Falcon doomed from 2010

[OzJavelin]

All the options - Hybrid, LPG, CNG, Diesel - are useful stopgaps to a solution we haven't found yet .. apparently. If it was easy to power vehicles by alternative means we'd have done it already.

I'd also like to throw into the mix the idea of SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter cars .. like the Atom. 2-seater only type space frame "cars" with large motorbike engines, etc. We don't need 2000kg SUVs for individuals to drive to work in. Might be inconvenient for many, and might be issues with our nanny-state safety and our fixation on creature comforts, but we aren't going to emerge from an energy crisis unscathed.

[Tles]

(sorry for another long post)

Originally Posted by Grunter

Labor, Liberal, Jedi Knight, doesn't matter, it's a poor government decision with no additional benefit, over what was already going to happen, to the people that are funding the $70m.

Agree. Same price and needs to show a similar resale to the petrol model for the fleet buyers to get interested.

Your not in a Union are you?? ;) The Liberal Government had nothing to do with any decision by the auto industry to build, or not build, any "Eco/Hybrid" or fuel efficient vehicles, apart from setting out emission targets to be met. The money the Aussie auto industry receives is to keep it alive (due to the cost of building cars here for the market we have) and to keep jobs intact.

If you want to point the finger, look at Joe Public and its previous lack of interest in Hybrid vehicles. The only reason they are getting any kind of interest now is not because of any environmental benefit that we were told was important to our future, but because of the cost of fuel and the direct impact to the hip pocket.

Don't particularly care how much money the Governments give to the car companies (vested interest acknowledged) whether it be 70 million or 7 billion, the issue is that the local manufacture of world class, high technology top tier manufacture is maintained, and new answers sought. Engineers are kept in the local automotive industry, especially those mature students with real world on the job experience not just theoretical, and continue to gain global experience through OS placement. Rather than taking bigger money to dig bigger holes in the ground or determine how to get ingredients on to the boat quicker.
Whilst all this has a cost and productivity should be increased and protectionism should be reduced there has to be a happy medium.

Right now, and the prior posts illustrate it as well as anything, the world is seeking at least one alternative answer to supplant or supplement oil. The ideal answer is to link any support to Research & Development investment and activity and commercial implementation of new technology. In many ways the Toyota support is just that, despite the political "statesticular manipulation" of the Rudds, Brumbies, advisors and so on.
Taxes on safety such as paying extra GST and stamp duty when optioning ESC or side curtain airbags are negative too, but if the companies making the bags and so on got this money to make them cheap enough to put them in all models standard then it would be far more acceptable.

Whilst no Government, religion, or media oulet is truly without fault in anything, it is becoming obvious that while the pace of change is dramatically increasing, reaction times are still painfully slow. With all the wealth flowing into the coffers from mining it is probably time to set up a Norway style offshore investing fund to provide both a diversion for that wealth to bring inflation and $ in check here, while securing the wealth of the Nation through compound and interest to spend. Probably better value to the less rich than another tax break would be.
Joe Public is open to new fuel sourced vehicles and their lease companies and peer group (and kids) seem to give them qudos when they buy them so despite the premiums now they will sell. The premiums will diminish with increasing demand, competition and uptake just like with LCDs and everything else.
Ford does desperately need to release a injected (liquid please) LPG dual fuel system and particularly on Territory. Holden will be offering a dedicated LPG V6 shortly. LPG may not be the final answer, but for most it will be the best answer for the next 4 years which means their next lease term or update.

[NAK302]

i need to know why my hard earnt tax paying dollars have been given to a multi-national company that earns billions of dollars each year.

i remember the doom and gloom when they ditched leaded petrol for the cat**** we now use. smart people found they're way around that and they will in years to come.

[Jayden]

I want to post a long useless post to balance out the seriousness:

Maybe ford should bring back their nucleus concept idea. 100 years of power in a small reactor they can then just jettison at Jupiter later. impenetrable power spheres? Ball park figures anyone? or solar satellites directing a blanket of energy over cities? In the mean time, localised fuel. Which is what seems to be happening anyway, gas for wa, bio, electric, petrol, hydrogen, horse and whatever else suits best elsewhere. Theres still the possibility they find massive oil reserves in unchartered ocean beds isnt there? they havnt checked hardly any of it yet. imagine if they found we have 900 years left in one well. quite unlikely, but id laugh. many would cry. I think most of us no longer want to use oil.

