A new study by R.L. Polk & Co. shows that the overall percentage of hybrids sold into the new vehicle market has fallen from 2.9 percent to 2.4 percent over the past three years. Moreover, approximately two-thirds of hybrid owners who returned to the market in 2011 did not buy another hybrid.
"Intuitively, you would expect the numbers to be higher, given how many hybrid vehicles are available in the market place today," Brad Smith, director of Polk's loyalty management practice, told us.
Polk's study revealed that only 35 percent of hybrid owners chose to purchase a hybrid again when returning to the market in 2011. The repurchase rate was even lower -- under 25 percent -- when owners of the Toyota Prius were excluded from the statistics.
Toyota Prius' customer loyalty had a significant effect in Polk's study. When repurchase behavior of Prius customers was not factored in, overall hybrid loyalty dropped to less than 25 percent. (Source: Toyota)
Industry experts familiar with the study don't believe that the low percentage of return buyers is a reflection of dissatisfaction with hybrids. Most hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight, have performed well in reliability studies and have offered fuel efficiencies as advertised.
But hybrids now face competition from conventional gasoline-burning and diesel-burning vehicles that are boosting their fuel efficiencies. As a result, prospective buyers whose main concern is vehicle operating costs may be less inclined to choose a hybrid.
"People who buy hybrids because they are eco-friendly are more likely to stick with it and buy another hybrid," said Lacey Plache, chief economist for Edmunds.com. "But hybrids are facing really strong competition in terms of attracting consumers who are just looking at the bottom line."
I think the fact that hybrid owners aren't ponying up when they're back in the car market for another hybrid vehicle has to speak volumes. Unless the data shows they're ponying up for another type of alternative vehicle like a pure EV, I don't know how you can interpret the findings any other way but to say the technology is losing ground. We all know it's much easier to sell something to someone who has already purchased it once or bought into the overall value proposition. I find these findings pretty disheartening.
Beth, another disturbing statistic is the market penetration rate. It is declining. It is also very small.
I looked at hybrids recently. One of the ones I saw had a break even period of at least 2 years. That seemed fairly good since I would keep a car for much longer than that. On the other hand, I think that was optomistic. So, considering the points made in the article, it seems that gasoline vehicles will catch up to hybrids in total cost of ownership (TCO) before long. In many technology businesses TCO is an important selling point. In the consumer field this is becoming important as well.
Interesting statistics in this article, Chuck. I guess the big question is whether the hybrid owners who chose not to continue with a hybrid went on to buy an EV. It could be that those devoted enough to get a hybrid would be even more interested in an EV now that there are more choices in the EV world.
A very small percentage of hybrid buyers went on to purchase an EV, Rob. The majority of former-hybrid customers opted for a Honda Civic or Toyota Camry.
So they really went back to the traditional vechicle. That suggests they dropped the whole notion of an alternative vehicle. I'd love to know the reasons, whether they didn't likle the experience or whether it was a cost/benefit decision.
I think the "average" car buyer is mainly focused on economics. The new efficient (conventional) cars now have created a viable "almost as good for much less purchase price" choice for buyers.
The cost savings vs. higher MPG is a diminishing-returns game: assuming $4/gal & 15K mi/yr, someone saves about $1500/yr by buying a new 40MPG car vs. the old 20 MPG one. However, buying a 50 MPG Prius saves only an additional $300/yr. If the hybrid costs $6K more, the break-even payback time is 20 years!
That being said, I think the new Prius C could be interesting. It still has stellar efficiency (~50MPG) yet costs only a small increment over conventional cars of similar size.
One other observation (the article does not give enough detail to know if this is a factor) - there are many hybrid cars (other than the Prius) that are pretty lame...and definitely not worth it. Hybrid SUV's, the "mild" hybrids from GM, the Honda CRZ, even the Prius V (only 40MPG) have a difficult value proposition for the incremental hybrid costs.
To date, the only hybrid that really set the efficiency bar high enough is the Prius...but that is changing - there are new cars coming from various sources that will get ~50+ MPG. Ford's upcoming Fusion Hybrid is a fairly large car and will get ~47MPG!
Good points, Kevin. I think one of the hidden stories of the last few years is the advance in efficiency with conventional automotive engines, All of the attention has been on the hybrids and EVs. Meanwhile, conventional engines are taking big steps forward in efficiency. So you can choose to cut your carbon output without having to turn to a hybrid or EV.
