the Fercedes team ?

[Bagwan]

Last night I was watching the news , and there was , along with all the Obama-rama going on , a short note on a merger of sorts .
I thought it had some relevence here .

Apparently Fiat is teaming up with Chrysler to sell cars for each other in thier respective markets of Europe and N. America .
I didn't catch in the report , just how far the partnership goes , but it would make sense that they will service each other's vehicles , and so , seem to be joining each other fairly closely .

With Daimler already attached to Chrysler , does this put Ferrari and Mac on the same team ?
It's like Batman just joined forces with the Riddler .

[ioan]

Selling cars for eachother is no merger or takeover, it's just a commercial agreement for the crisis period.

I think there were already some ties between FIAT and one of the NA automotive mfg's a few years ago, and it ended in tears.

[Knock-on]

It's like Batman just joined forces with the Riddler .

Which one's which :D

[ChrisS]

didnt Daimler get rid of Chrysler about 2 years ago?

[Robinho]

yep

[ioan]

It seems that FIAT bought 35% of Chrysler.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/business/21chrysler.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[Bagwan]

Maybe I should have named this thread "the Fernault team" .

Or , with all the buying and selling , perhaps we'll see a Fernaultcedesyota going around the track soon ?

That would give us a single make series , though , and nobody seems to want that .

[Daniel]

Daimler-Chrysler no longer exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DaimlerChrysler#Sale_of_Chrysler

There is a thread in Chit Chat. Fiat are getting a 35% share of Chrysler for the exchange of technology and tooling up some of Chryslers factories.

I think a lot of people don't understand the deal and should read up before commenting :)

[Bagwan]

Daimler-Chrysler no longer exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DaimlerChrysler#Sale_of_Chrysler

There is a thread in Chit Chat. Fiat are getting a 35% share of Chrysler for the exchange of technology and tooling up some of Chryslers factories.

I think a lot of people don't understand the deal and should read up before commenting :)

Gosh , Daniel , to whom do you refer ?

I think some people don't fully read the previous posts , and tend to re-state facts already brought to the table .

But , thanks for that .

Got any new info ?

[Daniel]

Gosh , Daniel , to whom do you refer ?

I think some people don't fully read the previous posts , and tend to re-state facts already brought to the table .

But , thanks for that .

Got any new info ?

Better source than some of the non-industry sites which are chiming in with their spin on things :)

http://www.italiaspeed.com/2009/cars/industry/01/chrysler/2001_statement.html
http://www.italiaspeed.com/2009/cars/industry/01/chrysler/2101_detroit_news_editorial.html
http://www.italiaspeed.com/2009/cars/industry/01/chrysler/2101_nardelli_letter.html

But basically Fiat haven't paid a cent as such for the 35% stake in Chrysler.

Thread in Chit Chat where I've posted what I think of the deal :) Essentially it's win win and could make Fiat a lot of money and turn Chrysler into a viable business in the medium term.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131263

[trumperZ06]

:dozey: I don't think the Fiat/Chrysler merger is a "done deal" !!!

Latest news is that Fiat wants the U S Gov't to fund an additional 3.1 Billion to Chrysler, before Fiat would "pull the trigger".

Why should the U S Gov't effectfully PAY for Fiat to aquire 35 percent of a failing automobile company ?

:rolleyes: Looks like many (almost all?) automobile manufacturers World Wide are in dire financial difficulty and looking to their Gov'ts for a bailout.

Mercedes dumped Chrysler a couple of years ago (at a huge loss), so any likelihood of McLaren/Ferrari sharing information wouldn't be due to Fiat/Chrysler being involved.

[Daniel]

:dozey: I don't think the Fiat/Chrysler merger is a "done deal" !!!

Latest news is that Fiat wants the U S Gov't to fund an additional 3.1 Billion to Chrysler, before Fiat would "pull the trigger".

Why should the U S Gov't effectfully PAY for Fiat to aquire 35 percent of a failing automobile company ?

:rolleyes: Looks like many (almost all?) automobile manufacturers World Wide are in dire financial difficulty and looking to their Gov'ts for a bailout.

Mercedes dumped Chrysler a couple of years ago (at a huge loss), so any likelihood of McLaren/Ferrari sharing information wouldn't be due to Fiat/Chrysler being involved.

Why would the US government want to pay? Well lets see.... how many people work for Chrysler? Multiply that by the benefits they'd receive and you see why Chrysler staying above water is a good thing for the US government. Then consider the jobs of the suppliers linked to Chrysler (you're seeing my point now aren't you?) and think of the benefits for them.

Surely you don't expect any investor in Chrysler to actually pay money do you? Fiat itself was a failing manufacturer back 5 years ago and was probably weeks away from disappearing. But Fiat had cards up their sleeve which helped with their return to form and in exchange for a nice chunk of Chrysler they're going to share this technology.

Think of why Fiat is doing so well comparitively at the moment and you'll see why they're able to go out and take risks like this at the moment and why the US government will happily jump on this deal. If I were you I'd buy some Chrysler shares now while they're worth nothing :)

[trumperZ06]

:rolleyes: The auto indrustry is in chaos World Wide and it's naive to think a Fiat/Chrysler joint venture would benefit the U S Market.

