a year when the price was the same as a benchmark to show how much has been added to the cost in the name of reformulation. move to 2006 http//www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/columns/articleid=108465 or http//www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whydoesdieselfuelcostmorethan.html on tue 2 dec 2008 230956 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote in 2004 the price of diesel never was higher than gasoline as quoted in a report from nebraska. http//www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/125.htm so all of the pricing above the price of gasoline is contributed to the new reformulation process if you believe that then you believe you can trust nancy pelosi!!!!! perhaps gasoline was the low profit item but after glorious congress passed the new requirements on diesel the oil companies used it as an excuse to escalate the price of diesel well beyond what it should be. there is no way in hell you can tell me that it costs them an extra dollar a gallon to render it low sulfur... its total bull. on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. better check your facts. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. snip .

From : 631grant

what in the hell are you talking about. its an indian paper. the last time i checked india was not part of europe........................ omg!!!!!!! on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern d

From : peterd

on mon 01 dec 2008 234831 -0600 leftie no@thanks.net wrote peterd wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 115930 -0500 tim jmeth111@yahoo.ca wrote nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. except for the defacto tax on low sulphur fuel which doesnt get to the government the tax on diesel is roughly the same as on gasoline. the problem is that the epa mandated ultra low sulphur fuel and we are paying an extra dollar per gallon for that. no the problem is that it doesnt cost them anywhere near a dollar to remove the sulfur. that has nothing to do with it... .

From : nothermark

move to 2006 http//www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/columns/articleid=108465 or http//www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whydoesdieselfuelcostmorethan.html on tue 2 dec 2008 230956 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote in 2004 the price of diesel never was higher than gasoline as quoted in a report from nebraska. http//www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/125.htm so all of the pricing above the price of gasoline is contributed to the new reformulation process if you believe that then you believe you can trust nancy pelosi!!!!! perhaps gasoline was the low profit item but after glorious congress passed the new requirements on diesel the oil companies used it as an excuse to escalate the price of diesel well beyond what it should be. there is no way in hell you can tell me that it costs them an extra dollar a gallon to render it low sulfur... its total bull. on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. better check your facts. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. snip .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

if there is a breeder reactor in the us ill bet it is in the south. lol 631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. we dont have an unlimited supply of uranium -- its just oil of a different color. if we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our energy i dont think the supply of uranium would last 50 years though its been a long time since ive looked at those numbers... .

From : nothermark

on tue 2 dec 2008 225748 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao just one of many sources showing that you are wrong about diesel pollution levels. european diesels specs are still dirtier than gasoline. the reason diesel is cheaper there is the skewed tax system. the tax system is currently being looked at with a very probable end result of changing the cost of fuel to favor gasoline because it is cleaner burning. read it an weep. on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. see above unless you mean engines less than 3 years old. or check http//www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspxsection

From : jim beam

on mon 01 dec 2008 111130 -0600 hls wrote absolutely... and the refining issue is the removal of the sulphur which is costing us about a dollar per gallon. consider that just a green tax and you will be dead on... of course that dollar green tax is killing the us economy but the greenies dont care. another poorly thoughtout solution... they remove sulfur in europe as well. jeepers dude dont let the cat out of the bag!!! the cost of sulfur removal has been the excuse the oilcos have been using to bleat for more tax relief and reduced standards lower calorific value. youll ruin their ability to keep bamboozling the proles. .

From : 631grant

see my other post that bears out that the oil companies are charging about $1 a gallon extra for the reformulated diesel because in 2004 the old diesel was the same price as the gasoline and now its a buck more. i hope you can understand........................ how do you know how much it costs to produce the new diesel fuel it has everything to do with the discussion of the escalated price of diesel beyond its natural price point. on mon 01 dec 2008 234831 -0600 leftie no@thanks.net wrote peterd wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 115930 -0500 tim jmeth111@yahoo.ca wrote nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. except for the defacto tax on low sulphur fuel which doesnt get to the government the tax on diesel is roughly the same as on gasoline. the problem is that the epa mandated ultra low sulphur fuel and we are paying an extra dollar per gallon for that. no the problem is that it doesnt cost them anywhere near a dollar to remove the sulfur. that has nothing to do with it... .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

how do you know how much it costs to produce the new diesel fuel it has everything to do with the discussion of the escalated price of diesel beyond its natural price point. on mon 01 dec 2008 234831 -0600 leftie no@thanks.net wrote peterd wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 115930 -0500 tim jmeth111@yahoo.ca wrote nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. except for the defacto tax on low sulphur fuel which doesnt get to the government the tax on diesel is roughly the same as on gasoline. the problem is that the epa mandated ultra low sulphur fuel and we are paying an extra dollar per gallon for that. no the problem is that it doesnt cost them anywhere near a dollar to remove the sulfur. that has nothing to do with it... .

From : peterd

on 2 dec 2008 195302 -0600 nothermark nothermark@not.here wrote what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php damn it must be true we read it on the internet! .

From : tim

nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. .

From : 631grant

having been a trained nuclear engineer in the navy 35 years ago i can only imagine how much better and safer the nuclear plants would be today. in the navy we have never had a nuclear accident in over 40 years of operation of many plants. the best people to build the plants would be the navy keeping the unions out of the equation. i witnessed first hand how the escalated the cost of building the reactors in limerick pa. yes the french would also be a good choice since they actually have more nuclear plants than they can use. they had to shut some down as they became more green and used less energy. finally the mix of gas and diesel from a barrel of oil is interesting; however the percentages could be shifted to more diesel than gas as we switched to diesel cars. the problem is that the oil companies wouldnt make as much money. on mon 1 dec 2008 075551 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel automobiles might help. as i see it there is no real energy plan for this nation just a bunch of unhappy people. if obama could put together an intelligent energy policy maybe he would earn his salary. the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. a real energy plan would be to start building nukes and standardize auto batteries for swap-out at service stations. meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs power companies and service station operators. it would be a real manhattan type project. provide a lot of jobs. we contract french engineers to do the nuke plants. they know what theyre doing. --vic .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

what would we do with the gasoline having been a trained nuclear engineer in the navy 35 years ago i can only imagine how much better and safer the nuclear plants would be today. in the navy we have never had a nuclear accident in over 40 years of operation of many plants. the best people to build the plants would be the navy keeping the unions out of the equation. i witnessed first hand how the escalated the cost of building the reactors in limerick pa. yes the french would also be a good choice since they actually have more nuclear plants than they can use. they had to shut some down as they became more green and used less energy. finally the mix of gas and diesel from a barrel of oil is interesting; however the percentages could be shifted to more diesel than gas as we switched to diesel cars. the problem is that the oil companies wouldnt make as much money. on mon 1 dec 2008 075551 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel automobiles might help. as i see it there is no real energy plan for this nation just a bunch of unhappy people. if obama could put together an intelligent energy policy maybe he would earn his salary. the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. a real energy plan would be to start building nukes and standardize auto batteries for swap-out at service stations. meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs power companies and service station operators. it would be a real manhattan type project. provide a lot of jobs. we contract french engineers to do the nuke plants. they know what theyre doing. --vic .

From : caesar romano

on 1 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark nothermark@not.here wrote re re domino you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. good post. thanks .

From : leftie

631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. we dont have an unlimited supply of uranium -- its just oil of a different color. if we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our energy i dont think the supply of uranium would last 50 years though its been a long time since ive looked at those numbers... .

From : 631grant

in 2004 the price of diesel never was higher than gasoline as quoted in a report from nebraska. http//www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/125.htm so all of the pricing above the price of gasoline is contributed to the new reformulation process if you believe that then you believe you can trust nancy pelosi!!!!! perhaps gasoline was the low profit item but after glorious congress passed the new requirements on diesel the oil companies used it as an excuse to escalate the price of diesel well beyond what it should be. there is no way in hell you can tell me that it costs them an extra dollar a gallon to render it low sulfur... its total bull. on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. better check your facts. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. snip .

From : 631grant

it has everything to do with the discussion of the escalated price of diesel beyond its natural price point. on mon 01 dec 2008 234831 -0600 leftie no@thanks.net wrote peterd wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 115930 -0500 tim jmeth111@yahoo.ca wrote nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. except for the defacto tax on low sulphur fuel which doesnt get to the government the tax on diesel is roughly the same as on gasoline. the problem is that the epa mandated ultra low sulphur fuel and we are paying an extra dollar per gallon for that. no the problem is that it doesnt cost them anywhere near a dollar to remove the sulfur. that has nothing to do with it... .

From : 631grant

no doubt about that one having lived here for far too long. i am tired of hearing banjos and pigs squealing..................... if there is a breeder reactor in the us ill bet it is in the south. lol 631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. we dont have an unlimited supply of uranium -- its just oil of a different color. if we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our energy i dont think the supply of uranium would last 50 years though its been a long time since ive looked at those numbers... .