[Tles]

Originally Posted by Jayden

I want to post a long useless post to balance out the seriousness:

Maybe ford should bring back their nucleus concept idea. 100 years of power in a small reactor they can then just jettison at Jupiter later. impenetrable power spheres? Ball park figures anyone? or solar satellites directing a blanket of energy over cities? In the mean time, localised fuel. Which is what seems to be happening anyway, gas for wa, bio, electric, petrol, hydrogen, horse and whatever else suits best elsewhere. Theres still the possibility they find massive oil reserves in unchartered ocean beds isnt there? they havnt checked hardly any of it yet. imagine if they found we have 900 years left in one well. quite unlikely, but id laugh. many would cry. I think most of us no longer want to use oil.

You are correct - methane power best and most prolific - hot air

[rodderz]

Looking at the comments on the news.com.au website about Toyota's big money handout has everyone fuming. It seems everyone see's the stupidity of the govt giving an already very profitable company huge amounts of cash as they reckon it will save everyone from spending money on fuel!

They seem to think that because it's electric partly that it will save everyone money to buy other things. Toyota would be laughing their heads off!

[paule11]

I will have one of those steam powered cars please

[mrniceguy]

Originally Posted by nugget378

Even if its developed in a successfull way,all that will happen is the oil/mining companies will jack the price up so its as costly as petrol to run..

Dunno about that. Remember natural gas is used in evey house. Would be an almighty storm if they started jacking the price up. And at 17c a litre its got a long way to go till it reaches parity with petrol.

[XR Martin]

We have something like 200+ Years of coal reserves. You can turn coal into Diesel without too much effort or money, theres a company already doing it in WA and plans to supply 25% of Australia's Diesel within the next few years.

A few more companies start doing the same and we could be independent

Theres also massive supply of oil shale reserves in the US and Canada, something like 5 times the size of the ME reserves. But it was only once the oil price reached $75+ a barrel that it became worthwhile to extract and convert.
We wont run out of oil anytime soon, it just wont be 80c a litre though

[DrewB]

Arg, what a messy and extremely complex issue this is...

Lots of points.

Re: Electric cars use fossil fuel power-plant energy. Whilst this is true, energy production at a power-plant is much more efficient that a cars ICE. Its not a accurate comparison. And as greener electricity generators come online, the end user doesn't have to change or buy new equipment, as the existing infrastructure will be used.

Re: Biodiesel. I know in NZ they are developing a bacteria produced fuel, but making biodiesel from crops is potentially not much better than using oil-diesel, when you look at the whole carbon footprint. Growing the crop requires a lot of energy, which detracts from the end result significantly. And we don't want to give Brazilians to chop down more of the Amazon for growing bio-crops.

Re: Hydrogen. Efficient production methods actual creates large quantities of CO2 as a bi-product. And I'm sure they can work on this, but currently it takes 2½ times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than is obtained from it.

I might be wrong on some of these issues, I'm not an Environmental Scientist, but I try to keep up with the pro's and con's of all the options.

What I want to see is a variety of green power generators (wind, solar, nuclear, clean-coal) feeding the grid, then 99% of the cars lapping up this energy, saving the planet, and the other 1% of cars are Ford V8's, making huge noise and HP!

[XR Martin]

I read an interesting article that electric cars powered by electricity derived from an average coal plant, actually polluted more than a ULEV petrol vehicle.

Electric cars would be fine if all the electricity was derived from Nuclear.

[SSbaby]

What I find infuriating is the belief that Toyota were considering building hybrid Camrys here without a $70m govt handout...

It is yet another example of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's propensity to make up expensive, meaningless, policy on the run.

This stream-of-consciousness decision is the latest in an exponentially expanding list of Ruddelusions that would be marked as harmless except for the fact that they all come with a huge price tag for already suffering Australian consumers.

In this case, the ticket to dream costs $70 million in federal and Victorian government funds -- a huge bonus for carmaker Toyota which was planning to build hybrid cars here with or without such a generous subsidy.

One of the 20-somethings running Rudd's office should have asked the Japanese before flashing the chequebook but that is not the way of this shoot-from-the-lip adolescent team's approach to management.

Again, they have ignored the best advice from the Productivity Commission which has also warned against the idiotic FuelWatch program and ploughed ahead, tossing away taxpayers' hard-earned dollars as fast as the Mint can print the stuff.

There are other problems, too. Even though Rudd and Victorian Premier John Brumby have guaranteed Toyota sales into their car fleets (ignoring the usual tendering processes), current sales of such hybrids are extremely limited.