All the auto manufacturers are suffering a "supply glut" thoughout the World and Chrysler probably will not survive.

Mercedes was smart enough to "cut their loses" a couple of years ago.

GM looked at possibly aquiring Chrysler over the past few months...
but chose to "walk away".

:dozey: GM was "blackmailed" by Fiat a few years ago... and GM chose to pay Fiat > 1 BILLION DOLLARS in order to avoid having to aquire them.

;) I'ved already "passed" on Chrysler's stock.

Hhmmm... why don't you buy Fiat stock, if you think so highly of them?

[ioan]

Why would the US government want to pay? Well lets see.... how many people work for Chrysler? Multiply that by the benefits they'd receive and you see why Chrysler staying above water is a good thing for the US government. Then consider the jobs of the suppliers linked to Chrysler (you're seeing my point now aren't you?) and think of the benefits for them.

Surely you don't expect any investor in Chrysler to actually pay money do you? Fiat itself was a failing manufacturer back 5 years ago and was probably weeks away from disappearing. But Fiat had cards up their sleeve which helped with their return to form and in exchange for a nice chunk of Chrysler they're going to share this technology.

Think of why Fiat is doing so well comparitively at the moment and you'll see why they're able to go out and take risks like this at the moment and why the US government will happily jump on this deal. If I were you I'd buy some Chrysler shares now while they're worth nothing :)

:up: Well said! One needs to look further than the required 3 billions and see what it means to keep hundreds of thousands of people with a job.
It's true that 20 bucks of those 3 billions probably come from trumper's taxes, but whining for 20 bucks is a bit childish.

[Daniel]

:rolleyes: The auto indrustry is in chaos World Wide and it's naive to think a Fiat/Chrysler joint venture would benefit the U S Market.

All the auto manufacturers are suffering a "supply glut" thoughout the World and Chrysler probably will not survive.

Mercedes was smart enough to "cut their loses" a couple of years ago.

GM looked at possibly aquiring Chrysler over the past few months...
but chose to "walk away".

:dozey: GM was "blackmailed" by Fiat a few years ago... and GM chose to pay Fiat > 1 BILLION DOLLARS in order to avoid having to aquire them.

;) I'ved already "passed" on Chrysler's stock.

Hhmmm... why don't you buy Fiat stock, if you think so highly of them?

Heck if I have some spare cash I think I will buy stock.

You've pretty much ignored my whole post and all the points I've made so whatever :)

[Daniel]

:up: Well said! One needs to look further than the required 3 billions and see what it means to keep hundreds of thousands of people with a job.
It's true that 20 bucks of those 3 billions probably come from trumper's taxes, but whining for 20 bucks is a bit childish.

Yup. Heck I could go and post links to Fiats upcoming SGE (small gasoline engine) technology which is clearly relevant given the current economical situation and the price of oil but I won't because Trumper isn't playing nice :)

[trumperZ06]

Yup. Heck I could go and post links to Fiats upcoming SGE (small gasoline engine) technology which is clearly relevant given the current economical situation and the price of oil but I won't because Trumper isn't playing nice :)

;) I would think LNG (Liquidfied Natural Gas) might be a better option.

Proven technology, abundant supply and much less co$tly over here!!!

Oh, and NG burns much cleaner than either gasoline or other petro based fuels.

But this might be better discussed in a seperate thread.


:dozey: Hope you two do will with your Fiat stock...

I'm just not interested in aquiring ANY auto manufacturer's stock at this time.

:s mokin: Trumper

[Daniel]

;) I would think LNG (Liquidfied Natural Gas) might be a better option.

People will be staying with petrol and diesel for the forseeable future. There are already GTL (gas to liquid) fuels on the market here btw :)

[trumperZ06]

People will be staying with petrol and diesel for the forseeable future. There are already GTL (gas to liquid) fuels on the market here btw :)


;) We've had LG fueled Company Vehicles (cars, trucks, and towmotors) over here for degades, but the oil companies (probably along with Detroit) have discouraged their use for comsumers.

We give up approx. 10 percent, both in power & mileage, but the lower co$ts and cleaner burning would more than make up for that.

It really is a practical solution here in the States... while waiting for electric cars to become viable.

[mstillhere]

didnt Daimler get rid of Chrysler about 2 years ago?

That's what I thought too.

[mstillhere]

Why would the US government want to pay? Well lets see.... how many people work for Chrysler? Multiply that by the benefits they'd receive and you see why Chrysler staying above water is a good thing for the US government. Then consider the jobs of the suppliers linked to Chrysler (you're seeing my point now aren't you?) and think of the benefits for them.

Surely you don't expect any investor in Chrysler to actually pay money do you? Fiat itself was a failing manufacturer back 5 years ago and was probably weeks away from disappearing. But Fiat had cards up their sleeve which helped with their return to form and in exchange for a nice chunk of Chrysler they're going to share this technology.

Think of why Fiat is doing so well comparitively at the moment and you'll see why they're able to go out and take risks like this at the moment and why the US government will happily jump on this deal. If I were you I'd buy some Chrysler shares now while they're worth nothing :)

See, not all Americans understand the very simple point that you are making. If it's a stupid bank or financial institution then it's OK for them to be bailed out by the government. No complaints there. But when it comes down to the American workers and their families who have not done anything wrong -including not having flown any private jets on taxpayers money- then it's not OK. Lay them off. Who cares....