From : jim beam

on tue 02 dec 2008 195302 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php where does that fantastically well researched and informed article mention that gasoline produces a similar volume of soot particles but of smaller size to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. see above unless you mean engines less than 3 years old. or check http//www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx sectionname=&id=66eeae03-285e-409f-add4-90b1aa3c1528&&headline=sc+seeks +centre%e2%80%99s+reply+on+diesel+pollution+report fabulous - you have to dredge for an article in a country without sulfur control in their fuel and without modern injection in their vehicles. yup that sure is credible!!! you mig

From : 631grant

ooooh now we are believing hindustan times...................... lmao on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. see above unless you mean engines less than 3 years old. or check http//www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspxsectionname=&id=66eeae03-285e-409f-add4-90b1aa3c1528&&headline=sc+seeks+centre%e2%80%99s+reply+on+diesel+pollution+report you might also find his interesting it looks like the eu is going to gasoline http//www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/04/high-diesel-prices-and-pollution-concerns-put-off-potential-buye/ better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. right. see http//auto.ho

From : peterd

on 30 nov 2008 092801 -0600 nothermark nothermark@not.here wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. absolutely... and the refining issue is the removal of the sulphur which is costing us about a dollar per gallon. consider that just a green tax and you will be dead on... of course that dollar green tax is killing the us economy but the greenies dont care. another poorly thoughtout solution... snipped .

From : hls

adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel automobiles might help. as i see it there is no real energy plan for this nation just a bunch of unhappy people. if obama could put together an intelligent energy policy maybe he would earn his salary. .

From : 631grant

perhaps gasoline was the low profit item but after glorious congress passed the new requirements on diesel the oil companies used it as an excuse to escalate the price of diesel well beyond what it should be. there is no way in hell you can tell me that it costs them an extra dollar a gallon to render it low sulfur... its total bull. on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. better check your facts. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. snip .

From : hls

absolutely... and the refining issue is the removal of the sulphur which is costing us about a dollar per gallon. consider that just a green tax and you will be dead on... of course that dollar green tax is killing the us economy but the greenies dont care. another poorly thoughtout solution... they remove sulfur in europe as well. .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

i hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you posted that lol on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

the tax federal tax on diesel fuel did not change it is still 24 cents a gallon. what changed were the us epa regulation for diesel fuel that went into effect january of 08. it now cost much more to produce. since everything you buy is effected by the higher price you now pay more for those products as well. on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

diesel cars do not us any gasoline lol on nov 30 459 pm tim jmeth...@yahoo.ca wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. diesel cars use a lot less gasoline .

From : jim beam

on tue 02 dec 2008 200003 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that snip considering that the source was a green college professor who was complaining about wasting petroleum making gasoline - yes. his point was that the oil companies could stop making gasoline with no loss in profits as they could refine less and sell it for more cash because most of the other products were sold at a higher profit margin. in a similar discussion it was brought out that one reasons the airlines were in trouble was that the cost of jet fuel was passed directly to the airlines but gasoline was sold at little or no profit when the price of crude peaked because gasoline consumers were a lot more price sensitive. evidently you never read the financial pages particularly not commodities. .

From : jim beam

on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. on mon 01 dec 2008 000827 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. not true. gasoline grades are now produced by catalysis not just distillation so the heavy grades are there to begin with. and you can go the other direction too - the g.t.l. gas to liquid processes used for production of heavy grade base oils in synthetic lubricants are produced in such quantities and so cheaply those grades are sold as diesel in some markets. bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. they will sell all they can produce at the profit margin they want no matter what the government does. the demand is there. all the government can do is drive up the price to the consumer. btw do not lose track of the fact that the folks you expect to solve the problem have a large cadre of folks who want to price you out of your car and force you to move back into the city so you will be cattle on their mass transit dreams. .

From : nothermark

on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that snip considering that the source was a green college professor who was complaining about wasting petroleum making gasoline - yes. his point was that the oil companies could stop making gasoline with no loss in profits as they could refine less and sell it for more cash because most of the other products were sold at a higher profit margin. in a similar discussion it was brought out that one reasons the airlines were in trouble was that the cost of jet fuel was passed directly to the airlines but gasoline was sold at little or no profit when the price of crude peaked because gasoline consumers were a lot more price sensitive. .

From : nothermark

on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. better check your facts. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. snip .

From : nothermark

on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. see above unless you mean engines less than 3 years old. or check http//www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspxsectionname=&id=66eeae03-285e-409f-add4-90b1aa3c1528&&headline=sc+seeks+centre%e2%80%99s+reply+on+diesel+pollution+report you might also find his interesting it looks like the eu is going to gasoline http//www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/04/high-diesel-prices-and-pollution-concerns-put-off-potential-buye/ better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. right. see http//auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works2.htm excerpt more new prod

From : jim beam

on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. better check your facts. backatcha buddy. european diesel is still not cleaner than gasoline. wrong. snip .

From : ed pawlowski

631grant wrote uh do you know what a breeder reactor is do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium i know i know. pick me ! ! ! the first one is a planet the second one is a disney character a dog. .

From : gosi

on dec 2 549=a0am leftie n...@thanks.net wrote =a0 =a0 =a0do you know the differences between uranium and plutonium one of them is circling uranus. theyre both looking for clingons. .

From : jim beam

on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. on mon 01 dec 2008 000827 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. not true. gasoline grades are now produced by catalysis not just distillation so the heavy grades are there to begin with. and you can go the other direction too - the g.t.l. gas to liquid processes used for production of heavy grade base oils in synthetic lubricants are produced in such quantities and so cheaply those grades are sold as diesel in some markets. bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. they will sell all they can produce at the profit margin they want no matter what the government does. the demand is there. all the government can do is drive up the price to the consumer. btw do not lose track of the fact that the folks you expect to solve the problem have a large cadre of folks who want to price you out of your car and force you to move back into the city so you will be cattle on their mass transit dreams. .

From : vic smith

on mon 1 dec 2008 075551 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel automobiles might help. as i see it there is no real energy plan for this nation just a bunch of unhappy people. if obama could put together an intelligent energy policy maybe he would earn his salary. the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. a real energy plan would be to start building nukes and standardize auto batteries for swap-out at service stations. meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs power companies and service station operators. it would be a real manhattan type project. provide a lot of jobs. we contract french engineers to do the nuke plants. they know what theyre doing. --vic .

From : jim beam

on mon 01 dec 2008 160355 -0500 mike hunter wrote what would we do with the gasoline jeepers mike catalysis - look it up. simple distillation what youre assuming is yesterdays . having been a trained nuclear engineer in the navy 35 years ago i can only imagine how much better and safer the nuclear plants would be today. in the navy we have never had a nuclear accident in over 40 years of operation of many plants. the best people to build the plants would be the navy keeping the unions out of the equation. i witnessed first hand how the escalated the cost of building the reactors in limerick pa. yes the french would also be a good choice since they actually have more nuclear plants than they can use. they had to shut some down as they became more green and used less energy. finally the mix of gas and diesel from a barrel of oil is interesting; however the percentages could be shifted to more diesel than gas as we switched to diesel cars. the problem is that the oil companies wouldnt make as much money. on mon 1 dec 2008 075551 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel automobiles might help. as i see it there is no real energy plan for this nation just a bunch of unhappy people. if obama could put together an intelligent energy policy maybe he would earn his salary. the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. a real energy plan would be to start building nukes and standardize auto batteries for swap-out at service stations. meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs power companies and service station operators. it would be a real manhattan type project. provide a lot of jobs. we contract french engineers to do the nuke plants. they know what theyre doing. --vic .

From : nothermark

on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. on mon 01 dec 2008 000827 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. not true. gasoline grades are now produced by catalysis not just distillation so the heavy grades are there to begin with. and you can go the other direction too - the g.t.l. gas to liquid processes used for production of heavy grade base oils in synthetic lubricants are produced in such quantities and so cheaply those grades are sold as diesel in some markets. bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. they will sell all they can produce at the profit margin they want no matter what the government does. the demand is there. all the government can do is drive up the price to the consumer. btw do not lose track of the fact that the folks you expect to solve the problem have a large cadre of folks who want to price you out of your car and force you to move back into the city so you will be cattle on their mass transit dreams. .

From : nothermark

on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. .

From : michael pardee

on nov 30 459 pm tim jmeth...@yahoo.ca wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. diesel cars use a lot less gasoline gasoline cars use a lot less diesel ;- mike .

From : gosi

on nov 30 459=a0pm tim jmeth...@yahoo.ca wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. diesel cars use a lot less gasoline .

From : ed pawlowski

i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. .