The bar was set by the first Honda Insight that regularly got 70mpg and EV friends of mine get 90/100mpg with it. Hand made of alum, etc as the first modern hybrid going to be a collectors car soon and a great investment if you can find one.
Next one couldn't pick a worse time to do any comparisons because the economy, gas prices are so variable for now, it's just noise until the economy recovers from nearly falling into a depression thanks to repub oil, war, tax policies. Now they want us to elect them so they can again.
One must consider resale value and very hard to beat hybrids for that which makes up or more in Prius' case of the slightly higher costs, making the higher starting cost moot in full cost accounting.
"Honda Insight that regularly got 70mpg and EV friends of mine get 90/100mpg with it."
Will he bet his "ownership certificate" on that ??? Typical EV Hybrid - owner generated - myth = lie !!!
We have many customers with SynLube that have had Insight and over hundred that have Prius.
Those who do not lie about their MPG get about 42 to 45 in Prius.
The old Insight gets 50 MPG with AC OFF and 40 MPG with it ON (in Las Vegas or Phoenix).
I have made open bet to anyone with Prius that claims to get 60 MPG, drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas in 5 hours and verify the MPG and I will pay you $1,000 - 5 people tried, none ever got 60 MPG - 51.8 was so fr the best, but the time was 6.2 hours, i.e. well below the normal speed on I-15
Hybrid benefit is at STOP and GO driving when the engine can be OFF at red lights, ZERO benefit at highway speed.
ANd when you turn AC ON and the engine starts in matter of seconds to power it, MPG really goes WAY WAY DOWN.
ANd actualyl people with old ECHO and even NEW YARIS, get the same or better REAL LIFE MPG, and at about $10,000 less for the vehicle, at $4.00 per gallon that buys about 100,000 miles of ful to drive "FREE" when compared to Hybrid that has a battery warranty that only lasts 80,000 miles.
Mirox do you know which Honda Insight I was talking about? It's not the useless one they have now but an Alum 2 seat 1L engine hybrid that came out 6 months before the Prius.
And likely if you want one you'll pay the same as it was new even being over 10 yrs old. So let's see. Having one for 10 yrs at 70 mpg, 63MPG rated I think, then selling it and getting back one's money is smart.
These are honest people who gave those figures and they have verifiable records of many things they have done which many other said impossible unlike the armchair haters who never do anything. Google White Zombie and follow the links for some real life facts.
The early Insight, 98-99?, if you knew how could be coaxed into a lean run state at 70+ mph giving such mileage. It's low aero CD really helps along with under 2k lbs IIRC.
A new Revenge of the Electric Ear is on PBS Frontline this week, tonight here in Tampa.
This one the complete story is there - do you think that someone who drives the same 124 miles a day to go to work for 7 years is unable to figure out their REAL LIFE MPG ?
PS: The car sol for $1,275 and was for sale for 18 months before someone bought it with the IMA light ON and dealer wanting close to $14,000 to fix it !!!
So no 2000 Insights do NOT sell for waht they costed NEW at least not in NEVADA, ARIZONA or SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - hey if they are at premioum in Tampa (is there where you are ?) then come and get them you can make thousands just driving them back home !!!
Honda dealers here will NOT even take them on a trade in for another HONDA !
Mirox I'm not going to argue with you. Your 1 example and statement about the cost to repair is just idiotic.
Vs my sources are racers, ICE and EV, and EV'er's and rather tight about records they keep and tests they do because they have heard so many lies the only way to get the facts was to do it themselves.
Yet even with that they got $1800 isn't bad and someone got a steal. The battery pack can easily be repaired instead of replaced for a few hundred $ and the repair problems are likely why it did so bad in mileage.
You sould more like a shill trying to drive visits to your website, products so no more from me on this.
Not every owner of a Hybrid or EV is electronic engineer or battery repair expert, if so Toyota dealer would not charge $93 per hour of labor for ICE and $124 per hybrid for the mechanic time, if you ask them WHY, they tell you it is the extra and very expensive equipement (reportedly over $5,000 just for the special CAN reader for Prius) and the required training at TOYOTA (at Dealer expense) for each mechanic to be qualified to even OPEN the hood on TOYOTA Hybrid - even for "oil change".
So what ever price a dealer (local one) quotes for a repair that is the price, as most independent mechanic will not even touch hybrid.
Quick oil chagne outfits generally refuse to service them or even change oil, just go to Grease Monkey, etc.