Of course, nobody says anything about the big fish. Althougn they are the ones who created all this downfault of their own companies by designing, marketing and making one horrible car after the other, they are still there in charge of these companies. If somebody does not bring some common sense in the USA in all sectors, not just the automobile sector, it will be all over for us.

[mstillhere]

:rolleyes: The auto indrustry is in chaos World Wide and it's naive to think a Fiat/Chrysler joint venture would benefit the U S Market.

All the auto manufacturers are suffering a "supply glut" thoughout the World and Chrysler probably will not survive.

Mercedes was smart enough to "cut their loses" a couple of years ago.

GM looked at possibly aquiring Chrysler over the past few months...
but chose to "walk away".

:dozey: GM was "blackmailed" by Fiat a few years ago... and GM chose to pay Fiat > 1 BILLION DOLLARS in order to avoid having to aquire them.

;) I'ved already "passed" on Chrysler's stock.

Hhmmm... why don't you buy Fiat stock, if you think so highly of them?

Why do you hate Italian product so much? Do you like the Japanese better?

[mstillhere]

Heck if I have some spare cash I think I will buy stock.

You've pretty much ignored my whole post and all the points I've made so whatever :)

As I mentioned before he cherry picks what he posts big time.

[Knock-on]

;) We've had LG fueled Company Vehicles (cars, trucks, and towmotors) over here for degades, but the oil companies (probably along with Detroit) have discouraged their use for comsumers.

We give up approx. 10 percent, both in power & mileage, but the lower co$ts and cleaner burning would more than make up for that.

It really is a practical solution here in the States... while waiting for electric cars to become viable.

I think this is the future of transportation

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/performance.aspx

And when you look at the performance, it's fine.

[Daniel]

I think this is the future of transportation

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/performance.aspx

And when you look at the performance, it's fine.

Only problem is generating enough power to produce all that Hydrogen.

[Knock-on]

Only problem is generating enough power to produce all that Hydrogen.

My master plan is easy.

Dear Mr Brown

Stop dicking about with energy and put me 30 year plan into practice NOW!!

No more fossil fuel generators to be built. Go Nuclear.

Hydrogen is expensive to produce and most is from Fossil fuel generation. Use the Nuclear heat to fuel the Hydrogen production process along with renewables. Win / win.

Then, wait for the LHC project to produce results in a few years and start planning for the decommissioning of the new Nuclear reactors in 30 years.

Yours

Knockie.

ps. Stick the Knighthood up your country bug*ering, bank pandering, Lilly livered posterior!!

[Big Ben]

If I were you I'd buy some Chrysler shares now while they're worth nothing :)
I would buy some too but as far as I know it's not a public listed company. :p :

[Daniel]

My master plan is easy.

Dear Mr Brown

Stop dicking about with energy and put me 30 year plan into practice NOW!!

No more fossile fuel generators to be built. Go Nucler.

Hydrogen is expensive to produce and most is from Fossile fuel generation. Use the Nuclear heat to fuel the Hydrogen production process along with renewables. Win / win.

Then, wait for the LHC project to produce results in a few years and start planning for the decommissioning of the new Nucler reactors in 30 years.

Yours

Knockie.

ps. Stick the Knighthood up your country bug*ering, bank pandering, Lilly livered posterior!!

Dear Knockie,

Unfortunately the majority of people in this country don't want nuclear because of associations with Chernobyl and the atomic bombs and so on and so forth.

Therefore I am unable to comply with your wish as it would mean David Cameron would win the next election for sure and even though I'm certainly not the best PM this country has had you don't want Dave in charge do you?

Lots of love

Gordie

P.S Do you really want Cameron as PM?




I really couldn't agree more with your Knockie but what I've said above sadly represents the views of a lot of people who are very vocal. You only need to look at France to see how good nuclear is but sadly people are just too ignorant and stupid to notice. I understand nuclear presents risks which you don't get with coal or gas but what people don't realise is that coal fired plants emit more radiation than a properly run nuclear plant :mark:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Strange-Traditional-Power-Plants-Emit-More-Radiation-Than-Nuclear-Ones-73995.shtml

[Daniel]

I would buy some too but as far as I know it's not a public listed company. :p :

True enough :p

Well I'll just buy Fiat shares and in doing so will in effect have Chrysler shares :p

[SGWilko]

Nuclear is probably the best solution in the short term, but the resources required for this are just as finite as oil/gas/coal.

You can't even get planning for renewables such as wind power because some twitcher gets a bee in his bonnet (how many birds are killed in a jet engine v wind turbine?)

So you see, it matters not who is running the country, they will always be unable to sort out the mess - too many cooks and all that.

[Knock-on]

Dear Knockie,

Unfortunately the majority of people in this country don't want nuclear because of associations with Chernobyl and the atomic bombs and so on and so forth.

Therefore I am unable to comply with your wish as it would mean David Cameron would win the next election for sure and even though I'm certainly not the best PM this country has had you don't want Dave in charge do you?

Lots of love

Gordie

P.S Do you really want Cameron as PM?




