Congress Attempts Criminal Anti-Trust Violation

by Robert L. Gisel


Propping up the failing Chrysler and GM companies with $15 billion bailout monies flies in the teeth of anti-trust laws and should be considered criminally intended. At best this constitutes nationalization and socialistic governing.

You can quote me on that. In fact please do. The word on this should get out as far and wide as possible across the social media sites, letters to your Congressmen, state legislatures, anywhere you are heard.

Laws to prevent unfair practices by industry giants in forming monopolies has a shoe on the other foot. When the giants no longer provide a product the consumers want and will buy the business must be allowed to go where the consumers will buy. Government subsidy of these companies is so absurd it is utterly amazing any US civil servants would even contemplate it.

It may be possible, should this bill pass, to take a class action suit against the government in light of the anti-trust laws. Even viewed as a socialistic nationalization it does not reconcile with our Constitution.

The consumers have made it clear they want alternatives to the gas guzzler and they want genuine long-term value. With 20 new start-up companies in plug-in electric vehicles alone the consumer interest is clearly no longer on cars with mpg ratings in the 20s or cars that have designed in parts lifetimes of just beyond the warranty life.

The big 3 auto manufacturers are ailing because consumers are going elsewhere. There are better values in autos and the consumer knows this. Overseas companies are getting the business as they have greater gas mileage, are built better and hold up longer.

GM has cut its own throat by deliberately providing vehicles that are not so good that the consumer will hang onto them. In the 70's consumers could be heard to say "Why should I buy a new car, this one is going strong and still works just fine". The cars today can be demonstrated to be "just good enough" but not so good that it will cut across the sale of new cars. The truth is if you don't provide a car that lasts a long time, has great performance and low maintenance the consumer will stop coming back to that car company.

Which is precisely where the Big 3 are today. Poor long term value is the first thing the consumer will shuck in a stressed economy. Provide a terrific, exceptional car that lasts and the public will buy these even in a recession.

Throwing billions of dollars into GM and Chrysler (Ford has said they do not need bailout monies) will not stave off bankruptcy or downsizing for those companies; this will only prolong the time we have to endure their shoddy productions.

If they have to close plants, that's great, it makes room for companies the people want to support. Tesla, Lightening, Fisker Automotive or any other new contenders can take over the facilities and hire the laid-off workers.

Speak out to your Congressmen and anyone who will listen and stop this charade happening on Capital Hill.

GM claimed it had to take the EV-1 off the road because no-one wanted it and it wasn't selling. That is a falsehood. First off GM never offered it for sale. The EV-1 was released only on a leasing program. When the leases finally ran out GM came and picked the cars up telling the owners the lease was not renewable and if they don't return the cars they are guilty of theft.

GM said that it was too costly, that it was costing the company over $80,000 per vehicle. What really happened is that the company produced only 1117 of these which of course makes the cost per vehicle sky high.

The PR line from GM is that the electric battery technology was not advanced enough at the time to allow a workable EV to be produced. Actually GM didn't even try to put in a decent battery when the car was first released. It was equipped with cheap, garden-variety Delco car batteries. Only after these were found to be inadequate and consumer outrage forced a change did GM switch to a better battery, available all the while, that resolved the problems and also gave a little better range.

The GM "solution" to failure to deliver a sincere product was to recall them all and shred them at the wrecking yard. Even GM has now come to admit this was a poor way to handle the EV-1. Now GM is trying to stave off bankruptcy, an event that comes on the heels and is related to the EV-1 fiasco. Don't think they are disrelated. For a limited production of 1117 cars the bad press from killing the production resulted in a huge campaign of negative press. This continues today with the DVD documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that undertows a company which must have consumer confidence to survive.

Our great country was founded on opportunity. It was populated by immigrants that knew here they were free and could have a better living as entepreneurs through their own ingenuity. This free enterprise made our country great. Let it run its course now without this massive government subsidy.


Be A secret Santa, here.

16 Plus Plug-In EVs Proves Popularity

by Robert L. Gisel


Whoever thinks the Electric Vehicle isn't popular or is not wanted by consumers has their head in the sand. An explosion of new electric car inventions hitting the market proves it's popular draw.