Even if the price of fuel continues to rocket despite the Rudd Government's pledge to keep downward pressure at the pump, as well as keeping a watch on groceries, housing affordability, whales, nuclear disarmament, OPEC, Asian region diplomacy, and the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan, the reality is motoring experts claim small diesel cars are more fuel efficient and emit less greenhouse gases than hybrids.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...007146,00.html

I don't really understand why Rudd is not investing the money locally to help ease the fuel crisis. He's basically given it away to the manufacturer that least needs it!!!

[TurboUteris]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

What I find infuriating is the belief that Toyota were considering building hybrid Camrys here without a $70m govt handout...



I don't really understand why Rudd is not investing the money locally to help ease the fuel crisis. He's basically given it away to the manufacturer that least needs it!!!

I don't think anyone understands Rudd,I don't think Rudd understands himself!
Lets face it he expects us to beleive that he's OS going on some insane mission of ridding the world of nuclear weapons..Please.
Rudd = Dudd!
Fail.

[flappist]

All politics and crap aside.

2010 is 18 months away.

Falcon is selling well and the average aussie does NOT want tiny little bubblemobiles. We live in the 6th largest country in the world so we tend to travel long distances. Bubblemobiles with 3 kids and luggage are just painful.

In 2010 the FG2 falcon will be bugger all different to the FG, in the same way that the BA was bugger all different to the AU. Different engines, same size, same basic shape, same transmission topology (RWD).

Only the greenie nutters, zealots and tightarses are really going to do anything in such a short time period.
The rest of us really don't care and will buy what they want at the time with cost of operation WAY down the list of priorities.

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be..... Falcon without end...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by DrewB

Arg, what a messy and extremely complex issue this is...

Lots of points.

Re: Electric cars use fossil fuel power-plant energy. Whilst this is true, energy production at a power-plant is much more efficient that a cars ICE. Its not a accurate comparison. And as greener electricity generators come online, the end user doesn't have to change or buy new equipment, as the existing infrastructure will be used.

Electricity for these cars actually does create more carbon (fanciful crap this carbon rubbish, FFS we are carbon based so do we ban humans too?), but does create more smog than an ICE. Also, an awful lot of energy is lost in transmission with electricity, and is therefore not viable. The EEV that GM created was so ugly, it was only surpassed by its lack of range 15km-50km from charging it all night. It was killed as there was no market for it at the time, and oil was $7.00US per barrel. As for our existing infrastructure, we have brown outs in summer as it has not been updated in years and cannot cope now. Massive investment would be needed for this to work.

Originally Posted by DrewB

Re: Biodiesel. I know in NZ they are developing a bacteria produced fuel, but making biodiesel from crops is potentially not much better than using oil-diesel, when you look at the whole carbon footprint. Growing the crop requires a lot of energy, which detracts from the end result significantly. And we don't want to give Brazilians to chop down more of the Amazon for growing bio-crops.

Again with the carbon nonsense. Firstly, there is an economy of scale to be reashed here and you have overlooked the main point that biodiesel is a renewable resource as opposed to non renewables like oil. The other advantage is that biodiesel is something we can produce and manage ourselves negating our reliability on a globally priced resource like oil. Growing the crop in areas where rainfall is abundant is the key, places in the NT are already being considered. What Brazil did is wrong but there is plenty of high yield land available in Australia without chopping down rainforests. Ethanol can be created from all sorts of crops, generally the molasses of sugar refining and the rotting biproduct of sugar refining - using something we already ordinarily waste.

Originally Posted by DrewB

Re: Hydrogen. Efficient production methods actual creates large quantities of CO2 as a bi-product. And I'm sure they can work on this, but currently it takes 2½ times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than is obtained from it.

Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.3% of atmospheric gasses, it is also essential for life on this planet. CO2 is used by plants that photosynthesise to extract energy of which the biproduct is oxygen. You breathing now is making CO2. I think all the CO2 alarmists should lead by example and hold their breath for a very long time. Not for nothing, but people should really see this global warming crap for what it is; socialists wanting a one world government and desperate to control the masses so long as they are above everyone else. Think meglomania and think of that fat Al Gore who has amassed billions in personal wealth from this scam, including the billions his company will rake in from carbon taxes. Hypocrisy is usually rife in his calibre and he doesn't disappoint, one of his 8 mansions consumes more power than a small town.