From : 631grant

what would we do with the gasoline sell it to the hard headed idiots who still cry ive got to have all that steel around me to keep me safe and i cant live without a big v8 engine....... and ill get anything i want because i can afford it......sniffle sniffle. what would we do with the gasoline having been a trained nuclear engineer in the navy 35 years ago i can only imagine how much better and safer the nuclear plants would be today. in the navy we have never had a nuclear accident in over 40 years of operation of many plants. the best people to build the plants would be the navy keeping the unions out of the equation. i witnessed first hand how the escalated the cost of building the reactors in limerick pa. yes the french would also be a good choice since they actually have more nuclear plants than they can use. they had to shut some down as they became more green and used less energy. finally the mix of gas and diesel from a barrel of oil is interesting; however the percentages could be shifted to more diesel than gas as we switched to diesel cars. the problem is that the oil companies wouldnt make as much money. on mon 1 dec 2008 075551 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel automobiles might help. as i see it there is no real energy plan for this nation just a bunch of unhappy people. if obama could put together an intelligent energy policy maybe he would earn his salary. the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. a real energy plan would be to start building nukes and standardize auto batteries for swap-out at service stations. meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs power companies and service station operators. it would be a real manhattan type project. provide a lot of jobs. we contract french engineers to do the nuke plants. they know what theyre doing. --vic .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net631grant

and having seen new delhi i cant force myself to use the term green in the same sentence as. ...... india. see i didnt on tue 02 dec 2008 195302 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 141343 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 071803 -0600 nothermark wrote on tue 02 dec 2008 041842 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 212109 -0600 nothermark wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 134910 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on mon 01 dec 2008 054103 -0600 nothermark wrote you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil er thats just distillation not catalysis. look up the word in a dictionary if you dont understand it. 1. i understand the term. 2. that is the current yield of us refineries. afaik one of the things we still are very good at is running refineries. they pioneered catalitic cracking of crude oil to get better yields of what they wanted. as a result i assume they are producing what they produce for a reason that makes sense. it may be that they can retune for more diesel and less gasoline but they cant set up for all of either one. well it could be all if they wanted but the fact is theres still a market for a wide range of products hence a wide range is produced. the last i heard gasoline was the low profit option. ygtbsm. you /believe/ that the refiners make less per gallon than on anything else. if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow the oil companies would still make money on plastics and other chemicals. 3. catalysis is not magic. it has limits. folks might find this interesting http//science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. youve never been to europe apparently. and i have no desire to go there. however that does not have anything to do with the discussion. yes it does. diesel dominates the market over there. hence there is more diesel produced over there. all this blathering about well if you distill oil we produce gasoline so we need to keep on using it is utter b.s. and the europeans prove it every day. all the europeans prove is that they are willing to take dirtier air what part of lower emissions is hard to understand mile for mile because diesels are more efficient emissions are lower. and modern diesels are ultra-clean burning. cleaner http//www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20//air.php where does that fantastically well researched and informed article mention that gasoline produces a similar volume of soot particles but of smaller size to run their undersized overtaxed automobiles so they can live in cramped little countries. its their choice to live that way but that does not mean it needs to be our choice. yeah. say that next time a diesel bmw passes you at 130 on the autobahn. changing the mix of fuels produced would require investments that would need to be paid for and would be fought by the folks who whine every time any refinery does anything. there is a very significant anti diesel lobby in the clean air community. no there isnt. theres a very significant anti-diesel lobby among the p.r. community /posing/ as environmentalists but which are in fact shilling for the oil industry but thats not the same thing! /real/ environmentalists actually bother to look at facts and the facts are that diesel offers a lower overall carbon footprint and lower emissions both though better efficiency reducing consumption and combustion being cleaner especially with todays electronic injection systems - which are truly excellent. check with the folks who have asthma. they are very anti diesel as well as anti burning anything. thats because theyre misinformed. modern diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. see above unless you mean engines less than 3 years old. or check http//www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx sectionname=&id=66eeae03-285e-409f-add4-90b1aa3c1528&&headline=sc+seeks +centre%e2%80%99s+reply+on+diesel+pollution+report fabulous - you have to dredge for an article in a country without s

From : matthew fedder

the problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. which is the safest cleanest way to generate power. we dont have an unlimited supply of uranium -- its just oil of a different color. if we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our energy i dont think the supply of uranium would last 50 years though its been a long time since ive looked at those numbers... .

From : hls

diesel cars do not us any gasoline lol it is noted that you got the joke. old mike will astound you at times. .

From : napalmheart

mike hunter mikehunt2@lycos/com wrote in message diesel cars do not us any gasoline lol it is noted that you got the joke. on nov 30 459 pm tim jmeth...@yahoo.ca wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. diesel cars use a lot less gasoline .

From : nothermark

you are free to believe anything you want to but if you want to put away your tinfoil hat consider this http//en.allexperts.com/q/oil-gas-3147/gallon-gas.htm its a break down of the yield from 1 barrel of crude oil. ill pick out two numbers 19.5 gallons of gasoline 9.2 gallons of distillate fuel oil diesel fuel and home-heating oil part of the problem with the cost of diesel is the taxes as everybody decided the truckers needed to pay for the collapsing bridges since the other fuel tax money was being siphoned off for political boondoggles. that does not hit home heating oil or farm diesel. both are still higher than gasoline due to the ratio of fuel oils to gasoline and the demand in the market for *all* the products. adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate an already full demand side. on mon 01 dec 2008 000827 gmt jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. not true. gasoline grades are now produced by catalysis not just distillation so the heavy grades are there to begin with. and you can go the other direction too - the g.t.l. gas to liquid processes used for production of heavy grade base oils in synthetic lubricants are produced in such quantities and so cheaply those grades are sold as diesel in some markets. bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. they will sell all they can produce at the profit margin they want no matter what the government does. the demand is there. all the government can do is drive up the price to the consumer. btw do not lose track of the fact that the folks you expect to solve the problem have a large cadre of folks who want to price you out of your car and force you to move back into the city so you will be cattle on their mass transit dreams. .

From : 631grant

not only do you have my favorite name jim beam but you are exactly correct. big oil rules washington but obama will change all that................................ not!!! on sun 30 nov 2008 173408 -0600 nothermark wrote on sun 30 nov 2008 130028 -0500 ed pawlowski esp@snet.net wrote i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. not just tax. heating oil is more that gas also. its also the cost of refining and sulfur removal. you get less diesel/heating oil per barrel than gasoline using the crude that makes good gasoline. diesel used to be a byproduct of gasoline production so it was cheaper. the demand has caught up and the sulphur removal added to increase the net cost of production. not true. gasoline grades are now produced by catalysis not just distillation so the heavy grades are there to begin with. and you can go the other direction too - the g.t.l. gas to liquid processes used for production of heavy grade base oils in synthetic lubricants are produced in such quantities and so cheaply those grades are sold as diesel in some markets. bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. .

From : 631grant

gasoline is taxed at 18.4 cents per gallon and diesel at 24.4 cents per gallon. it has been that way for years. http//www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whydoesdieselfuelcostmorethan.html nothermark wrote on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. i remember a time when diesel was less than gasoline. then the government increased the tax on it. .

From : 631grant

when gas was $4 diesel was about $0.90 a gallon more never $2 more. as refineries switch to more diesel economies of scale will get the price down closer to gas. it should be less than gas now but once again the 450 hoodlums in washington do nothing..... on sat 29 nov 2008 231423 -0500 631grant tjwitman@bellsouth.net wrote yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. diesel will remain more costly than gasoline due to refining and demand issues. if gas goes back to $4 diesel will probaly go close to $6. snipped .

From : hls

bottom line the /real/ reason we dont have diesel here is because of the inordinate influence of the oilcos in washington. diesel is much more efficient so given that the oilcos can buy policy they dont want to see their overall sales volumes and thus profits drop the 10%-20% that widespread use of diesels would cause. this is the version i believe. .

From : 631grant

yes diesel is more costly at this very moment when gas prices are down but do you really believe that they wont be back at $4 per gallon soon the price is not the driving factor. the buzz word for the next four years will be energy independence and using cars that use 40% less oil will go a long way to meeting that goal. it is not about money. people are willing to fill up their escalades so they should be willing to pay more for diesel and use less to further the independence theme. the new diesels filter out the diesel soot and you breath much worse things and much more stuck behind a 16 wheeler. i was not clear on the green issue. we have different standards than europe does which restricts their diesels from coming here they do go to canada. since i believe from seeing first hand how they approach recycling energy conservation and natural resource conservation i know they are greener than we are and i must ass u me that their emissions policies follow suit with a logical approach. logic is something totally lacking in our washington legislators so i can only assume our emissions standards were written by the oil companies and their lobbyists. on nov 29 1153 am 631grant tjwit...@bellsouth.net wrote no diesels you sound like a tree hugger... 20 to 30% increase in two years big whoop! diesels are giving 40% and more right now in europe where 50% of the cars are diesels. considering diesel costs 50% more than gas right now it doesnt quite seem worth it. plus there are secondary price effects when we drive the price of diesel up it drives up the cost of everything we buy. i dont see any headlines saying they are all dying of cancer! diesel soot is carcinogenic. thats not arguable. in fact they are more green than we are yet our 500+ idiots in congress have seen fit to pass emission laws far different than what works in europe for years. the euro diesels have more pickup than comparable gas powered cars dont smoke have low emissions and you would never even know they were diesels. youre kind of contradicting yourself theyre more green yet they have weaker diesel emissions standards. yes i know modern diesels are unbelievably better than previous generation diesels but no matter how clean diesels are they will always pollute more than gasoline engines for the same size vehicle. the us is not europe -- we have a much higher density of personal vehicles and we wont put up with taxes to modify what size of vehicles we drive the only reason people drive tiny diesels in europe. but i still think direct-injected turbocharged engines will be the future for personal vehicles. one nice thing about the direct- injection engines is that they have the same great pickup as diesels-- they reach their torque peak around 1200 rpm like diesels but they maintain it into high rpm ranges like gas engines. .