"C-NET's Michael Kanellos did a little thinking out loud this week when he tried to list all of the electric car start-up companies (not major automakers working on EVs). He counted 16 small companies. The names on this list will be familiar to just about anyone who reads AutoblogGreen, but I thought it was interesting to see them all gathered in one place:

\"Tesla Motors (sports cars), Wrightspeed (sports cars and plug-in drivetrains for trucks), Fisker Automotive (electric sedans), Zap (low-speed and sports cars), Miles Automotive (low speed), Zenn Motors (low speed), AC Propulsion (retrofitting Scions for electric), Phoenix Motorcars (SUVs), Aptera (three-wheelers), Porteon (low speed electrics), Lightning (sports cars in England), Reva (economy cars), Ultramotor (electric trishaws), Myers Motors (freakish three-wheelers featured in Goldmember), Think (electric economy cars) and Venture Vehicles (three-wheeled electric cars.).

I'd say the only "major" player that Kanellos missed is GEM, which has been making glorified golf carts for ages. Other contenders not on his list include Universal Electric Vehicle, American Electric Vehicle, G-Wiz and Hybrid Technologies. I'm sure there's at least a couple more we're missing, but we're already got over 20 small EV companies. Pretty soon, he figures, this list will be much easier to calculate: 'History shows that most of these companies will be wiped out.' So it goes, as my favorite author would write. [Source: C-NET]"

That last premise saying "History shows that most of these companies will be wiped out" presumes that history repeats itself, that the existing monopolistic cutthroat major car companies are not prevented from covert dirty dealings to wipe out the companies. Looking over the failure of some very excellent car lines in the past that were ousted from the scene with even a casual observation reveals black PR campaigns and abscams and all manner of dirty tricks to plaque any good competitors into failure.

My own survey of this, in asking persons would they like a plug-in electric recreation vehicle that could go 300 or more miles before recharging while having the power and performance standards of existing gasoline vehicles, the answer is invariably "Yes, if you could provide that there would be a lot of takers". The next comment is generally this, that I will need some very good security to stay alive as my life would be in grave danger from the unscrupulous big car companies. That is not something that concerns me just that that is the consensus.

The bottom line is this: the public have shown they want the option to drive around without stopping to pumping gas, inventions abound to fulfill this, the state of the art in electric vehicles makes these realistically doable and now is the best time to pursue this option.


My EV retrofit program is going to require funding and your interested contributions are appreciated.

It's a Trojan Horse

by Robert L. Gisel


The new Chevrolet Volt released by GM looks appealing on first glance but don't be fooled -- it's a Trojan Horse. A company that could and should be giving value is shorting value and that, sooner or later, is going to bankrupt GM.

The GM site for the Volt says the car is revolutionary but these words are hollow. All you get from this car is the first 40 miles for free, or the price of 8 hours domestic charging of the lithium ion batteries, then it runs on gas or ethanol for hundreds of miles "until you have to stop to refuel". The 1990 Dodge Dynasty will do that, 385 miles from LA to Sacramento on one tank of gas. So what is new?

I think they could have done a lot better. In fact they did with the abandoned EV-1. It wasn't just green, it worked as a plug-in electric vehicle. GM's answer to that was to recall all the EV's when their lease ran out and send them to shredder at the junk yard. So you can understand my sarcasm for their new solution that is anything but the much simpler and more workable solution, in my mind, that GM trashed. GM in fact trashed a lot of good will in how they handled the EV-1 production.

The Volt is reputed to release in 2010 so it comes years late for the emerging EV market as well as too late for a revival of GM's diminishing market share. Way too little too late is just the economic view that cautions one not to go out and purchase GM shares; the story gets worse.

Technologically the car 's reputed breakthrough is factually a shortcoming. The actual range on electric is only 40 miles after which the extended mileage is provided by an ethanol (or gas) powered engine. One is not clear from the vague initial PR release information whether that is simply a generator for recharging purposes or it actually runs the car while running on ethanol, i.e., an ethanol hybrid. With more research and later PR releases from GM I find that it is apparently an on-board charging generator. For the company that produced the workable plug-in EV-1, which they took off the market amid lies and false justifications, showing they can do it better, this is not to be taken too seriously.

"Twenty months ago, in January 2007, we set for ourselves a very tough challenge… to develop an electric car, the Chevrolet Volt, that could not only travel 40 miles on pure battery power… but then, thanks to a small engine capable of generating electricity along the way… travel hundreds of additional miles without ever stopping to refuel."

To put this in perspective any car that gets 25 miles to the gallon will do "hundreds of additional miles without ever stopping to refill". Today most cars apart from trucks and SUVs will do that. Granted this: the refill won't consist of dropping a hundred dollar bill for a full tank of gas and and the significant amounts of greenhouse gas carbon emissions.

Furthermore the release says the car will require 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Where do you get ethanol in driving across the country? If you only want to drive around town get an all-electric glorified, street equipped golf cart. Yes, you can plug it in to your home outlet but this is by definition in meaningful terms not a full-blown plug-in EV.