I really couldn't agree more with your Knockie but what I've said above sadly represents the views of a lot of people who are very vocal. You only need to look at France to see how good nuclear is but sadly people are just too ignorant and stupid to notice. I understand nuclear presents risks which you don't get with coal or gas but what people don't realise is that coal fired plants emit more radiation than a properly run nuclear plant :mark:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Strange-Traditional-Power-Plants-Emit-More-Radiation-Than-Nuclear-Ones-73995.shtml

Dear Gordon "get your head out of your ass" Brown

As you have the backbone of a Jelly Fish and the brains of a politician (couldn't think of a worse insult. Sorry Ben), allow me to present a document that you should be made aware of.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn294.pdf

There was a mix of support for Nuclear in 2007 before the recent energy issues. The only reason there isn't widespread support is because the public are not educated about the safety and ecological credentials of Nuclear. In 2007, it was 50/50 in support of Nuclear in conjunction with Renewables where most of the country is opposed to Fossil fuels.

Want to get re-elected. Then get yourself known as a strong leader that doesn't pander to the Oil companies and actually made a difference. Your nemesis has a legacy of being a war mongering Bush Poodle. At the moment, you're known as the Bankers piggy bank. Instead of bending over and taking it while bankrupting the Country in the process, wouldn't it be better to divert attention by building a positive Legacy?

Go Nuclear and back Hydrogen!!

[ioan]

Only problem is generating enough power to produce all that Hydrogen.

Exactly!
Better get the electricity and use it directly than go through a few more processes that will consume much of it before getting to an inferior result.

[ioan]

There was a mix of support for Nuclear in 2007 before the recent energy issues. The only reason there isn't widespread support is because the public are not educated about the safety and ecological credentials of Nuclear.

There are no ecological credentials to the nuclear byproduct, it's negative effects are huge and will be around for thousands of years, unless you think that exporting it to some poor 3rd world country is "ecological". :rolleyes:

[Knock-on]

There are no ecological credentials to the nuclear byproduct, it's negative effects are huge and will be around for thousands of years, unless you think that exporting it to some poor 3rd world country is "ecological". :rolleyes:

I'm not going to get into a debate with someone that spouts out the same old scare tactic soundbites that have been kicked around for years.

Learn a little more first chap.

[Daniel]

I'm not going to get into a debate with someone that spouts out the same old scare tactic soundbites that have been kicked around for years.

Learn a little more first chap.

Just to show you I don't hold grudges ;) I agree completely with your and disagree with Ioan

[ioan]

I'm not going to get into a debate with someone that spouts out the same old scare tactic soundbites that have been kicked around for years.

Learn a little more first chap.

Learn what? maybe next time around you'll tell me that nuclear power plants byproduct are potatoes and not highly radioactive waste.

If you don't know what you're talkin' about than bugger off.

[Daniel]

Learn what? maybe next time around you'll tell me that nuclear power plants byproduct are potatoes and not highly radioactive waste.

If you don't know what you're talkin' about than bugger off.

but the waste produced by a Nuclear power plant can be contained. Try doing that with a coal or gas plant!!!!!

[Bagwan]

There are no ecological credentials to the nuclear byproduct, it's negative effects are huge and will be around for thousands of years, unless you think that exporting it to some poor 3rd world country is "ecological". :rolleyes:

The most common rhetoric used against the nuclear industry has always been the "waste" . I use quotes around the word , because it is the characterization of this material as "waste" that is the problem .
Here in Canada , we have the Candu reactor , which uses about 1% of the potential energy in the fuel bundle , and then quietly drops the bundle into a tank of water that insulates it from human contact for as many years as the facility is running .
It produces no carbon dioxide , and nothing but released steam to affect the atmosphere .

It was designed , and still runs with rooms of those old computers that we only see in old James Bond flicks .
In those days of Robbie the Robot , it was inconceivable that we would have either the computing power , or the robotic technology capable of re-processing these vast stores of fuel bundles , making the
waste" a valuable commodity , with , in theory , 99 more cycles possible .

Reactors run at a constant rate , and currently , we have coal , gas , and diesel generation to bring on line any excess power needed .
That's the really dirty secret behind nuclear . It's designed to not be enough .
When the power demand is low , often at night , it also is an issue to dispose of the excess .

So , it becomes an issue that can be solved if we have a good solution for storage of the excess produced during low demand , and , as I see it , that's where hydrogen comes in .

Producing hydrogen and storing it in fuel cells , only to burn that same hydrogen during heavy usage completes the circle .
Make fuel , and use it when necessary , and do it all with no carbon produced at all , ever .

The steam produced is another issue , easily used to heat greenhouses , to produce food for a starving planet , wherever a nuke is planted .


Contrary to the beliefs of some members here , I think you deserve some explanation . I hope I helped you understand .

[trumperZ06]

:dozey: IMO... electric cars still need additional development before they become a pratical replacement for the internal combustion engine.

;) Until the industry comes up with an electric vechicle that provides reasonable range (~ 300 miles or so) and can be quickly recharged ( ~15 minutes), these cars will have limited application (city commuting).

Current hybrids are practicle... but you're paying for a duel energy supply... which drives up co$ts.

:D LG provides a "bridge" while waiting for industry to develop a truly practical electric powered vechicle.

Trumper

[ioan]

but the waste produced by a Nuclear power plant can be contained.