From : matthew fedder

on nov 29 1153=a0am 631grant tjwit...@bellsouth.net wrote no diesels you sound like a tree hugger... =a020 to 30% increase in = two years =a0big whoop! =a0diesels are giving 40% and more right now in eu= rope where 50% of the cars are diesels. considering diesel costs 50% more than gas right now it doesnt quite seem worth it. plus there are secondary price effects when we drive the price of diesel up it drives up the cost of everything we buy. =a0i dont see any headlines saying they are all dying of cancer! =a0 diesel soot is carcinogenic. thats not arguable. in fact they are more green than we are yet our 500+ idiots in congress have seen fit to pass emission laws far different than what works in europe for years. =a0the euro diesels have more pickup= than comparable gas powered cars dont smoke have low emissions and you wou= ld never even know they were diesels. =a0 youre kind of contradicting yourself theyre more green yet they have weaker diesel emissions standards. yes i know modern diesels are unbelievably better than previous generation diesels but no matter how clean diesels are they will always pollute more than gasoline engines for the same size vehicle. the us is not europe -- we have a much higher density of personal vehicles and we wont put up with taxes to modify what size of vehicles we drive the only reason people drive tiny diesels in europe. but i still think direct-injected turbocharged engines will be the future for personal vehicles. one nice thing about the direct- injection engines is that they have the same great pickup as diesels -- they reach their torque peak around 1200 rpm like diesels but they maintain it into high rpm ranges like gas engines. .

From : ed pawlowski

but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. true the gm executives dont need airlines they have private jets to use to go begging. .

From : hls

the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. if they reorganize under bankruptcy there is basically no reason why they should close down for even a day. if that is the case impact could be nil. .

From : 631grant

no diesels you sound like a tree hugger... 20 to 30% increase in two years big whoop! diesels are giving 40% and more right now in europe where 50% of the cars are diesels. i dont see any headlines saying they are all dying of cancer! in fact they are more green than we are yet our 500+ idiots in congress have seen fit to pass emission laws far different than what works in europe for years. the euro diesels have more pickup than comparable gas powered cars dont smoke have low emissions and you would never even know they were diesels. you are wrong wrong wrong. on nov 28 523 pm 631grant tjwit...@bellsouth.net wrote you are absolutely right!! they havent had one since they committed to creating a glut of suvs and monster trucks in the face of oil shortages and price escalation. actually they committed to creating a glut of suvs when gas was 90 cents a gallon the economy was roaring and suvs were popular and profitable. thats why the big three were so profitable during the 90s. and fords business plan has been to shift towards cars since 2002 when they abandoned the old taurus and started on the fusion and five hundred later renamed back to taurus. theyve shifted further towards small cars 2 years ago when they began preparations to bring over their small european cars. while europe adopted a common sense approach to high prices by proliferating diesel powered cars that met their very green emission standards and gave 50+ mpg our automakers had the blinders and feedbags firmly in place and continued down the road even though the sign said dead end. if you want to bail them out which i dont mandate that they adopt diesel technology on small engines in small cars. give them a 5 year moratorium on emissions or change our standards to meet europes. in 2009 honda and subaru will be introducing diesels. of course vw bmw and mb already have them. no us firm does because of our oldsmobile experiences from the 70s has kept our head in the sand. im not a big fan of diesel for commuter cars -- lets leave it for the big rigs keep our cities air clean and keep diesel prices and therefore commodity prices down. fords ecoboost direct-injection turbocharged vehicles promise to bring diesel-like fuel economy using gasoline engines with none of the carcinogenic emissions of diesels. well probably see 1l engines that are as powerful as todays 1.6l engines while getting 20-30% better mileage. we should see that in 2 years or so... .

From : matthew fedder

on nov 28 523=a0pm 631grant tjwit...@bellsouth.net wrote you are absolutely right!! =a0they havent had one since they committed t= o creating a glut of suvs and monster trucks in the face of oil shortages = and price escalation. =a0 actually they committed to creating a glut of suvs when gas was 90 cents a gallon the economy was roaring and suvs were popular and profitable. thats why the big three were so profitable during the 90s. and fords business plan has been to shift towards cars since 2002 when they abandoned the old taurus and started on the fusion and five hundred later renamed back to taurus. theyve shifted further towards small cars 2 years ago when they began preparations to bring over their small european cars. while europe adopted a common sense approach to high prices by proliferating diesel powered cars that met their very green emission standards and gave 50+ mpg our automakers had the blinders and feedbags firmly in place and continued down the road even though the =a0s= ign said dead end. if you want to bail them out which i dont mandate that they adopt dies= el technology on small engines in small cars. =a0give them a 5 year moratori= um on emissions or change our standards to meet europes. =a0in 2009 honda and subaru will be introducing diesels. =a0of course vw bmw and mb already= have them. =a0no us firm does because of our oldsmobile experiences from the 7= 0s has kept our head in the sand. im not a big fan of diesel for commuter cars -- lets leave it for the big rigs keep our cities air clean and keep diesel prices and therefore commodity prices down. fords ecoboost direct-injection turbocharged vehicles promise to bring diesel-like fuel economy using gasoline engines with none of the carcinogenic emissions of diesels. well probably see 1l engines that are as powerful as todays 1.6l engines while getting 20-30% better mileage. we should see that in 2 years or so... .

From : 631grant

you are absolutely right!! they havent had one since they committed to creating a glut of suvs and monster trucks in the face of oil shortages and price escalation. while europe adopted a common sense approach to high prices by proliferating diesel powered cars that met their very green emission standards and gave 50+ mpg our automakers had the blinders and feedbags firmly in place and continued down the road even though the sign said dead end. if you want to bail them out which i dont mandate that they adopt diesel technology on small engines in small cars. give them a 5 year moratorium on emissions or change our standards to meet europes. in 2009 honda and subaru will be introducing diesels. of course vw bmw and mb already have them. no us firm does because of our oldsmobile experiences from the 70s has kept our head in the sand. also make darn sure that all the money goes to us suppliers of parts. a lot of parts are made in canada mexico and off shore. most of the injection molds are made off shore so no money to them. we have plenty of mold makers sitting idle in the us. no one talks about where all these downstream suppliers are located that will go out of business if the big bloated three fail..... curmudgeon wrote grumpy aucontraire wrote gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=g... in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt if you dont understand the huge difference between an airline and an automaker you got no business commenting. nonsense! a bad business plan is a bad business plan. the automakers dont have a business plan. jt .

From : grumpy aucontraire

curmudgeon wrote grumpy aucontraire wrote gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=g... in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt if you dont understand the huge difference between an airline and an automaker you got no business commenting. nonsense! a bad business plan is a bad business plan. the automakers dont have a business plan. jt .

From : voyagervoyager

jp103 wrote hls wrote the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. if they reorganize under bankruptcy there is basically no reason why they should close down for even a day. if that is the case impact could be nil. impact on whom gm - perhaps nil. the point i am trying to make is that there are a number of suppliers that depend on doing a sizable business with gm and getting paid. if under a reorganization these businesses along with retirees pensions and healthmonies owed are severely cut back or eliminated what/who will make up for that shortfall some suppliers will go out of business some will be forced to file for reorganization so this will affect their suppliers and employees. eventually we will have the trickle down effect that has been ballyhooed for 30+ years although perhaps not quite what was envisioned in reaganomic terms. from what i have read ford feels that there business model and cash supply is good through 2009 and into 2010 at their current burn rate so why is ford worried about a gm bankruptcy could it be because they realize that the shared suppliers are going to get hammered - go out of business - leave ford and virtually all other n. american automakers facing parts shortages this goes beyond gm try to connect the dots. yes there will be trickle down impact but that is business. maybe ford could and should buy from some of the suppliers that toyota honda and hyundai use i know it serves the auto makers purpose to paint a lot of doom and gloom and much of it is real but sometimes when a system is this far out of whack it takes a major upset to correct things. continuing business as usual on the taxpayer dole is a bad deal. .

From : curmudgeon

grumpy aucontraire wrote gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=g... in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt if you dont understand the huge difference between an airline and an automaker you got no business commenting. .