By further comparison the Tesla battery packs take it 221 miles until you need to recharge; the Lightening takes you 250 miles. Even GM's EV-1 went 60 miles with a poorly planned Delco battery set up. Recharging of the Volt is "less than 8 hours" or 3 to 4 hours with a 240 volt quick charge versus overnight recharging for the Tesla and overnight charging or 10 minute 3 phase (240 volt) quick-charge for the Lightening.

So this is the best GM can do, while calling it revolutionary, 40 miles electric and a semi-hybrid beyond that? They must think the consumer is stupid or on drugs.

Exceptional value in automotive production points to some very famous casualties. The DeLorean DMC-12 did this with its now famous albiet defunct stainless steel over fiberglass body, Elastic Reservoir Moulding chasis and gull-wing doors. For that, I believe, John DeLorean was entrapped into a drug dealing bust and out of business. With production of an updated version underway we might see this one revived.

Other innovative and high value production cars were the Tucker, the Packard and the Studebaker Avanti as well as the full line of Studebaker cars. The story is different on each, of price wars and underhanded dealings that lend one to believe that they did not die due to their value, each being exceptional but by reason of interferance. One can assume a lot as these all were very popular with the public.

GM dramatizes lack in value in other aspects as in, for instance, the lowest miles per gallon compared with it's competitor car manufacturers. Just good enough to sell and not good enough to get excited about, this delivery attitude is going to bankrupt GM one of the days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_centennial
Advancing the project to establish Electric Recreational Vehicles needs funding so your contributions of any amount forwards the cause and is greatly appreciated.

_________________________________________________________

Earth 4 Energy - Renewable Energy Solutions - Wind And Solar Power!
Don't pay for your electricity any longer...Instead, the power company will pay YOU!
"Michael's complete step-by-step fully illustrated manual + easy to follow videos will have you generating your own electricity for less than $200!"
Click Here!
_________________________________________________________

Price of Gas in Alaska

by Robert L. Gisel


The Juneau Empire just ran an article on the price of gas at the pump In Juneau, Alaska, fluctuations of, prompting me to reply with this comment:

This time last year when I flew from LA to Anchorage the only thing cheaper in Alaska was the gas. No joke. At $3.29 a gallon in LA it was, lowest in town, $2.99 a gallon, went up to $3.09 (lowest station) in the two weeks I was there. Still it was over $3.30 in LA. I was told that was because it was the gas refined in Alaska.

"Milsec" above logged these prices from Juneau:

6/05/08 $4.059 gal $122.54 Barrel
6/11/08 $4.159 gal $128.86 Barrel
6/23/08 $4.419 gal $140.21 Barrel
7/04/08 $4.499 gal $145.29 Barrel
7/09/08 $4.499 gal $145.08 Barrel
7/19/08 $4.649 gal $128.88 Barrel
8/15/08 $4.599 gal $113.77 Barrel

In Sacramento, north side, the price has been over $4.00 a gallon since June. Mid July or so it finally hit at least $4.43, lowest stations, Kwick Stop and Exon AM/PM, and as high as $4.69 even $4.75 at Chevrons and Shell Stations. This month it finally came back under $4.00. Today the price has posted at $3.72, lowest, to 10 to 20 cents higher in other stations. All of these prices were higher yet in South Sacramento.

Daily the gas stations here are given a wholesale price figure and daily the price is raised or lowered, or not, according to the competitiveness and goodwill of the station manager.

So why not gas from the refineries in Alaska into Juneau instead of Saudi gas from Seattle? I highly doubt that it is Alaska gas from Seattle. I'd think you'd have a better chance to get cheaper gas where you produce it, even in California which refines gas and still runs among the highest prices in the nation, at least the south 48. Talk to your own, Governor or whoever will listen, as very possibly the cheapest (and home grown) gas available to Alaska is refined in Alaska.

There's always the alternate route: LimitlessEnergy.blogspot.com. Yank your drive train and put in an electric engine.

Let's face it, price at the pump corresponds to the daily spot price of crude oil and that is speculated and manipulated for profit making purposes. The only guarantee of no worry of the price of gas at the pump is don't pump any. There are alternatives, doable and affordable, that make much more sense right now.

The New Wave In Boating

by Robert L. Gisel


This news feed just came in for a new boat propulsion system: Japanese sailor first to cross the Pacific in a wave-powered boat. This is a boat propelled by wave action that was just sailed across the Pacific Ocean solely by wave power. The journey took 110 days, but hey, he made it, okay?

He says his target was to arrive in late May so arriving in July he was just a bit overdue because of low wave action. That is an interesting but unique version the doldrums.

