General motor crisis

[Pinto Girl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Dupuy @ Oct 9 2006, 10:18 PM) [snapback]330416[/snapback]</div>

ALL car companies build what they can sell. As long as people buy the Ford Mountain of Metal and the Chevy Behemoth (and the Toyota Sequoia), they will be built. It worked great until recently. We (socirty in general) need to stop buying them!
[/b]

I agree 110%. It's actually very reassuring to know that the solution lies with us as individuals. Empowering, too

But...

Because of the time necessary to bring a new model to market, it's important that automotive manufacturers 'lead' the market, rather than follow trends.

After all, even the newest car is at least two or three years old, if you include time for gestation.

I think that success in the auto industry is more about settling on a rational long term philosophy -- a mission statement, if you will -- instead of following the fashion of the moment. And that, really, is what GM has failed to do.

It's also about seeing governmental regulation as a challenge, not an impediment. It's really a joke how the American industry fights against economy and pollution standards at every turn...and has a long history of doing so.

The idea that environmental sustainability and big business are mutually exclusive is, I think, rubbish. Change won't happen overnight, to be sure. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single footstep, right?

[eagle33199]

Well said Alberto. however, remember that, in regards to the people here, you're most likely "preaching to the choir". While there are some here who got the Prius for other reasons, many (maybe even most) i believe got it for the reduced emissions and reduced oil consumption. It's not a perfect solution, but it helps to send a signal to those in power that we want something better for the world.

Unfortunately, there's only so much we can do. For my part, i take every chance i get to impress upon "people of power" the need for stricter regulations. I also try to make the "smart" choice when making purchases (such as buying the Prius and getting what clean energy i can). Unfortunately there just isn't much else the average consumer can do. If i could, i'd build a cold fusion power plant in my garage and power the rest of the block and then some. Unfortunately, i'm forced to get my power over the lines, and my options are limited.

All that being said, i think the situation is getting better. Every year, it seems, there are more options for obtaining clean energy to power your home. Additionally, new companies come out every year to try to combat this problem. One great example i know about is http://www.hydrogenllc.net, which aims to use hydrogen fuel stacks to provide power in industrial situations where hydrogen is an unwanted byproduct of the production of production of chlorine, industrial gases, coke, synthesis gas from coal, and ammonia.

So in conclusion, keep pushing for better solutions to our energy needs. Eventually we'll be off our dependance on oil and coal, and that will be a glorious day. on the flip side of the same coin, don't get too frustrated, as there are companies out there doing what they can, and consumers doing what they can in their purchases.

[chogan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 10 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]330755[/snapback]</div>

Well said Alberto. however, remember that, in regards to the people here, you're most likely "preaching to the choir". While there are some here who got the Prius for other reasons, many (maybe even most) i believe got it for the reduced emissions and reduced oil consumption. It's not a perfect solution, but it helps to send a signal to those in power that we want something better for the world.

Unfortunately, there's only so much we can do. For my part, i take every chance i get to impress upon "people of power" the need for stricter regulations. I also try to make the "smart" choice when making purchases (such as buying the Prius and getting what clean energy i can). Unfortunately there just isn't much else the average consumer can do. If i could, i'd build a cold fusion power plant in my garage and power the rest of the block and then some. Unfortunately, i'm forced to get my power over the lines, and my options are limited.

All that being said, i think the situation is getting better. Every year, it seems, there are more options for obtaining clean energy to power your home. Additionally, new companies come out every year to try to combat this problem. One great example i know about is http://www.hydrogenllc.net, which aims to use hydrogen fuel stacks to provide power in industrial situations where hydrogen is an unwanted byproduct of the production of production of chlorine, industrial gases, coke, synthesis gas from coal, and ammonia.

So in conclusion, keep pushing for better solutions to our energy needs. Eventually we'll be off our dependance on oil and coal, and that will be a glorious day. on the flip side of the same coin, don't get too frustrated, as there are companies out there doing what they can, and consumers doing what they can in their purchases.
[/b]

I don't want to take this too far afield, but I've been in the process of reviewing all of my family's direct and indirect energy consumption, in so far as possible. I found one simple, painless, healthful change that will, I believe, save as much fossil fuel annually as if we were to stop driving a car competely: eat grass-fed beef instead of grocery-store grain-fed beef.