From : jp103

ed pawlowski wrote impact on whom gm - perhaps nil. the point i am trying to make is that there are a number of suppliers that depend on doing a sizable business with gm and getting paid. if under a reorganization these businesses along with retirees pensions and healthmonies owed are severely cut back or eliminated what/who will make up for that shortfall some suppliers will go out of business some will be forced to file for reorganization so this will affect their suppliers and employees. eventually we will have the trickle down effect that has been ballyhooed for 30+ years although perhaps not quite what was envisioned in reaganomic terms. from what i have read ford feels that there business model and cash supply is good through 2009 and into 2010 at their current burn rate so why is ford worried about a gm bankruptcy could it be because they realize that the shared suppliers are going to get hammered - go out of business - leave ford and virtually all other n. american automakers facing parts shortages this goes beyond gm try to connect the dots. you make good points but . . . . . . unless there are major changes at gm all we are doing is giving them more money to piss away. lets see the plan. i dont like to see promises to retirees broken but gm or any other company cannot expect to pay the pensions and health care benefits like they used to. if you retire after 30 years at age 50 you can possibly be on the gm teat for another 35 years. nice but not practical. increased longevity is killing our ss system too thus the increase in age to full retirement. if i as a taxpayer am going to give money to gm the employees and retirees and especially the executives must also pitch in a fair share. unfortunately we as taxpayers really dont have much input on requirements for federal assistance. in the lawmakers wisdom they have decided to extend money to wall st with no idea of even who is getting what and why never mind about such things as business models sacrifices or future paybacks. and the red herring about corporate jets is virtually laughable when the speaker is asking for a larger jet so that she can work on the way to and from her district http//www.washingtontimes.com//2007/feb/08/20070208-121345-5680r/ although the big 3 pr people must be as clueless as some of the marketing people in the not too distant past. given all that i think that the unions have attempted to reduce the legacy costs with the latest idea being that the union will take over retiree health care of course im sure the company will be funding it in one manner or another and recent new hire wage packages. in regard to the 30 and out it really isnt as lucrative as congress 20-25 years of service = 80% of salary pension. http//www.ntu.org/main/page.phppageid=20 not bad for executives who have the largest deficit in history and some feel a total lack of competency. again i return to my original position that to deny a bailout will have a major impact to far more than just gm and its immediate employees. .

From : jim beam

on sun 23 nov 2008 110349 -0500 larry in az wrote waiving the right to remain silent jim beam spamvortex@bad.example.net said i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. bmw et-al dont have the legacy union retirement and health benefits to pay which cost those who do something like $2500 per vehicle built. actually they do. youre just repeating the smoke screen bullshit red herring swallowed hook line and sinker propaganda from detroit and not looking at the wider picture. vw bmw mercedes porsche all have much higher employee costs including unions and retirees higher commodity costs and higher capital overheads than here in the usa. and on top of that they have shipping. but they can sell cars here profitably. but now were being told that frod and gm cant despite the fact that both frod and gm both have high cost production facilities in europe all with the same higher overheads as the germans and which they somehow seem to be able to run profitably sorry bud i dont buy it. consolidation accounting multiple divisions multiple continents. you can hide a lot of stuff in there. look big picture. clearly something is wrong but its management their lack of backbone and beyond that the politicians that reward them for whining not easy-target retirees. put another way i dont get to whine about how my income might be cyclical or that i might be a target of litigation or that i might have future liabilities or that the business environment is competitive or any of the other crap that gm puts in its accounts when i file my tax returns so why the heck should they theyre supposed to be the highly paid expert big boys. suck it up and deal with it. .

From : ed pawlowski

impact on whom gm - perhaps nil. the point i am trying to make is that there are a number of suppliers that depend on doing a sizable business with gm and getting paid. if under a reorganization these businesses along with retirees pensions and healthmonies owed are severely cut back or eliminated what/who will make up for that shortfall some suppliers will go out of business some will be forced to file for reorganization so this will affect their suppliers and employees. eventually we will have the trickle down effect that has been ballyhooed for 30+ years although perhaps not quite what was envisioned in reaganomic terms. from what i have read ford feels that there business model and cash supply is good through 2009 and into 2010 at their current burn rate so why is ford worried about a gm bankruptcy could it be because they realize that the shared suppliers are going to get hammered - go out of business - leave ford and virtually all other n. american automakers facing parts shortages this goes beyond gm try to connect the dots. you make good points but . . . . . . unless there are major changes at gm all we are doing is giving them more money to piss away. lets see the plan. i dont like to see promises to retirees broken but gm or any other company cannot expect to pay the pensions and health care benefits like they used to. if you retire after 30 years at age 50 you can possibly be on the gm teat for another 35 years. nice but not practical. increased longevity is killing our ss system too thus the increase in age to full retirement. if i as a taxpayer am going to give money to gm the employees and retirees and especially the executives must also pitch in a fair share. .

From : jp103

nntp-posting-date sat 02 aug 2003 130919 edt organization road runner high speed online -- northeast ohio . 222 346661 ggp14u$d27$1@.motzarella.org hls wrote the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. if they reorganize under bankruptcy there is basically no reason why they should close down for even a day. if that is the case impact could be nil. impact on whom gm - perhaps nil. the point i am trying to make is that there are a number of suppliers that depend on doing a sizable business with gm and getting paid. if under a reorganization these businesses along with retirees pensions and healthmonies owed are severely cut back or eliminated what/who will make up for that shortfall some suppliers will go out of business some will be forced to file for reorganization so this will affect their suppliers and employees. eventually we will have the trickle down effect that has been ballyhooed for 30+ years although perhaps not quite what was envisioned in reaganomic terms. from what i have read ford feels that there business model and cash supply is good through 2009 and into 2010 at their current burn rate so why is ford worried about a gm bankruptcy could it be because they realize that the shared suppliers are going to get hammered - go out of business - leave ford and virtually all other n. american automakers facing parts shortages this goes beyond gm try to connect the dots. .

From : nothermark

on thu 27 nov 2008 080547 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. if they reorganize under bankruptcy there is basically no reason why they should close down for even a day. if that is the case impact could be nil. until the tax bill comes. in the delphi bankruptcy settlement they basically cut the line workers hourly rate in half to around $12 - 14/hr dumped the pension opened up a 401k plan and put in an insurance copay and only covered the worker so a family plan is an extra deduction. there is no reason to think that this will not trickle over to the salaried rank and file. given the large number of workers involved many communities will see a large number of folks in houses they cannot afford with tax bills they cannot afford supporting a bloated government thay cannot afford. when *that* hits the fun will really begin. it will be a real surprise to a lot of folks just how much they depend on those stinky factories. .

From : gosi

on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=3dcostory&refer=3dco&tkr= =3dg... =a0 =a0in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the =a0 =a0lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is =a0 =a0fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. .

From : grumpy aucontraire

gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=g... in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt .

From : gosi

on 16 nov 1555 grumpy aucontraire gru...@extragrumpyville.com wrote gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=3dcostory&refer=3dco&tkr= =3dg... =a0 in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the =a0 lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is =a0 fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt something like 2/3 of the top brass needs to be removed for any real effect to be noticeable. i guess they will not be able to turn things around so it is more likely goodby gm. sure interesting to follow the development next few weeks. as the other pig said will there be life after x-mas .

From : zayton

http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=gmus&sid=ao.4vvigtehg snip treasury secretary henry paulson wont use any of his $700 billion bank bailout money to help manufacturers. in any case hed need a guarantee that a bailout would make detroit viable. well nobody -- not even aig -- is insuring guarantees for viability. snip but the stark fact remains absent a bailout gm dies and with it much of manufacturing in america. congress needs to do the right thing -- now. unfortunately as the first section above admits even with such a bailout there is no guarantee gm will not still die with the same resulting impact on the economy which could have been made even weaker by the further government debt load created by the bailout. this leaves it far from obvious what the right thing is. .

From : grumpy aucontraire

gosi wrote on 16 nov 1555 grumpy aucontraire gru...@extragrumpyville.com wrote gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=g... in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt something like 2/3 of the top brass needs to be removed for any real effect to be noticeable. i guess they will not be able to turn things around so it is more likely goodby gm. sure interesting to follow the development next few weeks. as the other pig said will there be life after x-mas theres a great op ed by mitt romney in the nyt. hits the nail squarely on the head. jt .

From : dillon pyron

thus spake grumpy aucontraire grumpy@extragrumpyville.com gosi wrote on 16 nov 1555 grumpy aucontraire gru...@extragrumpyville.com wrote gosi wrote on 16 nov 1142 gosi gos...@gmail.com wrote http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/pid=costory&refer=co&tkr=g... in the next two to four months gm will run out of cash and turn out the lights. only government money can prevent that. every other alternative is fantasy. it is also fantasy that government money will do anything else than prolong the agony for a few more months and it will be more expensive in the end. watering dead plants does not wake them up from dead. and even then youll hafta deal with the weeds that sprout up. there will be lots of new initiative after the death of gm. chapter 11 is the best route for any/all of the automakers. it worked for several of the airlines. the appointment of a receiver who is free of conflict of interest could enforce a restructuring that would have the best chance of success. jt something like 2/3 of the top brass needs to be removed for any real effect to be noticeable. i guess they will not be able to turn things around so it is more likely goodby gm. sure interesting to follow the development next few weeks. as the other pig said will there be life after x-mas theres a great op ed by mitt romney in the nyt. hits the nail squarely on the head. jt my recommendation on how to handle the executives and the bod is simple. folks can you step around back and stand by the pock marked wall have a smoke if you want one then tie these hankies around your eyes. .

From : matthew fedder

gms got some exciting vehicles and fords done a great job catching up with the imports on dependability and fuel economy cafe aside -- why should ford be punished because they have the best trucks. if they can pull off their global unification of platforms in a decade i think theyll be on top of the game again. to be perfectly blunt the biggest gap is the perception gap. peoples belief that ford/gm have problems is the chief cause of their problems right now. gm may not survive the lag before perception matches reality but barring catastrophic side effects from supplier disruption from gms bankruptcy ford will probably emerge as americas only domestic auto manufacturer. which is kind of sad in a way. france italy china india and korea will have more domestic brands and ones with awful product quality gaps -- funny how every other country supports their domestic auto industry even if theyre not the tops .