As for hydrogen, it is energy intensive in its production and therefore not viable unless when created with nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cheapest, cleanest and now safest energy source on the planet; but it has been hijacked by alarmists that cite Chernobyl (a 30 year old reactor built on the cheap by communists) as reasons not to do it. 60% of americas energy comes from nuclear, how many accidents have you heard of in the last 20 years?

Originally Posted by DrewB

I might be wrong on some of these issues, I'm not an Environmental Scientist, but I try to keep up with the pro's and con's of all the options.

What I want to see is a variety of green power generators (wind, solar, nuclear, clean-coal) feeding the grid, then 99% of the cars lapping up this energy, saving the planet, and the other 1% of cars are Ford V8's, making huge noise and HP!

Wind and solar power is too inefficient, nobody wants a windmill dotting the coast as it is the most expensive land available and those turning blades create noise. As for solar, it is still only in the 17% range for efficiency, and as proven by Krudd with his socialist agenda he doesn't want people not using the government owned grid which fills up government coffers. You can forget nuclear as our populist PM won't make any hard decisions at all, and doesn't know how he can spin it to make him look like a saint. Clean coal is a farce, there is no such thing except for driving the price up by putting taxes on it in the name of carbon footprints. Yes, there is lots of rhetoric about it but it is a farce. Finally, as for the 99% cars, look at the movie demolition man to see what the socialist vision is by our Prius driving PM and treasurer. The only thing they can give us free energy on in canberra is Spin, lies and BS. Harness that, and you could power the world for free.

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...0416-sixk.html

Hybrid under fire from crash-test authority
RICHARD BLACKBURN
April 17, 2010

Australia's independent authority isn't impressed by the new Toyota Hybrid Camry

Toyota's tarnished reputation has come under renewed fire, with Australia's independent crash test organisation attacking the brand's decision not to upgrade safety on its recently released Camry Hybrid.

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program is expected to single out the Hybrid Camry for criticism in an upcoming media event by comparing it to a Chinese brand recently panned for its poor crash safety performance.

ANCAP chairman Lauchlan McIntosh refused to reveal details of the Camry crash test results or confirm the comparative test but criticised Toyota's approach to safety.

"One would have hoped that they would have made some structural changes to the car, given that it is supposed to be such a special car - what is it, the most advanced car in Australia or something - that's what they say in their ads, isn't it?" he said.

"It would be pretty disappointing if it's not five-star, I would have thought. Most other manufacturers since 2007 have brought their main cars into the five-star stable, so why does Toyota think it's not necessary to worry about safety?"

Toyota spokesman Mike Breen declined to comment on the issue.

"We'll wait until the results are released before we decide whether or not to make a statement based on those results," he said.

ANCAP is expected to release the results of the Camry's crash test - in which it is believed to have received a four-star rating - at the same time as that of the Great Wall Motors off-roader, the X240, which is also believed to have received a four-star result.

The ANCAP media event is likely to embarrass Toyota while highlighting growing safety concerns about the brand in the wake of a recall of 8 million vehicles with sticking accelerator pedals.

A spokesman for ANCAP confirmed it would be releasing "comparative" data on the two vehicles on the same day.

Toyota chose not to upgrade the Camry's safety package when it introduced the Hybrid version.

The Toyota Aurion, a V6 version of the Camry, was recently upgraded to five stars after Toyota added a seatbelt reminder chime and redesigned the car's steering column to provide better knee protection.

The Holden Commodore recently had its ANCAP crash score upgraded to five stars after carrying out similar improvements, despite removing special headrests that could reduce whiplash injuries by 42 per cent. Ford's Territory went to five stars solely on the strength of a seatbelt reminder.

The Camry outperformed the Holden Commodore in crash tests when the two cars were released in 2006. The cars are largely unchanged structurally, yet now get different ratings.

ANCAP's decision to single out the Hybrid Camry for a special crash test is unusual, given the fact that the organisation rarely tests two versions of the same car with different engines. ANCAP doesn't usually test both petrol and diesel variants of a model, despite the fact that the engine bays and kerb weights are different.

It also declined to test the new Holden Commodore - Australia's best-selling car - which recently received an all-new smaller capacity V6. The decision to single out the Camry will test ANCAP's improving relationship with the industry, which has generally embraced the organisation's crash rating system after dismissing the tests for a number of years.

Car makers are still uneasy that the ANCAP ratings are seen as a be-all-and-end-all of crash safety. They argue that they test cars far more rigorously and design them for the real world, rather than a one-off test. ANCAP also doesn't test a vehicle's ability to avoid a crash in the first place.