Obviously it's not quite up for pulling water skiers, but look at the Wright Brothers first flights: the initial experimental airplanes weren't exactly barnstormers. The adventurer, Kenichi Horie, does admit it's only a start in an alternate energy system where no one else has been looking. It is remarkable nonetheless.

Maybe he could try this: using solar power to heat water to steam an jet this into water ahead of the wave powered fins to speed up the action. There's some other alternates I'd try first, like an electric motor.

Fuel Your Car With Water?

Here is a proposal to significantly improve your gas mileage with tap water:

http://www.runsyourcarwithwater.com/blog/index.php/save-money-on-gas/

If you get 40% improvement in your gas mileage you could pay a lot less at the pump. My car gets 22 miles per gallon. A 40% increase puts it at 30 miles to the gallon. Where I am now paying $4.39 per gallon this will stretch to an equivalent of $2.63 per gallon by a 40% reduction in gallons at the pump or mileage increase.

If the kit will do what it says it will it is well worth the few hours time and investment of less than $200.

A good friend of mine tells me of a story where he used to sleep in the garage with a shotgun to protect his uncle's car that ran on water. I never learned how it was done - it was a family secret - but I do know that it has been done. I will be getting one of these kits to test this out myself to see if this conversion is workable and viable.

Has anyone implemented this kit? I welcome comments and your feedback.

Exxon Terminators Versus Rockefeller Transformers

by Robert L. Gisel


An article came to my attention that I just had to comment on.

http://dailymail.com/comments?build=yes&ContID=200805290176

Apparently 15 or so members of the Rockefeller family are urging Exxon Oil to give consideration to the issue of global climate change. I must say I am quite dubious that this highly unlikely, to me, excursion by the Rockefeller families let alone Exxon Oil will result in any carry-through more than mere lip service. However my great belief in the goodness of mankind allows me to consider this as a serious offer to which I tender some very genuinely beneficial solutions.

This group of Rockefeller descendants cosponsored shareholder resolutions for change for Exxon Oil. This is the largest of the 34 companies formed when Standard Oil was broken up in the antitrust action by the Supreme Court in 1911. The article by the Charleston Daily Mail is very enlightening. You can see my feedback in the comments where I address the importances of the issues.

No datum is of any importance unevaluated and in particular unless against datums of comparative order. This is not meaning simply the proverbial apples to oranges but if you try to think of how do apples compare with screwdrivers it's a bit of a stretch right?

What is good for apples is not what is good for screwdrivers so viewpoint is important. The super-rich may think that what is good for them is good for everyone else as their jobs and capital feed back into society. The struggling middle class or destitute poor may have quite another opinion if inflation is so out of hand one cannot afford to keep bread on the table. Building fine palaces and homes from the lumber in the forests may seem a good thing. When a century or so later there are no more forests as in the once thickly forested Mediterranean areas this becomes manifest as a bad act.

Keeping a business going on continuous sales is good for business. A one-time sale is usually regarded as not so good unless the demand for these remains unlimited. The original horseless carriages were electric. The apparent reason for favoring combustion engines in the ensuing development was forwarded as insufficient battery technology. One suspects that repeat business by reason of the necessity to refill the gas tank was the true deciding business decision.

One suspects as well that it was also the determining factor in killing the electric cars several years ago. GM pulled all it's leased EV-1s and sent them to the crusher. Same with other EV car companies at the time. That Toyota would make the same decision but did not have the same situation as GM is a dubious coincident. Meanwhile the President of the united neocons pushes a program for the hydrogen fuel cell in a program requiring the addition of an infrastructure of added pumps around the nation replacing the expensive gasoline with expensive hydrogen fill ups.

I might even go along with hydrogen as an alternative if it were sold with the equipment to produce your own hydrogen out of water in your own garage. This would be a truly independent source similar to electric but it doesn't seem to be rolling out that way. For mobile applications, hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline.


This whole subject needs a lot of help in the right direction so the Rockefellers are certainly welcome to pitch in and, hopefully, put their money where their mouth is.

Price At The Pump

by Robert L. Gisel

Now that regular gas is hitting 3.6999 at the pump (over 4.00 for supreme) with the summer not yet started in which this will soar even more (probably over 4.00 for regular) it is evident this demands some real solutions. The toll on the pocket book is actually the lesser factor in the whole problem this presents.

This writer remembers when the price of gas went up from 35 cents a gallon to 40 cents with speculation it was expected to go even higher. A friend of mine was heard to protest this loudly saying that when gas got to $1.00 a gallon he would stop driving. One can imagine he is having great difficulties in keeping a car on the road today.