If you take a Cadillac to GM dealer because the Cigarette Lighter does not work, and you get $250 "itemized" bill, for $240 of labor and $1.50 for fuse and "shop supplies) + tax, I do not think you would label the owner of the car as "idiot" because she could have went to PepBoys and bought whole package of fuses and replaced it herself ?
Well first you would have to know where the burried in dash fuse is actually located and the secret trick to acces it (not even mentioned in owner's manual).
Not every person in the World is engineer or designer if they were all DIY then we probably would not have "jobs".
TOYOTA and HONDA and NISSAN all "overprice" parts and labor on all their "advanced" vehicles.
MIROX : The point is when car makers prevent easy, casual maintenance by places like quick oil changes, they should be punished for that. It is wrong for them to do that, and people should not buy any vehicle that is hard to maintenance. If for example, the owener manual does not show how anyone can easily replace fuses or light bulbs, the maker should be sued for failing to comply with US automotive standards.
But FMVSS only requires functionality, not any replace-ability or even fuses - just this week there are NHTSA recalls for BMW and Bentley where the "auxiliary" electric driven water pump melts and goes up in smoke - NO FUSE there - and reportedly few vehicles have already burned up.
Consumer Reports, AutoWeek or any of the more than dozen automotive webs that get FREE rides as promotion from MFG, NEVER EVER NEVER even tell you if you can FIND things like ATF dipstick (not there on most new cars) or get to Oil Filter (without spending 1 hour to remove 15 fasteners of 4 different kinds) without removing the front end underpaning that is common on most Hybrids (to reduce aero drag).
Why not quick release "latch" and why there have to be self-destrutive plastic rivets that ned to be broken ? (Or require extra expensive "special tool" to be removed ?)
If a simple engineering like access to a service part (Oil filter) is that bad or difficult, then I personally wonder about the rest of the "hybrid" design, if things that are "obvious" are "difficult" the "proprietary" technology is totally impossible to do much about by "normal" vehicle owner - for alnost all maintenance the owner manual instruct you to go to the Dealer.
May be some Hybrid owner should sue for the "excessive" cost of oil changes versus a "non-hybrid" car, hey just follow the lead that Miss Peters established - and may be we will have service-able vehicles in the future !
IF HONDA Hybrids got the advertised mileage, people in thousands and at least 3 class action siuts plus now about 21 small claims court wins against HONDA in Gardena CA, with awards of up to $10,000 to the vehicle owners would not be happening !
She "won" and within a week 17 other people filed suits following her lead !!!
And she is not even factoring in the cost of replacement battery, only the less than NORMAL 5 speed civic that gets better real life MPG than the Civic Hybrid.
And the two to three times HIGHER depreciation, used NON hybrid is worth MORE at least in CA.
When people expect more and get lot lot less (MPG) and resale value they are not happy if they paid $4,000 to $10,000 premium for the car that has no visible difference except the HYBRID label on the back.
One reason Prius is so popular = there is NOT "non hybrid" Prius, and while mechanically the same; people do not compare it to ECHO or YARIS that have the same powertrain sans the electric motor and the battery pack that adds 900 lbs.
If less than 20% of previous owners of a NEW Hybrid (not counting prius) want another Hybrid, then the people who want USED hybrid that has battery cost anxiety attached to it, shrinks perhaps to less than 5% of buyers, thus the very high depreciation or else the vehicle just does not sell.
A person I know said that after a $500-$800 (depending on where he went) headlight replacement has second thoughts. And that was just the bulb. A ballast can be more.
At anything over $50 for a Prius bulb, and you got robbed.
They are only $42 at Amazon, and I am sure I have seen them for less than half that. They are standard HID gas bulbs that should last almost indefinitely, and are common these days.
It is TOYOTA OEM pricing issue, thinking that if average Hybrid buyer has $100,000+ family income (as per theri statistics), they deserve to be "robbed" with extreme pricing on service labor and parts.
But they are not alone NISSAN does the same with LEAF, the replacement injection cartridge for FIX a FLAT costs more than a NEW TIRE (over $200), etc.
When as OEM you are losing money on every vehicle that you make of certain type (like EV or Hybrid) just to be "market competitive" then the only way you can get some of that back is to stick it to the owner latter.
Some of these cars the whole front end clip has to be removed for access and once you go to a dealer or repair shop the bulbs cost at least $125 and the ballast costs $300.