From : voyager

matthew fedder wrote gms got some exciting vehicles and fords done a great job catching up with the imports on dependability and fuel economy cafe aside -- why should ford be punished because they have the best trucks. if they can pull off their global unification of platforms in a decade i think theyll be on top of the game again. to be perfectly blunt the biggest gap is the perception gap. peoples belief that ford/gm have problems is the chief cause of their problems right now. gm may not survive the lag before perception matches reality but barring catastrophic side effects from supplier disruption from gms bankruptcy ford will probably emerge as americas only domestic auto manufacturer. which is kind of sad in a way. france italy china india and korea will have more domestic brands and ones with awful product quality gaps -- funny how every other country supports their domestic auto industry even if theyre not the tops i generally agree with you but the quality is not yet consistent. for example i drove a cobalt before buying my sonata and for the same money the sonata was miles ahead of the cobalt especially in ride quality and safety features. i realize the cobalt is probably one class below the sonata but the prices were comparable at that time and that was my comparison point. the new malibu is quite nice and the impala is ok but the aveo is not up to par. i had a ford focus rental car in la a few weeks ago and was not impressed at all. i havent owned a ford since a 1977 granada that came with marriage and after driving the new focus i wont be owning one anytime soon. ive had a chrysler minivan either plymouth or dodge since 1996 and they have been ok. the plymouth had a lot of electrical gremlins but the dodge has been better. it has 110000 miles and the engine has been bulletproof as was the prior 3.3l in the plymouth. and both transmissions have been flawless despite the rumored problems with the chrysler transmissions the plymouth had nearly 180k miles when a drunk hit me and totaled it. however the new chryslers particularly the van and the caliber were definitely designed by someone with an ugly stick in one hand. my next van will likely be a hyundai as the chrysler is just too ugly. my 1994 chevy truck really has lived up to the old chevy like a rock commercials. it is still bullet-proof after 15 years and 107000 miles now. still the original clutch and this is a truck that hauls firewood and plows a long driveway 3/8 of a mile all winter! i almost certainly will buy another chevy truck when i must and i probably must in another couple of years as my truck is just now starting to get some significant rust. in pa any hole in the body means it fails state inspection... im pulling for detroit to hang in there but i think their legacy union benefits costs and current mismanagement will bring them all to chapter 11 most likely. i actually dont see this as a bad thing. it will get some outside oversight and maybe a bankruptcy judge will tell the unions that you cant make $60+ an hour screwing lug nuts onto a car. and tell the management that flying a corporate jet to washington to ask for a bail-out was stupid beyond belief. these guys really are in their own little detroit cocoon and it is time somebody pulled them into the real world. matt .

From : jp103

voyager wrote matthew fedder wrote gms got some exciting vehicles and fords done a great job catching up with the imports on dependability and fuel economy cafe aside -- why should ford be punished because they have the best trucks. if they can pull off their global unification of platforms in a decade i think theyll be on top of the game again. to be perfectly blunt the biggest gap is the perception gap. peoples belief that ford/gm have problems is the chief cause of their problems right now. gm may not survive the lag before perception matches reality but barring catastrophic side effects from supplier disruption from gms bankruptcy ford will probably emerge as americas only domestic auto manufacturer. which is kind of sad in a way. france italy china india and korea will have more domestic brands and ones with awful product quality gaps -- funny how every other country supports their domestic auto industry even if theyre not the tops i generally agree with you but the quality is not yet consistent. for example i drove a cobalt before buying my sonata and for the same money the sonata was miles ahead of the cobalt especially in ride quality and safety features. i realize the cobalt is probably one class below the sonata but the prices were comparable at that time and that was my comparison point. the new malibu is quite nice and the impala is ok but the aveo is not up to par. i had a ford focus rental car in la a few weeks ago and was not impressed at all. i havent owned a ford since a 1977 granada that came with marriage and after driving the new focus i wont be owning one anytime soon. ive had a chrysler minivan either plymouth or dodge since 1996 and they have been ok. the plymouth had a lot of electrical gremlins but the dodge has been better. it has 110000 miles and the engine has been bulletproof as was the prior 3.3l in the plymouth. and both transmissions have been flawless despite the rumored problems with the chrysler transmissions the plymouth had nearly 180k miles when a drunk hit me and totaled it. however the new chryslers particularly the van and the caliber were definitely designed by someone with an ugly stick in one hand. my next van will likely be a hyundai as the chrysler is just too ugly. my 1994 chevy truck really has lived up to the old chevy like a rock commercials. it is still bullet-proof after 15 years and 107000 miles now. still the original clutch and this is a truck that hauls firewood and plows a long driveway 3/8 of a mile all winter! i almost certainly will buy another chevy truck when i must and i probably must in another couple of years as my truck is just now starting to get some significant rust. in pa any hole in the body means it fails state inspection... im pulling for detroit to hang in there but i think their legacy union benefits costs and current mismanagement will bring them all to chapter 11 most likely. i actually dont see this as a bad thing. it will get some outside oversight and maybe a bankruptcy judge will tell the unions that you cant make $60+ an hour screwing lug nuts onto a car. and tell the management that flying a corporate jet to washington to ask for a bail-out was stupid beyond belief. these guys really are in their own little detroit cocoon and it is time somebody pulled them into the real world. matt the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. there surely is enough blame to share between the unions management and the politicians but the point isnt whos to blame although if we dont learn from our mistakes we are bound to repeat them but what does a bankruptcy actually accomplish other than punishing the stockholders and creditors it seems to me that many of the legacy costs have been addressed and the big 3 have and are adjusting their product offerings to reflect the real world gas in my area is under $2 does that mean i can now get the full size suv. but who can get a loan from the bank to finance that new car. its all too complex for me but when i look at hard to get credit high resource prices slow to react management the unwillingness to insure credit to suppliers and no political leadership willing to commit i have the feeling that you aint seen nothing yet. this goes way beyond gm and ford. .

From : kurt ullman

ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com wrote they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. ed but by the same token it is a responsibility of the management to not give away the entire farm either. sorta like stop me before i kill a company again. .

From : larry in az

waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. -- larry j. - remove spamtrap in allcaps to e-mail a lack of common sense is now considered a disability with all the privileges that this entails. ** posted from http//www.tera.com ** .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

i can only assume you are not familiar with the last uaw that gave away plenty to help keep their jobs it that is what you believe. waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. -- larry j. - remove spamtrap in allcaps to e-mail a lack of common sense is now considered a disability with all the privileges that this entails. ** posted from http//www.tera.com ** .

From : ed medlin ed edmedlin com

gms got some exciting vehicles and fords done a great job catching up with the imports on dependability and fuel economy cafe aside -- why should ford be punished because they have the best trucks. if they can pull off their global unification of platforms in a decade i think theyll be on top of the game again. to be perfectly blunt the biggest gap is the perception gap. peoples belief that ford/gm have problems is the chief cause of their problems right now. gm may not survive the lag before perception matches reality but barring catastrophic side effects from supplier disruption from gms bankruptcy ford will probably emerge as americas only domestic auto manufacturer. which is kind of sad in a way. france italy china india and korea will have more domestic brands and ones with awful product quality gaps -- funny how every other country supports their domestic auto industry even if theyre not the tops perception is the big one. i have a lincoln town car that i got new in 01. it now has well over 100000 miles on it and still gets 25+mpg highway and about 20mpg overall. the 4.6 v8s that ford/lincoln makes are great performers too. i also have a continental with the dohc version of the 4.6l that gets the same fuel mileage and over 300hp. where i live i need a 4x4 to get my wife to her postmaster job in the winter and i have an old 95 dodge ram that has over 170000 miles on it and it runs and looks almost new. it isnt the quality anymore it is management and business models. toyota tundra 4x4 trucks sell very well and dont get near the gas mileage of my 318ci dodge. toyota just doesnt make union agreements that will put them into an economic bind. the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. ed .

From : ed pawlowski

waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. -- larry j. - remove spamtrap in allcaps to e-mail yes it is pretty much a team effort. keep the line going so you dont lose sales to a competitor. it did work for many years but then times changed. .

From : tim

larry in az wrote waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. the only thing that makes these companies unviable is the fact that they are having to compete with companies who are located in places where employees dont expect pensions or health care and can live in a tin shack for $50/month. .

From : hobo

tim wrote larry in az wrote waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. the only thing that makes these companies unviable is the fact that they are having to compete with companies who are located in places where employees dont expect pensions or health care and can live in a tin shack for $50/month. wow! i had no idea that there were states in the usa that were that poor. care to name them .

From : tim

hobo wrote tim wrote larry in az wrote waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. the only thing that makes these companies unviable is the fact that they are having to compete with companies who are located in places where employees dont expect pensions or health care and can live in a tin shack for $50/month. wow! i had no idea that there were states in the usa that were that poor. care to name them who said anything about states in the us unionized plants in na can compete with non-unionized plants in na maybe excluding mexico. it is competing with plants in china and india that will kill us and canadian manufacturing. .