Inflation has driven the price of everything up. Just look at the price of a new car and compare that to 30 or 40 years ago. It is a foregone conclusion prices will go up. Technological solutions, however, can bring prices of goods down. Just take a look at the evolutionary price of hand-held calculators or computers comparatively more expensive when they were first released. The price of oil is rather more complicated.

The cost of oil and gasoline while monitored by supply and demand these are also monitored by the world scene. Where the supply lies in the hands of other nations who might not want to do business with ours or with whom we might want to do business with due to their hostile or even criminal political inclinations and affiliations this complicates supply and demand. Where the Saudis have most of the untapped oil it could be a real problem in national security if we were not able or willing to supplement our own oil shortages from their abundance.

Who wants it though when burning oil and gas contribute such damaging effects on the ecology of the planet as to present real life threatening climate changes to spaceship Earth. It is a very dim view where one cannot be responsible for one's actions and the effects this will have on the world our grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.

The oil cartel is destined to make profits at the consumers' expense so we'll just take that as a given. Wanting to beat that game lies somewhere between and outrage and self defense. The ideal scene would be to never pump anymore gas while being able to drive anywhere. That is doable with electric cars. Wind, solar, hydroelectric plants and atomic reactors can all provide inexpensive electricity all quite out the loop of the oil cartel.

The existing scene of transportation is such that there is already a dearth of gas and diesel cars and trucks on the road, they will continue to be on the road and therein lies the greatest barrier to reducing the price of gas at the pump as well as emissions that pollute.

It is of little value to have in view an ideal scene if there is not a handling to bring the existing scene up to that higher scene. As we cannot expect all the cars on the road to stop driving the first line of attack would be to do something realistic that improves matters within the scope of what we have.

An immediate improvement can be made with sufficient gains in fuel efficiency and reduce harmful emissions with gas and oil additives. Ethos is such a product. As an oil and gas treatment Ethos boasts a minimum gain of 10% increase in gas efficiency as well as 10% improvement of emissions. There are no doubt other similar products though this is the best I've encountered to date. The gain figures could be quite substantial if this were to be in wide spread use. We'd see an immediate result, it is available now and it doesn't require approval from the car companies to take advantage of the savings and efficiency right now.

On the other end of the spectrum electric vehicles have zero emissions, are very economical and the technology has already been developed to make this available now. Short of that the current trend in hybrids reduces emissions and increases mileage. Even better would be plug-in hybrids if demands are made for the car companies to produce these. An all electric plug-in still tops the list of right-now, doable and realistic solutions.

The movement to produce hydrogen cell cars is wrought in controversy. The likelihood of setting up the infrastructure to enable hydrogen cars across the nation is slim and at best scores of years away. It is debatable if the hydrogen cell car would even be adequately efficient and economical energy production to warrant the efforts being thrown into this.

Since the best solutions, particularly all electric, take the oil mongers out of the loop these are heavily balked by the auto and oil industries into a political quagmire.

Our first cars were electric. Combustion motors were a later development. As late as 2003 GM was producing an electric car, the EV 1, when they decided to kill it. All the EV 1s were exclusively on lease so it was easy to recall these and have them all crushed. That other manufactures took their EVs off the market at the same time and crushed any remaining supplies of them indicates it was an inside circle agreement to do away with all EVs.

Attempts to revive the EV by affirmative political action led by groups like Plug In America and Greenpeace are admirable. This is nevertheless an uphill battle against the heavily entrenched vested interests. Why even go there?

A bright idea comes to mind that would bypass the powers that be and cut straight to the chase with a solution that any individual could take action on immediately. Cars on the road now, some more easily than others, could be converted to electric motors. This is actually a doable first step.

The limitation of EVs has in the past been having a workable battery arrangement. That technology has come up to speed and is no longer a drawback. This leaves us with the question of range.

This writer can think of several ways right off the bat that the mileage of an EV, before requiring a battery recharge, can be greatly extended. To date there hasn't been an EV you could hop in and drive across the country. That is an oversight. Give me a mechanic versed on working on EVs, who can swap out a combustion engine drive train with an electric motor and I will give you an EV having all the desirable features in particular a long enough range to really go somewhere. If that interests anyone I will even tell you how it can be done.

If you like this blog drop some coin in the cup for the Sacramento Area Screenwriters Group.

___________________________________________________________

/>Earth 4 Energy - Renewable Energy Solutions - Wind And Solar Power! Don't pay for your electricity any longer...Instead, the power company will pay YOU!"Michael's complete step-by-step fully illustrated manual + easy to follow videos will have you generating your own electricity for less than $200!"Click Here!

___________________________________________________________