FrankWye : That has nothing to do with hybrids or the environment. All cars are getting to be worse design, and all HIV bulbs are under $50 and ballast is less they $150. With neither normally ever needing replacement in a normal duty cycle. If you go to the dealer you can always pay 5 times what you should, but that is true with all cars, including internal combustion.
OK. I agree with "all [small] cars". But I particularly don't like tiny cars because I'm a big guy and I don't trust other drivers when it comes to my family driving.
I agree with Beth that the fact that hybrid owners aren't making the same choice for their next car speaks volumes. But, I don't think it's disheartening.
Hybrid cars have revolutionized the market. People expect more. I had a Toyota in 2003 that got 35MPG. If I bought a hybrid today, almost 10 years later, I'd expect it to get 70MPG-double. The competition hybrids are facing from standard vehicles is a great, although small, movement towards making green technology the new standard in all price points. Green technology needs to be supported, it needs to evolve and come to the mass market.
Hybrid sales have slowly increased over the years but the article makes a good point that the operating costs are too high for the average green consumer. Once that starts to drop, we'll see more people purchase hybrids as a first, second and even third choice.
Charles, you are right, those who have hybrid cars, won't prefer it again. The initial cost for hybrid cars are more when compare with stand alone fuel vehicles. I had a hybrid car and I feel that, when am switching out of gasoline, the engine power and pulling are comes down. I mean the engine is not outputting 100% of its performance. This is a disappointing factor for those who love crazy driving.
I have had my hybrid for just over a year, and when the time comes, I may not buy another. But it's not because I am not happy with it. The Chrysler Aspen Two Mode Hemi Hybrid was only produced for about 1/2 of the 2009 model year. When it comes time to replace it, I don't know if I will be able to find another hybrid rated to tow - the Aspen is rated to tow 6000 lbs. I looked at the Ford Escape and Toyota Highlander hybrids and their spec's were lacklustre when compared to the Aspen. When (if ?) the SUV and truck market opens up to the idea of hybrids, there might be another Chrysler Aspen. I think Dodge has a truck package that is similar to a hybrid, but I think the selling point was the truck with a generator package for remote construction sites.
This goes against what many of us assume. But I think some might be jumping to conclusions a bit early.
If you look at the numbers by quarter you see a huge drop off in Q2 of 2011. Loyality went from 40% to 26%. And that would be the lowest for any quarter since 2008 when this study begins.
It's probably reasonable to assume that the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami had some affect on supply. When those Prius owners can't get a new one some have to buy something else.
And so by the end of Q4 you see loayalty back at 40%.
The question I have after reading the article (and maybe I just didn't see it) is whether the Hybrid owners are in the market to REPLACE their hybrid, or to get a second car. It's a bit soon in the non-Prius Hybrid market to talk about replacements, so I'd have to assume not.
If I'm replacing my Hybrid (a 2010) I'd probably buy another. My Hybrid mid-size get's better mileage and performance (yes, I want both) than the compact cars I test drove at the time of my original purchase.
If I'm replacing my 25 year old Jeep (which needs to haul and tow), I'd look at the Hybrid SUV's and trucks, but chances are I wouldn't get a Hybrid.
3drob; There is not much choice in the hybrid truck market. I was looking to replace my 2002 4.7 V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee and I was looking for a hybrid that had a towing rating. I bought a used 2009 Chrysler Aspen 5.7 Hemi Two Mode Hybrid, that I found by accident - I didn't know it existed. Supposedly the Tahoe and Escalade versions of this SUV are still in production, I don't know about the X6 version. But since these are Luxury SUV's, I doubt you could justify the price on reduced gasoline costs alone.
Good article which brought out some relevent points on hybrid perception vs. reality. I was mildly surprised that the data didn't show a stronger loyalty from those who claim to be very concerned with the environment. Also, I was expecting gas prices to impact hybrid segment loyalty more. I supposed there will be a critical threshold that gasoline prices reach where this trend will start to reverse itself.
When you separate facts and reality from fiction and hype and outright lies, then no matter how you count it Hybrid or EV DOES NOT save any money!
Cost per mile driven is at premioum when compared to conventionel ICE car or truck.
Emissions when you take the complete picture from "production" sources is at best even to ICE.
While this post is not meant to be "self promotion" I do have two businesses, one we sell LSV EV (NEV ZEV) www.okaauto.com and people are not waiting in a line to get them even at $8,000 a pop.