The ANCAP testing regime also downplays potentially life-saving safety devices that are standard on the Hybrid Camry but not on its local rivals.

The Hybrid Camry is the only locally made car to have a standard reversing camera, which reduces the risk of children being run over in driveways.

It also has potentially life-saving curtain airbags as standard for its rear passengers, while the five-star Ford Falcon doesn't have them on most of its models and the five-star Ford Fiesta doesn't have them on any of its models. The Great Wall X240 has just two airbags and lacks stability control, which can prevent a skid.

Some in the industry are uneasy about growing anomalies in ANCAP's testing regime.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

[Franco Cozzo]

I dont see how a seat belt reminder can automatically add a star to the rating, its not like it makes the car hold up any better in an accident.

[GK]

Also notice how they omitted the Falcon's 5 star rating?

Mongrels.

GK

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by GK

Also notice how they omitted the Falcon's 5 star rating?

Mongrels.

GK

re-read the last paragraph

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I dont see how a seat belt reminder can automatically add a star to the rating, its not like it makes the car hold up any better in an accident.

It does not add a star, it adds a point in the scoring system - one of many needed to get a star.
Having a seat belt reminder that annoys occupants into buckling up works.
What people have to get past is that this is a point scoring exercise, and that part of it is scoring
of basic gear that should be there in the first place and the second is injury scores after the crash.
Rightly or wrongly, ANCAP is now looking to stop manufacturers achieving easy 4 and 5 star ratings...

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I dont see how a seat belt reminder can automatically add a star to the rating, its not like it makes the car hold up any better in an accident.

The crash ratings are based on a points system. The points are broken down simply to a star system for dumb shits. A seat belt reminder if i recall will add two points to a vehicles safety which may just push it into the next bracket.

Edit: beaten to it.

[jpd80]

From ANCAP website:

How are the tests scored?

ANCAP scores out of a possible 37 points.

* The frontal offset and side impact tests can earn up to 16 points each
* At least 12.5 points in each of the frontal offset and side impact tests must be achieved to earn a safety rating
* The pole test can earn an extra two points. At least one point must be scored in the pole test for the car to earn a 5 star rating
* At least 32.5 points must be achieved overall (with at least one point scored from the pole test) to earn a 5 star safety rating
* Intelligent seat belt reminders can also earn up to 3 bonus points to help improve a star rating
* Until the end of 2002 all cars were scored out of 34 points. No points were allocated for a seat belt warning system.

Achieving 5 Stars

From 2008 for ANCAP to assign the coveted 5 star rating the car model tested will need to have electronic stability control.

International Crash Testing for consumer information is also conducted in the USA, Japan, Korea and Europe.

[mrbaxr6t]

I got bored with reading this thread so I havn't read the whole thing but lets be realistic here - scenario : company makes a car that runs on a presently undiscovered energy source that is clean green and cheap! - petrol vehicles become redundant due to high running costs demand for new fuel source skyrockets - governments of the world start stacking on excise on the new fuel - the environment benefits greatly BUT it costs us all just as much if not more to run our cars due to the fatcats profiteering and taxing the fuel.

I feel the answer is split on demand hydrogen and oxygen from water - its very dense in liquid form and when split is at the perfect 2:1 fuel oxygen ratio will be cheap plentiful and environmentally neutral but they cant profiteer as above on water (it falls from the sky remember) so this system whilst I believe is possible and has been done will never happen due to the fact that no money will be made when its time to refuel.

[jpd80]

Hydrogen can be made cost effectively at nuclear power plants due to the extreme temperatures generated.
If Australia was ever to go nuclear, the Thorium salt reactor is probably the safest and least polluting of the lot,
it's spent fuel is only lethal for about 350-500 years...

[prydey]

i got to halfway down page 2 before i realised this was an old thread. i wonder if any of the prophets of doom have gone back and had a look at their predictions.

on the topic of hybrids (i'm not a fan) but doesn't ford america have a reasonable range of hybrids in production? what would be the comparitive cost of these if ford australia decided to import these rather than make their own.

given that there are hybrid models already in the ford stable, i can't see ford (global) putting up the funds to develop a hybrid in australia when there is already one in the ford household.

i believe the direction that ford are going with these ecoboost engines is the way to go. a lot of manufacturers are taking this path, small capacity forced induction.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

i got to halfway down page 2 before i realised this was an old thread. i wonder if any of the prophets of doom have gone back and had a look at their predictions.

on the topic of hybrids (i'm not a fan) but doesn't ford america have a reasonable range of hybrids in production? what would be the comparitive cost of these if ford australia decided to import these rather than make their own.

given that there are hybrid models already in the ford stable, i can't see ford (global) putting up the funds to develop a hybrid in australia when there is already one in the ford household.

i believe the direction that ford are going with these ecoboost engines is the way to go. a lot of manufacturers are taking this path, small capacity forced induction.