Disclaimer: yes, a vegeterian or vegan diet would be better, in about as many ways as you'd care to name. Please don't flame me because I eat meat. I was looking for changes that required no effort or sacrifice (on my part) first.

I thought I might share this information because a) it was a total suprise to me and b) it costs almost nothing to make the change.

First, for us, gasoline is the least of our worries, accounting for about 12% of our total energy use. We don't drive much, and we drive a Prius. We use maybe 250 to 300 gallons of gasoline annually.

Second, the amount of fossil fuel embodied in our food was a suprise. Assuming available data on US typical diet is correct, and that our diet is near typical (though we try hard not to be), the energy required to produce our food accounted for over three times as much fossil fuel consumption as our driving. I'll go through the math below for those interested.

Third, most of that fossil fuel consumption is due to grain-fed animal protein. Grain-fed beef, for example, uses more than an order-of-magnitude more fossil fuel input than the average of all vegetable calories, at least insofaras as I read the data. That's largely because it takes, as they say, 10 pound of grain to make a pound of beef. So, animal products account for the minority of food calories but the majority of fossil fuel calories embodied in the average US diet. Estimates for grass-fed (pasture) beef, by contrast, make it maybe one-fourth as fossil-fuel intensive as grain-fed beef.

Fourth, a guy who sells at our local farmer's market here in Vienna will sell us a side of grass-fed (pasture) beef at a seemingly reasonble price. We've tried his products and we like them a lot. We've contracted to buy a side of beef this fall, which we'll stow in our (efficient, chest) freezer.

The bottom line is that, if I've done the math right, and if the underlying data are correct, then this simple change -- eat grass fed beef from a local farmer intead of grocery-store grain fed beef -- will reduce our net fossil fuel consumption by the equivalent of about 300 gallons of gasoline. And will cost me essentially nothing, near as I can figure. Moreover, the grain-fed product is leaner and is supposed to have a more healthful mix of fatty acids. Not to mention that the animals actually get to walk around, as opposed to much of the life-cycle of grain-fed beef. And so on.

Here's the arithmetic.

The rough conversion is that it takes 10 Kcal of fossil fuel to produce every edible dietary Kcal (aka calorie), on average, for the US diet. That's based on a smattering of web-based sites, some of which appear to reference fairly serious and thoughtful research. Others of which do not. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 Kcal of energy. The average American eats 2750 cal/day (per USDA statistics). Do the math, and a year of food production for the average American accounts for fossil fuel equivalent to roughly 325 gallons of gasoline. I figured, for my family of four, roughly the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline-equivalentwas used to produce our food.

I would not stake my life on the 10 fossil fuel (K)calories per food (K)calorie, but I've seen at least two independent estimates in that range. It seems about right.

In my modeling of the savings, I assumed that beef accounted for 17% of our total food calories (maybe high, but it will after we buy a side of beef, and other animal sources are only modestly less fuel-inefficient), that grain-fed beef uses about 30 fossil-fuel calories per edible calorie, and that grass-fed beef uses about 7.5 fossil-fuel calories per edible calorie. Those statistics for beef appear to be in the range of credibility, with Industry-sponsored sources giving (unsurprisingly) a much lower, but much less credible, figure.

The result, under these assumptions, is that this one change is worth about the same as 300 gallons of gasoline, in fossil fuel savings. And is better for us (though again, not as good as a vegetarian diet would be.) We live fairly frugally, and this one change dwarfs all the other energy savigns changes I have been considering.

[AlbertoC67]

Many thanks to everybody for your posts, I am convinced that the circulation of ideas is a great thing.

Many interesting are your opinions on environment and energy especially the post about the environmental impact of food style and nice the definition of GM as "General mismanagement".

I remember some times ago I was interested to buy some stock of GM but the strange behaviour of the CEO stopped me:
GM buyied stocks of FIAT (the main cars constructor in Italy) before a very bad crisis and sold off all at a price more than an half less than the price of first purchase! And paying a strong penalty fine!!!!
In that period FIAT shipped in bad waters but it was clear that the change of the management was super-good.
Now FIAT works well and their stock have been risen up 2,5 times more.
Everybody recognise in that new management the BEST of FIAT could do.
But Mr Wagoneer preferred to sell off.
If I was one of the most important chairmen of GM I'd throw him out of the window.

greetings to everyone