From : jim beam

hobo wrote tim wrote larry in az wrote waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. the only thing that makes these companies unviable is the fact that they are having to compete with companies who are located in places where employees dont expect pensions or health care and can live in a tin shack for $50/month. wow! i had no idea that there were states in the usa that were that poor. care to name them nah hes talking about all the jobs g.m. and frod have been exporting to china and mexico for all these years. i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. that bleating is even less credible when you take into account the fact that g.m. and frod manufacture full fleets of highly fuel efficient vehicles which they sell very profitably in europe and yet they stand about whining for handouts to update over here. do they think were stupid enough not to notice these companies have the tools and technology to survive - what they lack is backbone and pride. afterall a few million spent lobbying could potentially earn them $25000000000. thats much easier money than rolling up their sleeves and working for a living like the rest of us. write https//writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml .

From : matthew fedder

i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. =a0that bleating is even less credible when you take into account the fact that g.m. and frod manufacture full fleets of highly fuel efficient vehicles which they sell very profitably in europe and yet they stand about whining for handouts to update over here. =a0do they think were stupid enough not to notice the cost of design and manufacturing has never been the problem. the problem is benefits. more specifically the problem is benefits make it much easier to grow a new company than to maintain an old one that is shrinking. when the big 3 promised their workers good pensions and retirement health care they basically only had two competitors. nobody in the 60s could have foreseen that the automotive market in the united states would have been fractured into 10 major players. when they promised benefits to their workers those benefits likely cost $10-15/hour -- assuming they could maintain the same sized workforce. well yeah times changed. all those competitors came in able to offer their products at prices that dont have to factor in healthcare at all since its government run and funded from workers paychecks. then when gm started having to cut back workers the effective cost per hour of labor by current employees increased. when you cut your workforce in half they have to each pay double to maintain the pensions of those who have already retired. thats happened twice by now -- when you hear that ridiculous $70/hour figure remember that current employees are only getting on average $28/hour in line with the national average for heavy manufacturing jobs including wages earned by foreign manufacturers plus maybe $12 in benefits again inline with averages. but despite those immense handicaps before the credit crisis hit ford was on track to be profitable and gm nearly so. ford has spent the past 5 years refining their manufacturing design and quality control processes and as a result has most nearly closed the gap with japan for reliability productivity technology. gm has spent the past 5 years investing in cars people fall in love with and its starting to show in some of their recent releases. chrysler... is the illegitimate stepchild of the domestic auto industry at least for now. theyve relied on one-hit wonders that allow them to continue to do the same thing that has always led to failure in the past see the 300 -- though that can largely be blamed on mercades benz which bought them to supply liquidity during their tough patch in the early part of the decade used them abused them and threw them away. its a little sad to realize but if ford/gm can outlive the bulk of their retirees from their biggest years theyll likely be stable enough to survive indefinitely. they just need things to stabilize a little while and theyll be fine. universal health care wouldnt hurt either .

From : jim beam

matthew fedder wrote i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. that bleating is even less credible when you take into account the fact that g.m. and frod manufacture full fleets of highly fuel efficient vehicles which they sell very profitably in europe and yet they stand about whining for handouts to update over here. do they think were stupid enough not to notice the cost of design and manufacturing has never been the problem. the problem is benefits. if youre buying that hogwash youre not very good at analyzing the facts. fact 1. its more expensive to manufacture in europe than it is here. fact 2. unions are more entrenched in europe than they are here. fact 3. european manufacturing operations of both g.m. & frod are more profitable than there are here. so what is the disconnect its not clearly not benefits. more specifically the problem is benefits make it much easier to grow a new company than to maintain an old one that is shrinking. when the big 3 promised their workers good pensions and retirement health care they basically only had two competitors. nobody in the 60s could have foreseen that the automotive market in the united states would have been fractured into 10 major players. when they promised benefits to their workers those benefits likely cost $10-15/hour -- assuming they could maintain the same sized workforce. well yeah times changed. all those competitors came in able to offer their products at prices that dont have to factor in healthcare at all since its government run and funded from workers paychecks. then when gm started having to cut back workers the effective cost per hour of labor by current employees increased. when you cut your workforce in half they have to each pay double to maintain the pensions of those who have already retired. thats happened twice by now -- when you hear that ridiculous $70/hour figure remember that current employees are only getting on average $28/hour in line with the national average for heavy manufacturing jobs including wages earned by foreign manufacturers plus maybe $12 in benefits again inline with averages. but despite those immense handicaps before the credit crisis hit ford was on track to be profitable and gm nearly so. ford has spent the past 5 years refining their manufacturing design and quality control processes and as a result has most nearly closed the gap with japan for reliability productivity technology. gm has spent the past 5 years investing in cars people fall in love with and its starting to show in some of their recent releases. chrysler... is the illegitimate stepchild of the domestic auto industry at least for now. theyve relied on one-hit wonders that allow them to continue to do the same thing that has always led to failure in the past see the 300 -- though that can largely be blamed on mercades benz which bought them to supply liquidity during their tough patch in the early part of the decade used them abused them and threw them away. its a little sad to realize but if ford/gm can outlive the bulk of their retirees from their biggest years theyll likely be stable enough to survive indefinitely. they just need things to stabilize a little while and theyll be fine. universal health care wouldnt hurt either dont buy it. frod and g.m. know /exactly/ how to run a slick mean profitable modern manufacturing business - they both do it in europe. the /real/ problem is that we reward whiners especially when they show up on the hill with lobbying money. seriously lobbying is a much more profitable investment returning many thousands for each dollar invested than any amount of modernization or r&d or labor contract renegotiation. here are some of the preliminary headings in g.m.s 07 10k annual report product pricing seasonal and cyclical nature of business research development and intellectual property product development raw materials services and supplies competitive position automotive emissions control industrial environmental control vehicular noise control automotive fuel economy potential impact of regulations safety pension legislation export control employees risks related to us and our automotive business shortages and increases in the price of fuel can result in diminished profitability due to shifts in consumer vehicle demand. our continued ability to achieve structural and materials cost reductions and to realize production efficiencies for our automotive operations is critical to our ability to achieve our turnaround plan and return to profitability delphi may not be able to obtain sufficient financing to finalize its plan of reorganization for approval by the bankruptcy court. financial difficulties labor stoppages or work slowdowns at key su

From : gosi

on 23 nov 0252 hobo h...@nospam.com wrote tim wrote larry in az wrote waiving the right to remain silent ed medlin ed@ edmedlin.com said the unions have overdone it with the us auto makers. they cant just keep demanding more and more to the point that the companies become unviable. the unions demanded and the management in place at the time agreed passing the buck to those who would need to deal with it after their own wealthy retirements. the only thing that makes these companies unviable is the fact that they are having to compete with companies who are located in places where employees dont expect pensions or health care and can live in a tin shack for $50/month. wow! i had no idea that there were states in the usa that were that poor. care to name them you have bag ladies in all the states .

From : matthew fedder

on nov 22 1008=a0pm jim beam spamvor...@bad.example.net wrote matthew fedder wrote i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here usin= g american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. that bleating is even less credible when you take into account the fact that g.m. and frod manufacture full fleets = of highly fuel efficient vehicles which they sell very profitably in europe and yet they stand about whining for handouts to update over here. do they think were stupid enough not to notice the cost of design and manufacturing has never been the problem. the problem is benefits. if youre buying that hogwash youre not very good at analyzing the fact= s. fact 1. =a0its more expensive to manufacture in europe than it is here. fact 2. =a0unions are more entrenched in europe than they are here. fact 3. =a0european manufacturing operations of both g.m. & frod are more profitable than there are here. so what is the disconnect =a0its not clearly not benefits. believe what you want. its the fixed costs of benefits for retirees from when the companies had a much larger workforce that are hurting them. those fixed costs are being divided over a smaller revenue stream. you know what happens when you keep the numerator constant and shrink the denominator thats why benefits are sucking money from product development. its a problem that will die with the retirees. in europe gm and ford are both still growing or stable; thats why they dont face the problems concomitant with contraction that they face here. fact #1 in europe health care is provided by governments. they also by and large have state-sponsored pension systems the burdens of which will fall on everyone not any individual corporation. that drastically lowers the profitability of labor-intensive manufacturing. fact #2 im not blaming the unions; im blaming the math. fact #3 theres nothing fundamentally better about ford of europes operations. 10 years ago it was ford of europe that was in shambles and ford of north america was keeping them afloat producing record- breaking profits. in europe consumer preferences shifted in fords favor; in north america they shifted the other way. it helps that ford of europe didnt have the giant sucking sound that is the fixed retiree benefit costs. north america is also being hit much worse by the credit crunch disproportionately affecting automakers whose primary market is in the us. your fabulously long quoted segment is lawyerese for these are projections we dont have a crystal ball dont sue us. all your suggestions are silly arm-chair quarterbacking worth what you were paid for them. .