!00% contained? 100% sure? I'm not sure about that.



Try doing that with a coal or gas plant!!!!!

I never said anything about Coal, Gas or Oil power plants.

Try wind, solar, hydro, wave, tide energy converting power plants and than we can talk about green energy!

Nuclear is proper on the surface, cause the negatives are well hidden.

[ioan]

The most common rhetoric used against the nuclear industry has always been the "waste" . I use quotes around the word , because it is the characterization of this material as "waste" that is the problem .
Here in Canada , we have the Candu reactor , which uses about 1% of the potential energy in the fuel bundle , and then quietly drops the bundle into a tank of water that insulates it from human contact for as many years as the facility is running .
It produces no carbon dioxide , and nothing but released steam to affect the atmosphere .

It was designed , and still runs with rooms of those old computers that we only see in old James Bond flicks .
In those days of Robbie the Robot , it was inconceivable that we would have either the computing power , or the robotic technology capable of re-processing these vast stores of fuel bundles , making the
waste" a valuable commodity , with , in theory , 99 more cycles possible .

Reactors run at a constant rate , and currently , we have coal , gas , and diesel generation to bring on line any excess power needed .
That's the really dirty secret behind nuclear . It's designed to not be enough .
When the power demand is low , often at night , it also is an issue to dispose of the excess .

So , it becomes an issue that can be solved if we have a good solution for storage of the excess produced during low demand , and , as I see it , that's where hydrogen comes in .

Producing hydrogen and storing it in fuel cells , only to burn that same hydrogen during heavy usage completes the circle .
Make fuel , and use it when necessary , and do it all with no carbon produced at all , ever .

The steam produced is another issue , easily used to heat greenhouses , to produce food for a starving planet , wherever a nuke is planted .


Contrary to the beliefs of some members here , I think you deserve some explanation . I hope I helped you understand .


I know that Candu reactors are top shelf technology nowadays, it is also used in the one and only Romanian nuclear power plant.

But accidents happen, and I'm not talking about Chernobyl here. Only last year there were several accidents with heavily contaminated water that leaked or was accidentally thrown into the nearby rivers.
Now that is not at all green. And can't be contained either, once it's out in the nature it stays there and influences or destroys life for thousands of years.

I appreciate your explanations! Thanks. :)

[Bagwan]

Issues with leaks are a factor in the nuclear industry , usually caused by the human factor .
Heavy water leaks are rare , though can happen . But , the industry , at least here , is very careful , to the point that the distilled water created , is treated before release , as it's not the same constitution as the ground water , and would leach minerals until it became of the same concentration .

This pollution pales in comparison to strip mining coal , or sinking tankers , or carbon released by all the fossil generation .

Solar energy generation is the most direct , whether trapping heat or using photovoltaics .
But , it is limitted , simply , by the night .

Wind , to my neighbourhood , has it's proponents , but it is a pure scam .

I see the lights of wind turbines in the distance , blinking incessantly(must be horrble next door) , heralding the new dawn of the solar scam .

A gas company , calling itself , newly , an "energy" company , got subsidized to erect 110 turbines close by , with promises of jobs and the energy dream .

They rounded the poor farmer , working each one separately , to rent land .
None knows what each other gets , so we must assume there was room to grind some harder than others .

At this point , it was noticed that there was no room for the power on the lines , so a wider corridor was proposed . I have heard nothing about the idea since , so , now we have these turbines , all idle , with no capacity to get any of that power to the public .

Let's get back to the scam .
Remember , I told you it was a gas company before it came here , and back down at the Chicago hub , the factories from right across the lake , upwind from here , came to them to buy gas , saying they required carbon credits to stay in operation burning gas .
The company had not only secured grants for erecting the turbines , but , for doing so , also obtained carbon credits .

It was a match made in hell .

And , more scam to boot , the way a windmill works is erratic , literally blowing in the wind , so the turbine needs "back-up" .
Conveniently , along with the turbines , the government ok'd the building of a gas fired generation plant .


So , all we get here , is no green power , dirty air , and our money tossed into a gas fire .

Wind energy good . Corporate wind energy bad .
Simply , big is bad in wind .


I am presently designing an off-grid house for my family and I .

I will , some day , drive an electric car , powered by the sun .

[ioan]

Wind turbines are working well and providing quite a lot of energy around where I live now (Austria).

Hydro energy is also largely used. Sun at a lesser extent, mostly for private use.

We have enough other resources to get energy from without having to burn coal, oil gas and produce radioactive waste, there simply isn't enough will to implement it.

[trumperZ06]

Wind turbines are working well and providing quite a lot of energy around where I live now (Austria).

Hydro energy is also largely used. Sun at a lesser extent, mostly for private use.

We have enough other resources to get energy from without having to burn coal, oil gas and produce radioactive waste, there simply isn't enough will to implement it.

;) There was plenty of "will" to develop alternate energy sources when oil was >$147/barrel.

:D With President Obama's agenda... there's a chance the United States will go forward... even with the drop in oil prices.

:dozey: That still doesn't solve todays problems with the average citizen's dependence on private vechicles.

[Bagwan]

Wind turbines are working well and providing quite a lot of energy around where I live now (Austria).

Hydro energy is also largely used. Sun at a lesser extent, mostly for private use.