Then we have environmentally correct business making PERMANENT SYNTEHTIC OIL that is replacement for Petroleum and is NON-PETROLEUM, and again any sales promotions at "Earth Day Events" for both businesses, do not even pay for the cost of the space ! (www.synlube.com)
SO the fact is that "environmentalists" while making lot of noise do not spend their $$$ accordingly, they are all about promoting themselves and having this or that organization to do fund rising for themselves - i.e. just a way to make money. The "donation" for theri cause is the way to go, but neither they or their "members" actually buy or go out of the way to be "environmentally correct".
As an example with the SynLube business we have offered for 26 years to ake back the empty one Liter bottles for RE-USE and give customers $1.00 credit per bottle returned - that can be about $6 or $10 per "oil change" but while few people actually do that - and some bottles made up to 32 tripe before being no longer suitable for re-use, only 0.02% of customers do so even with $10 incentive it is easier to throw them into trash !.
Hybrids could be slightly more attractive if the OEM offered used battery credit that is substantial, even if the vehicle is "crashed" or no longer useful reportedly over 80% of the materials in the battery pack can be recycled, but the Dealer or OEM when they sell you "new" battery act as if they do you a big favor just to take the "old" battery back !
Even dead Pd acid battery is worth $10 or more when you buy a "new" one, so why is $$$$ Li-ion battery "worthless" ?
No we want those using fossil fuels to pay the whole cost then we'd have a level playing field, no?
Or are you for the huge subsidies oil gets in Persian Gulf/ Protecting oil cost 50% of US military costs plus the oil wars not even including pollution damage. Should I subsidize you using oil?
Why did big auto make large expensive EV's? So they would look too expensive. They should have made light inexpensive Forklift Tech commuter EV's but that would have been way too sucessful.
But don't blame that on EV's. Many of us have been building, driving them for decades and smiling every time we pass a gas pump. BTW how much did you spend this month on gas? I spent $3 on electricity for my transport fuel.
So, the fact that we sign treaties with Kuwait, okay probably because of oil but should we not sign treaties and/or ignore them?
I could have sworn that a few buildings were blown up in NY several years ago. You don't think terrorism is a problem? Before you answer, look at the list the State dept has going back decades and notice how they were getting bigger and bigger hits. Clinton intitated "Regime Change" for Iraq because of it and Iraq, sorry to disappoint you, was involved in a lot of the terroism around the world.
Believe what you want, ingnore the facts you don't like, but it was about more than oil.
FrankWye : Yes, WWI was all about oil as well, and that is why it was equally wrong and immoral. If we had not destroyed the democracy in Iran in 1953, abused the Palestinians from 1948 on, blamed Saddam when Kuwait stole oil, bombarded civilian in Beiruit with the USS New Jersey, etc., there would have been no "terrorism" to worry about. You can't cause the response and then blame the problem on the response. We are the ones responsible for the terrorism we claim to be fighting.
But it will all be moot in 20 to 40 years, because clearly oil is going to be too expensive for cars by then. If not sooner.
During World War II, Britain and the USSR were concerned by Reza Shah's friendly relations with Germany. In 1941 the two countries invaded and occupied large areas of Iran. They forced Reza Shah to abdicate, and in the absence of a viable alternative, permitted Mohammad Reza to assume the throne. The new shah's reign began against a backdrop of social and political disarray, economic problems, and food shortages.
Despite his vow to act as a constitutional monarch who would defer to the power of the parliamentary government, Mohammad Reza increasingly involved himself in governmental affairs and opposed or thwarted strong prime ministers. Prone to indecision, however, Mohammad Reza relied more on manipulation than on leadership. He concentrated on reviving the army and ensuring that it would remain under royal control as the monarchy's main power base. In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah, attributed to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, resulted in the banning of that party and the expansion of the Shah's constitutional powers.
In the context of regional turmoil and the Cold War, the Shah established himself as an indispensable ally of the West. Domestically, he advocated reform policies, culminating in the 1963 program known as the White Revolution, which included land reform, the extension of voting rights to women, and the elimination of illiteracy.
In 1967 he crowned himself as King of the Kings (Emperor of Iran) which caused discontentment amongst different levels of society.