FYI, the next Mondeo and Fusion are the same vehicle and will share everything from diesels, hybrids, Ecoboost, V6 engine, and AWD.

An absolute smorgasbord of options....

[mik]

we have too start shouting the sky is falling now because from december 22/ 2012 we won`t have to worry about it :

[xy500]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

I got bored with reading this thread so I havn't read the whole thing but lets be realistic here - scenario : company makes a car that runs on a presently undiscovered energy source that is clean green and cheap! - petrol vehicles become redundant due to high running costs demand for new fuel source skyrockets - governments of the world start stacking on excise on the new fuel - the environment benefits greatly BUT it costs us all just as much if not more to run our cars due to the fatcats profiteering and taxing the fuel.

I feel the answer is split on demand hydrogen and oxygen from water - its very dense in liquid form and when split is at the perfect 2:1 fuel oxygen ratio will be cheap plentiful and environmentally neutral but they cant profiteer as above on water (it falls from the sky remember) so this system whilst I believe is possible and has been done will never happen due to the fact that no money will be made when its time to refuel.

ahhhh geez not another "hydrogen power is the way forward" disciple.
The church of hydrogen seems to be multiplying, why not take a minute to actually check your facts: it takes energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. A LOT of energy! more energy than you will get back from combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, and still more than electric cells. It isn't a miracle cure for ANYTHING, you still have to jump the hurdle of supplying the energy to produce hydrogen.
Hydrogen is not an undiscovered energy source, in fact it isn't even a naturally occurring source of energy. It is simply a different energy form. So energy needs to come from somewhere still!
I'm sorry if I come across as rude, but its just so bloody stupid to carry on about hydrogen being the answer to everything. I'd suggest a beginners course in physics to all the members of the church on hydrogen (even more so the church of HHO).

[Rapid_Attack]

Falcon doesnt have to die, but probably will. When, who knows!

Unless you want to live like the Flinstones, then there is no correct solution. They all impact the environment in there own ways and the idea of neutralising carbon footprints to create massive energy needs is poo.

We need someone with balls and legislation to commit to a preferred solution (other than oil) that provides a baseline for innovation and competition.

Think of something like Hydrogen power as a baseline (purely an example, I have no allegiance here), compare that to something like BluRay Discs. They finally picked up BluRay as a standard form of media and now its becoming main stream. Soon BluRay players will be in Aldi and cost no more than a pack of tampons, similar to a DVD player today.

Yes BluRay will be replaced at some point, but it does provide a line in the sand to execute innovation but also maximise its benefits. More importantly its affordable and wont break the economy trying to support it.
Lessons will be learnt and a new form of media will take over....you could legislate that also i.e. new baseline required in 20 years.

USB is another great example.

My point, sign all the manufactures up to a technical standard/baseline that meets most of the objectives in solving climate change, don't try and solve them all. Manufactures continuing to show each other how big and shiny there ideas aint going to solve anything, they will continue to change and evolve and never deliver the solutions practically (and affordable) needed to solve problems. It can only be done in masses!

Euro Emission standards and the like are a good start, but there needs to be more focus on alternate fuel methods. For once Governments should dictate requirements and demand solutions with ratified technical direction, rather than just let the manufactures guide our future.

(hope that doesn't read to North Korean)

[dallasv8]

True, but as Sly posted in another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sly
FWIW a workmate who used to design & build power stations and knows a bit about generation, tells me that many hundreds of excess megawatt hours are generated and dumped to ground during off-peak hours, because of the time it takes to shut down and restart boilers and synchronise the generators as they come back online. It's just not viable to switch baseload capacity off & back on, so it just keeps going. As admirable as the aim of "Earth Hour" is, it saves not a single kg of CO2 for this reason. This off-peak excess could top up an awful lot of plug-in hybrids before needing any extra coal burnt.

and to think sun metals near townsville paid over 70 million in power last year because power prices went up..it was 35 million a couple of years before that.



as far as fords hybrids, what about the fusion?
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/