We have enough other resources to get energy from without having to burn coal, oil gas and produce radioactive waste, there simply isn't enough will to implement it.

Ioan , I must take issue with your term "radioactive waste" .

I spent a good deal of time explaining this point . The material should be known as a resource , not a waste .
!% is used , and the rest has the potential with which to run the reactors for many more years than they were designed to run , all carbon free .

And , while I'm at it , methane has a whole pile of potential , too .
Keep it out of the atmosphere , as it's a major greenhouse gas , and burn it to produce power .
If it's sourced from sewage treatment plants and farm operations , it alone could replace all the fossil stuff .

[ioan]

Ioan , I must take issue with your term "radioactive waste" .

I spent a good deal of time explaining this point . The material should be known as a resource , not a waste .
!% is used , and the rest has the potential with which to run the reactors for many more years than they were designed to run , all carbon free .

No matter what we call it it's still a dangerous radioactive material.



And , while I'm at it , methane has a whole pile of potential , too .
Keep it out of the atmosphere , as it's a major greenhouse gas , and burn it to produce power .
If it's sourced from sewage treatment plants and farm operations , it alone could replace all the fossil stuff .

I agree with you, but than again there is little will to spread it's use because it requires huge investments and the profit rate will be low.

In my home town there is one built way back during the Communist regime and it produced what we call bio-gas for a few decades already!
I find it hard to believe that they did it back than and in our days there is not enough vision amongst the governments to do it at a larger scale.

[ioan]

;) There was plenty of "will" to develop alternate energy sources when oil was >$147/barrel.

Yeah, sadly the will dropped along with the oil prices!

[Daniel]

Yeah, sadly the will dropped along with the oil prices!

Yes, funny that. Steam really starts to build up behind renewables and suddenly gas and oil prices start to fall :dozey:

[SGWilko]

Wind turbines are working well and providing quite a lot of energy around where I live now (Austria).

Hydro energy is also largely used. Sun at a lesser extent, mostly for private use.

We have enough other resources to get energy from without having to burn coal, oil gas and produce radioactive waste, there simply isn't enough will to implement it.

How large is the country and its population then? The abundance of fast flowing rivers from the alps facilitates hydro.

Every man and his wife appears to have flocked to the UK recently, so you can understand we require MUCH more energy, just to power the benefit agency alone......

How large is Canada and the US and even France, then you begin to see the appeal, not to mention practicality of Nuclear power.....

[Daniel]

How large is the country and its population then? The abundance of fast flowing rivers from the alps facilitates hydro.

Every man and his wife appears to have flocked to the UK recently, so you can understand we require MUCH more energy, just to power the benefit agency alone......

How large is Canada and the US and even France, then you begin to see the appeal, not to mention practicality of Nuclear power.....

You have a very good point. Different solutions work well for different areas. Here in North Wales we've got pumped storage and wind power. But this won't work for areas that don't have wind and are flat.

[ioan]

How large is the country and its population then? The abundance of fast flowing rivers from the alps facilitates hydro.

Every man and his wife appears to have flocked to the UK recently, so you can understand we require MUCH more energy, just to power the benefit agency alone......

How large is Canada and the US and even France, then you begin to see the appeal, not to mention practicality of Nuclear power.....

Yes Austria does have plenty of rivers to power the hydro-power units, but it doesn't have at all a seaside. Wind, sun, tide, waves are non-existent here but there is plenty all around GB and also France and all of them can be used to produce lots of electrical energy!

There are alternatives to nuclear, but no one is willing to pour money into it unless they get great revenues.

French use nuclear because they are best at it, most of the research done in France is in one way or another related to their nuclear capabilities (civil or not).

It's like with the internal combustion engines, until there is oil to put into them no one is willing to develop and produce another type of engine. Why put money into a new technology while there is still plenty of money coming in using the 100 years old one?!


Anyway, IMO the problem doesn't lie with energy production but rather with it's consumption and our stupid habits and thinking.
There are plenty of possibilities to consume much less energy than we actually do consume.
Put a sweater on and heat 2 degrees less and you'll already lower the energy consumption by quite a margin.
Change all incandescent light bulbs with new energy saver ones, and the lighting energy consumption will go down to 30%.
Time to change all TV sets and computer screen that use to much energy with new ones that use 30% of it.
And so on with all the other home appliances.
Not to mention that this would also help the economy in this moment by creating more demand.

Take the bus instead of the car when you go out. Take the train when you go on a longer trip, it's a bit more expensive but much more comfortable and environment friendlier.

Instead of pumping money into a banks black hole the government should come up with something to motivate people to change their old, outdated and energo-phage (not sure about this term) home appliances. Yes it would take money to do it, but once people change their old ones with new ones it means that shops and producers will have more revenues and will be able to keep their employees and pay taxes to the governement, plus those employees will pay taxes too, not to mention that they won't be made redundant so they won't need help from the governement.

I believe that this would help the economy of any country much more than simply building another few nuclear power plants that would cost a fortune and would only employ a handful of highly skilled engineers.

[ioan]

You have a very good point. Different solutions work well for different areas. Here in North Wales we've got pumped storage and wind power. But this won't work for areas that don't have wind and are flat.

Yep different solutions work in different area.