These measures and the increasing arbitrariness of the Shah's rule provoked both religious leaders who feared losing their traditional authority and students and intellectuals seeking democratic reforms. These opponents criticized the Shah for violation of the constitution, which placed limits on royal power and provided for a representative government, and for subservience to the United States. The Shah saw himself as heir to the kings of ancient Iran, and in 1971 he held an extravagant celebration of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy. In 1976 he replaced the Islamic calendar with an "imperial" calendar, which began with the foundation of the Persian empire more than 25 centuries earlier. These actions were viewed as anti-Islamic and resulted in religious opposition.
The shah's regime suppressed and marginalized its opponents with the help of Iran's security and intelligence organization, the SAVAK. Relying on oil revenues, which sharply increased in late 1973, the Shah pursued his goal of developing Iran as a mighty regional power dedicated to social reform and economic development. Yet he continually sidestepped democratic arrangements and refused to allow meaningful civic and political liberties, remaining unresponsive to public opinion.
By the mid-1970s the Shah reigned amidst widespread discontent caused by the continuing repressiveness of his regime, socioeconomic changes that benefited some classes at the expense of others, and the increasing gap between the ruling elite and the disaffected populace. Islamic leaders, particularly the exiled cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, were able to focus this discontent with a populist ideology tied to Islamic principles and calls for the overthrow of the shah. The Shah's government collapsed following widespread uprisings in 1978 -1979 and consequently an Islamic Republic succeeded his regime.
FrankWye : Interesting how you competely ignored the most significant event in Iranian history, with the 1953 US backed Operation Ajax, that destroyed the fledgling Iranian democracy under Mossaddegh.
In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. ... }
Rigby - The Palestinians were also Jordanians, like I am a Sacramentan but also an American, when Britain partitioned everything. We only blamed Saddam for invading Kuwait. Arabs and Leftists just want to blame the US for everything because that is how they control people like you.
So you admit that Bush didn't cause the terrorism but by 2001 something had to be done.
FrankWye : Yes, the Palestinians were also often Jordanian, but the British had already taken Jordan from the Palestinians and given it to the Hashimite dynasty. The land west of the Jordan river was all the Palestinians had left. But their right to independence in that land was firmly established in international law by the Treaty of San Remo.
The creation of an independent Israel with the 1948 UN parition by the US, was illegal. And the further expandsion of Israel to include all of the rest of Palestine, especially Jerusalem in 1967, was incredibly illegal.
And no, Saddam not only had nothing at all to do with any terrorism, but actually was the single most anti fundamentalist and anti terrorism power in the entire Mideast. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt were clearly the greatest supporters of terrorism.
The land west of the Jordan river was still Jordan and the problems arose because the Jordainians didn't want the Palestinians.
The UN did something illegal? It was thought by Europeans that if Isreal was given back to the Jews that it would solve the Anti-Semitic problems in Europe. The US agreed and voted with the majority.
You need to read the terrorism reports by the State Dept going back a few decades to see Saddams involvement. He was paying Palestinians to blow themselves up, he was paying and facilitating terrorists in Philippines. The sheik that bombed the WTC in '93 had a passport from Iraq.
I think Saudi Arabia is more interested in supporting wahabism. It's extreme wahabists that are terrorizing. The Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt and spread out.
FrankWye : No, the greater area and population was alway Palestinian. Jordan was just part of Palestine in the past. And of couse they did not want Palestinians because it would threaten their new aquistion the British and French gave them.
Yes, Israel was created by Europeans and the US as a means of getting rid of their Jews, but that is illegal. The internationally recognized Treaty of San Remo in 1920 had already given Palestine independence, under Arab rule. The UN did not have the authority to abrogate this pre-existing WWI agreement.
And no, Saddam was not paying anyone to blow up anything. What he did was to make small payments to victims of collective retribution, when Israel would confiscate the property of relatives of suspected suicide bombers. That is completely different. He supported no terrorism at all. And he had no connection at all to any bombing in Israel or the Philippines.
But yes, it is mostly Saudi Wahhabists behind terrorism. It is extreme Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam had the most secular of all Mideast governments, except for Turkey. Zero connection to ANY terrorism. If you read contrary, it is as much lies as the WMD claims.
So you admit that Saddam supported suicide bomber families and sorry, there were Iraquis found to be helping Abu Nidal or was it Abu Said in Philippines.