From : donc

on thu 27 nov 2008 080547 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. if they reorganize under bankruptcy there is basically no reason why they should close down for even a day. if that is the case impact could be nil. its going to be an interesting hearing in congress. whichever way it goes my bet is they survive. the ceos are already toast. current uaw contracts are toast. what im most curious about is what suv and passenger car labels will be cut. per abc today sources say gm is considering dropping pontiac saturn hummer and saab divisions --- fwiw. .

From : vic smith

on thu 27 nov 2008 080547 -0600 hls nospam@nospam.nix wrote the concern that i have is not that gm should file for bankruptcy but what happens to all the downstream businesses if it does. people seem to say that well the airlines file on a regular basis why shouldnt gm file but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. if they reorganize under bankruptcy there is basically no reason why they should close down for even a day. if that is the case impact could be nil. its going to be an interesting hearing in congress. whichever way it goes my bet is they survive. the ceos are already toast. current uaw contracts are toast. what im most curious about is what suv and passenger car labels will be cut. on the car side i think pontiac is gone. havent kept up with sales stats. i do believe the dems will bump up the cafe standards and increase the fed gas tax which will have an impact on the direction gm goes. this is probably the cheapest gas will ever be. of course im often wrong. thats what makes it fun. --vic .

From : voyager

ed pawlowski wrote but i feel that the airlines dont have the same impact as gm does on the entire economy. true the gm executives dont need airlines they have private jets to use to go begging. how true. how stupid can you get. it just goes to show how out of touch they are. i think chapter 11 is probably useful for detroit at this point. .

From : hls

fact #1 in europe health care is provided by governments. they also by and large have state-sponsored pension systems the burdens of which will fall on everyone not any individual corporation. that drastically lowers the profitability of labor-intensive manufacturing. it removes some of the direct costs of health care from the company but it is by no means free. society as a whole bears the cost of health care through the tax system. not a bad plan really except that in the usa there are some 40000000 people with no health care at present. to try to institute a national health scheme would be very difficult on the short term and terribly expensive.. the doctors hospitals and pharma products are perhaps more expensive here than in any modern country in the world. maybe the uaw workers just have a higher level of health care perqs than the industry can sustain. if we taxpayers are burdened to take this off gms shoulders then next we will be expected to take on everybodys extended health care benefits. uaw may just have to reign in a little like the rest of us do. .

From : ed pawlowski

nope. europe has massive pension obligations benefits up the wazoo restricted working weeks mandated vacations totaling nearly two months per year etc. the who story about u.s. pension obligations is smoke screen and youre getting bamboozled by it. you may or may not be correct. if all car makers have the same overhead then they are on equal footing. the beg 3 her4e are bound by costs that the other makers do not have. i dont know if the pacific automakers have high import tarrifs in europe or not. i do know that i see very few non-european brands in europe compared to the us. .

From : jim beam

matthew fedder wrote on nov 22 1008pm jim beam spamvor...@bad.example.net wrote matthew fedder wrote i find it amazing how bmw honda and toyota can manufacture here using american-made components and do so profitably yet our domestic dinosaurs say they cant. that bleating is even less credible when you take into account the fact that g.m. and frod manufacture full fleets of highly fuel efficient vehicles which they sell very profitably in europe and yet they stand about whining for handouts to update over here. do they think were stupid enough not to notice the cost of design and manufacturing has never been the problem. the problem is benefits. if youre buying that hogwash youre not very good at analyzing the facts. fact 1. its more expensive to manufacture in europe than it is here. fact 2. unions are more entrenched in europe than they are here. fact 3. european manufacturing operations of both g.m. & frod are more profitable than there are here. so what is the disconnect its not clearly not benefits. believe what you want. its the fixed costs of benefits for retirees from when the companies had a much larger workforce that are hurting them. those fixed costs are being divided over a smaller revenue stream. you know what happens when you keep the numerator constant and shrink the denominator thats why benefits are sucking money from product development. its a problem that will die with the retirees. dude with respect youre swallowed the political red herring hook line and sinker. see below. in europe gm and ford are both still growing or stable; thats why they dont face the problems concomitant with contraction that they face here. nope. europe has massive pension obligations benefits up the wazoo restricted working weeks mandated vacations totaling nearly two months per year etc. the who story about u.s. pension obligations is smoke screen and youre getting bamboozled by it. fact #1 in europe health care is provided by governments. administrated but not paid for. employers pay for it with much higher corporation taxes and employee contributions. they also by and large have state-sponsored pension systems see above. and all large manufacturers over there have massive supplemental pension schemes for which they have to pay extra. the burdens of which will fall on everyone not any individual corporation. that drastically lowers the profitability of labor-intensive manufacturing. what part of higher taxes and contributions for individuals isnt making sense for you fact #2 im not blaming the unions; im blaming the math. garbage in garbage out - your assumptions are underinformed. fact #3 theres nothing fundamentally better about ford of europes operations. 10 years ago it was ford of europe that was in shambles and ford of north america was keeping them afloat producing record- breaking profits. thats called tax avoidance. with consolidation accounting you get to write off losses across the whole corporation. in europe consumer preferences shifted in fords favor; in north america they shifted the other way. they shifted in frod and gms favor over there about 30 years ago. they have both enjoyed huge market share and success for that time. it helps that ford of europe didnt have the giant sucking sound that is the fixed retiree benefit costs. but they do! its massive misinformation youre believing there dude. pension health benefits costs in europe are much higher than here. ask v.w. north america is also being hit much worse by the credit crunch disproportionately affecting automakers whose primary market is in the us. nope. read some of the european press. your fabulously long quoted segment is lawyerese for these are projections we dont have a crystal ball dont sue us. all your suggestions are silly arm-chair quarterbacking worth what you were paid for them. no dude. if you read corporate accounts and if you go to somewhere like finance.yahoo.com you can do so for yourself you can see from the tone of their reports how companies are being run. frod has c.y.a. language as do most large corporations but g.m. take it to a whole new level. its like this - theyre angling for bailout money because its a better return on their investment dollars than any manufacturing activity. and thats a fact. the fix needs to be political - no more reward for lobbying - and g.m. need to hire a leader focused on business not politics. .

From : michael

the truth seems to be so uncomfortable for everyone that it cannot be said. i will say it. american designed automobiles suck. they are poorly designed and fail far sooner than a honda or toyota made in this country. when i spend my hard earned money on an automobile i want durability above all else. if i pay 40 grand for an american car that can go 100 thousand miles before it needs major service i have thrown away my money because i could have bought a honda from which i can expect 250 thousand miles before major service bills. this is again the unspoken truth that cannot be said here or on tv. american executives and their designers are idiots. they dont even have the ability to copy a japanese designed product. of course i cannot be sure if the american designers are prevented from making the 250k mi car by incredibly stupid executives or because our designers are just stupid. who said anything about states in the us unionized plants in na can compete with non-unionized plants in na maybe excluding mexico. it is competing with plants in china and india that will kill us and canadian manufacturing. .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

you are entitled to you own opinion but it seems you have it backwards. it was the imports following the domestics that enabled them to grow their sale in the us. get real! the imports did not grow by continuing to build their small cars they grew by making all of their cars bigger and more powerful and adding suvs big trucks and luxury cars that american prefer to buy and drive. all of which sold better than theirs small car. the exception being the piss poor selling big trucks like the tundra and titan that cant compete with domestic trucks as to high mileage cars i saw many of the domestics nto only go 259k i saw thousands run op to 300k over the five years that fleets keep their vehicles in service because of us corporate tax deprecation laws on the tools they use in their business. this is again the unspoken truth that cannot be said here or on tv. american executives and their designers are idiots. they dont even have the ability to copy a japanese designed product. of course i cannot be sure if the american designers are prevented from making the 250k mi car by incredibly stupid executives or because our designers are just stupid. .

From : jim beam

on mon 24 nov 2008 022824 +0000 michael wrote the truth seems to be so uncomfortable for everyone that it cannot be said. i will say it. american designed automobiles suck. they are poorly designed and fail far sooner than a honda or toyota made in this country. when i spend my hard earned money on an automobile i want durability above all else. if i pay 40 grand for an american car that can go 100 thousand miles before it needs major service i have thrown away my money because i could have bought a honda from which i can expect 250 thousand miles before major service bills. this is again the unspoken truth that cannot be said here or on tv. american executives and their designers are idiots. they dont even have the ability to copy a japanese designed product. not true. detroit is very good at achieving design objectives. the problem is that those objectives are twisted. detroit spends millions in research to deliberately limit product life. in addition they spend money lobbying for slack legislation to save cents per car red rear turn signals. they /want/ their vehicles to be worthless garbage in just a few miles - management all went to business schools where they were taught this kind of behavior makes them money. what they apparently werent taught but which the japanese seem to understand is that if you shaft your customers too often all the time eventually theyll leave. and thats what detroit is looking down the double barrels of now - payback. seems obvious to me but i didnt go to business school. of course i cannot be sure if the american designers are prevented from making the 250k mi car by incredibly stupid executives or because our designers are just stupid. who said anything about states in the us unionized plants in na can compete with non-unionized plants in na maybe excluding mexico. it is competing with plants in china and india that will kill us and canadian manufacturing. .