In the mountains there is usually a chance for more rivers and thus hydro-energy. Less so with wind and sun energy.

In the flat it's usually more sun and more wind.

On the seaside there's tides, waves, wind and sun.

There's everywhere a chance to produce clean energy from renewable sources.

We can also use methane gas from waste (as pointed out by Bagwan), as it's way more harmless if burned than if it's released into the atmosphere, given that it's a gas with high greenhouse effect.

Why is that governments don't support people to buy or build autonomous houses, with geothermal heating and so on?
Maybe because they get more taxes from those oil and gas companies?!
This should stop, developing an industry for green renewable energy and also for less energy consuming products would be a way to go over this economic crisis in a much easier way.

[Daniel]

!00% contained? 100% sure? I'm not sure about that.




I never said anything about Coal, Gas or Oil power plants.

Try wind, solar, hydro, wave, tide energy converting power plants and than we can talk about green energy!

Nuclear is proper on the surface, cause the negatives are well hidden.

That's the thing, the negatives can be well hidden. The best case with nuclear and what happens normally is the waste doesn't escape into the environment and cause trouble. Of course this can happen but it's not very common. With coal or gas the waste is pumped straight out into the air for you and I to breathe and that's the best case scenario

[Bagwan]

An addict only changes his ways when he reaches the bottom and there's no alternative . When it is change or perish , change comes .

Some of us have realized we have reached the breaking point .
The ones who act first to change will be the ones to survive .

I am going off-grid .
Solar , wind , and hopefully methane , in a passive solar timberframe house .
With the design almost finished , we hope to start building in the spring .

I can't wait to get my last oil bill .

[SGWilko]

There are plenty of possibilities to consume much less energy than we actually do consume.
Put a sweater on and heat 2 degrees less and you'll already lower the energy consumption by quite a margin.
Change all incandescent light bulbs with new energy saver ones, and the lighting energy consumption will go down to 30%.
Time to change all TV sets and computer screen that use to much energy with new ones that use 30% of it.
And so on with all the other home appliances.
Not to mention that this would also help the economy in this moment by creating more demand.

Take the bus instead of the car when you go out. Take the train when you go on a longer trip, it's a bit more expensive but much more comfortable and environment friendlier.

Instead of pumping money into a banks black hole the government should come up with something to motivate people to change their old, outdated and energo-phage (not sure about this term) home appliances. Yes it would take money to do it, but once people change their old ones with new ones it means that shops and producers will have more revenues and will be able to keep their employees and pay taxes to the governement, plus those employees will pay taxes too, not to mention that they won't be made redundant so they won't need help from the governement.

I believe that this would help the economy of any country much more than simply building another few nuclear power plants that would cost a fortune and would only employ a handful of highly skilled engineers.

:up: Would you like G Browns address, you could teach him a thing or two!!

[SGWilko]

An addict only changes his ways when he reaches the bottom and there's no alternative . When it is change or perish , change comes .

Some of us have realized we have reached the breaking point .
The ones who act first to change will be the ones to survive .

I am going off-grid .
Solar , wind , and hopefully methane , in a passive solar timberframe house .
With the design almost finished , we hope to start building in the spring .

I can't wait to get my last oil bill .

Give Kevin McLoad and whats that bird with the big malangas off the telly called - oh yeah, Sarah Beany a call. They would be very interested.

Seriously.

[Bagwan]

Give Kevin McLoad and whats that bird with the big malangas off the telly called - oh yeah, Sarah Beany a call. They would be very interested.

Seriously.

Who are they ?

[Daniel]

Who are they ?

I think he meant Kevin McCloud :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McCloud who presents a show in the UK called Grand Designs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_designs

[SGWilko]

Who are they ?

Grand Designs (K McLoud) http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/grand-designs/

Sarah Beany http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/property-ladder/property-ladder-extras/about-sarah-beeny-08-06-20_p_1.html

There you go.

Cheers Daniel, my psellign is awful!!

[ioan]

An addict only changes his ways when he reaches the bottom and there's no alternative . When it is change or perish , change comes .

Some of us have realized we have reached the breaking point .
The ones who act first to change will be the ones to survive .

I am going off-grid .
Solar , wind , and hopefully methane , in a passive solar timberframe house .
With the design almost finished , we hope to start building in the spring .

I can't wait to get my last oil bill .

Cheers to that! I hope it works out for you.
Good luck!

[Daniel]

An addict only changes his ways when he reaches the bottom and there's no alternative . When it is change or perish , change comes .

Some of us have realized we have reached the breaking point .
The ones who act first to change will be the ones to survive .

I am going off-grid .
Solar , wind , and hopefully methane , in a passive solar timberframe house .
With the design almost finished , we hope to start building in the spring .

I can't wait to get my last oil bill .

Are you not going to sell the power back to the grid?

[ioan]

:up: Would you like G Browns address, you could teach him a thing or two!!

Feel free to use any of the above if it helps you in any way. I'm sure it's nothing new and many people thought about it already, but the politicians are hesitating because those with interests in old technology are the ones who have the power.

[Daniel]

Yep different solutions work in different area.

In the mountains there is usually a chance for more rivers and thus hydro-energy. Less so with wind and sun energy.

In the flat it's usually more sun and more wind.

On the seaside there's tides, waves, wind and sun.

There's everywhere a chance to produce clean energy from renewable sources.

We can also use methane gas from waste (as pointed out by Bagwan), as it's way more harmless if burned than if it's released into the atmosphere, given that it's a gas with high greenhouse effect.

Why is that governments don't support people to buy or build autonomous houses, with geothermal heating and so on?
Maybe because they get more taxes from those oil and gas companies?!
This should stop, developing an industry for green renewable energy and also for less energy consuming products would be a way to go over this economic crisis in a much easier way.
Thing with that Ioan is that renewables are not a reliable and constant source of power. Here in the UK recently we had a very cold, cloudy and still spell of weather which meant wind power and solar power would not have done the job for us in those conditions where people need a reliable source of electricity the most.

I'm a firm beliver in wind power and renewables but I do think that they can only work in conjunction with nuclear power and that's the only way we will get to having zero emissions from power generation.

We've got 2 wind farms off the coast here in North Wales, 1 under construction and another windfarm which will have 200 turbines has been approved as well and is going to be commencing offshore work in 2011.

[ioan]

Thing with that Ioan is that renewables are not a reliable and constant source of power. Here in the UK recently we had a very cold, cloudy and still spell of weather which meant wind power and solar power would not have done the job for us in those conditions where people need a reliable source of electricity the most.

I'm a firm beliver in wind power and renewables but I do think that they can only work in conjunction with nuclear power and that's the only way we will get to having zero emissions from power generation.

We've got 2 wind farms off the coast here in North Wales, 1 under construction and another windfarm which will have 200 turbines has been approved as well and is going to be commencing offshore work in 2011.

I can see your point but I refuse to accept that a combination of all possible renewable energy sources can't, if done right, be enough and that we need nuclear (in it's actual form) no matter what.
There is always a better solution and humanity has to find it.

[Daniel]

I can see your point but I refuse to accept that a combination of all possible renewable energy sources can't, if done right, be enough and that we need nuclear (in it's actual form) no matter what.
There is always a better solution and humanity has to find it.

Just because you refuse to accept it doesn't mean you're right ;) :p

[ioan]

Just because you refuse to accept it doesn't mean you're right ;) :p

No, but if I gave up searching for a better solution I'd stop being a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. :)

PS: There is always a better solution, but often the choice is limited by outside factors (money and interests in this case).

[Bagwan]

Are you not going to sell the power back to the grid?
There's no incentive to do that here .
Unfortunately , here , the system is set against you in renewables .

We pay a bill that is broken down into it's elements of maintenance , clerical , and debt repayment , before we pay for a single kilowatt hour .
Add in the cost of bringing the lines in 550ft or so , with a single Doug fir pole at around $1200 , and a transformer at the end of it , and you begin to see the benefit of not hooking up .
Burying the lines is even more expensive .
Not hooking to the system here , pays for a good portion of the set-up to be self-sufficient itself .

If that were not enough to sway a person to renewables , our government will only credit you for the power created , to use against the power used , so any extra that you create is given up to the grid for no compensation at all .
Essentially , you can only retrieve the portion that is power , but are still on the hook for being connected , for all the rest of the bill .

I won't get an oil bill . I won't get an electricity bill .

I think I am going to like that . It's just a hunch .

I have a whole bunch of friends around here that work in the local nuke facility , and when thier lights are off in an outage , mine will be on .

I think I'm going to like that , too .

[Daniel]

There's no incentive to do that here .
Unfortunately , here , the system is set against you in renewables .

We pay a bill that is broken down into it's elements of maintenance , clerical , and debt repayment , before we pay for a single kilowatt hour .
Add in the cost of bringing the lines in 550ft or so , with a single Doug fir pole at around $1200 , and a transformer at the end of it , and you begin to see the benefit of not hooking up .
Burying the lines is even more expensive .
Not hooking to the system here , pays for a good portion of the set-up to be self-sufficient itself .

If that were not enough to sway a person to renewables , our government will only credit you for the power created , to use against the power used , so any extra that you create is given up to the grid for no compensation at all .
Essentially , you can only retrieve the portion that is power , but are still on the hook for being connected , for all the rest of the bill .

I won't get an oil bill . I won't get an electricity bill .

I think I am going to like that . It's just a hunch .

I have a whole bunch of friends around here that work in the local nuke facility , and when thier lights are off in an outage , mine will be on .

I think I'm going to like that , too .

Nice way for the government to encourage you to go renewable and take the burden off the power stations..... NOT

[ioan]

Nice way for the government to encourage you to go renewable and take the burden off the power stations..... NOT

We should be glad that in Europe is better though not perfect.
Sometimes I wonder why do we elect people with low intelligence who only know how to lie during a few months every few years.

[Bagwan]

You know , it'd be nice to be subsidized , but I don't need that incentive as well .
It's enough that I will pay it off and cut the life sucking umbillical that feeds those oil people .

In the end , I save money , and that's the fact that will turn the world around , not the fact that we're saving it from certain destruction .
We will save it , and it will the same money grabbing principles that do it .

There's big money in saving the world .
That will save us all .

[wmcot]

But basically Fiat haven't paid a cent as such for the 35% stake in Chrysler.


Which is pretty close to the current stock value! ;)