FrankWye : Wrong. There has always been a Palestine. Not only did Mark Twain write about Palestine in "Innocents Abroad", but the Philistines, Pelesh, Akkadians, Phoneicians, etc., go back thousands of years before Judea. It is the Romans who created Judea, not Palestine. And no, there were no Iraqis associated with Saddam who helped any terrorists. Abu Nidal did live in Iraq, but only because the US told Saddam to let him live there. Remember your history, the Hebrew tribes massacring Jericho? Those were Palestinians they slaughtered. But there were still alway over 75% Palestinians in that general area we now call Israel.
According to the Torah, the period of the three Patriarchs has been placed shortly after 2,000 BC,[36] and the first Kingdom of Israel was established around 1100 BC. Subsequent Israelite kingdoms and states ruled intermittently over the next four hundred years, and are known from various extra-biblical sources.[37][38][39][40]
Between the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC and the Muslim conquests of the 7th century AD (a period of over 1500 years), the region came under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Sassanid, and Byzantine rule.[41][42] Jewish presence in the region significantly dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 AD.[43] Nevertheless, there was a continuous small Jewish presence and Galilee became its religious center.[44][45] The Mishnah and part of the Talmud, central Jewish texts, were composed during the 2nd to 4th centuries AD in Tiberias and Jerusalem.[46] In 635 AD, the region, including Jerusalem, was conquered by the Arabs and was to remain under Muslim control for the next 1300 years.[47] Control of the region transferred between the Umayyads,[47]Abbasids,[47] and Crusaders throughout the next six centuries,[47] before being conquered by the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260.[48] In 1516, the region was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, and remained under Turkish rule until the 20th century.[48]
After the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, some communities settled in Palestine.[53] Various migrations to Palestine occurred over the centuries including 40,000 between 1904-14. Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl is credited with founding political Zionism,[59] a movement which sought to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, by elevating the Jewish Question to the international plane.[60] In 1896, Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The State of the Jews), offering his vision of a future Jewish state.
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[65]
The British conquered Palestine in 1917. Arab opposition to British rule and Jewish immigration led to the 1920 Palestine riots. In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine under terms similar to the Balfour Declaration.[67] The population of the area at this time was predominantly Arab and Muslim, with Jews accounting for about 11% of the population.[68]
Finally, the rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–1939 and led the British to introduce restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine.[58] By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population.[69
After World War II, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, and there was an armed struggle against British rule.[70] At the same time, thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees from Europe sought a new life in Palestine, but were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British. In 1947, the British government announced it would withdraw from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[71]A plan was proposed to replace the British Mandate with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).[72]
FrankWye : I am aware of the complete history of the Mideast. It took the immigration of 5 million European, US, and African Jews in order to create the current 5.1 million Jewish population of Israel.
And do not confuse a the Balfore Declations for a Jewish homeland within an Arab Palestine, as a justification Israel.
{
What was the White Paper of 1922?
The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper, after Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill) was the first official manifesto from the British Government interpreting the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the Arab riots of 1920-1921. Although Churchill's name is associated with the paper, it was largely influenced by the High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel.
The White Paper stated that Britain stood by the Balfour Declaration, and that the Declaration, "re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change". The document reiterated the considerable progress that the Zionists had made in building a community with "'national' characteristics", but made clear that the British did not support a separate nation as a Jewish National Home, only a continuation of the community within Palestine .... }
Oh, I meant Abu Sayyaf is one of several military Islamistseparatist groups based in and around the southern Philippines, in Bangsamoro (Jolo and Basilan) where for almost 30 years various Muslim groups have been engaged in an insurgency for an independent province in the country. The name of the group is derived from the Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith[6] "). The group calls itself "Al-Harakat Al-Islamiyya" or the "Islamic Movement".
Ideology: Abu Sayyaf seeks the establishment of an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy in the southern Philippines.[9]
Manpower: Abu Sayyaf forces in Basilan and in Zamboanga Peninsula were, by June 2003, believed to number less than 500, down from more than 1,000 a year earlier.
Equipment: Abu Sayyaf uses mostly grenades, bombs (modified IED's and land mines), machine guns, rifles, rocket launchers and other weapons have been reported.
The United States Department of State has classified the group as a terrorist group by adding it to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[8] In 2002, fighting Abu Sayyaf became a mission of the American military's Operation Enduring Freedom and part of the U.S. War on Terror.[10] The CIA has deployed paramilitary officers from their elite Special Activities Division to hunt down and kill or capture key terrorist leaders.[11] Several hundred United States soldiers are also stationed in the area to mainly train local forces in counter terror and counter guerrilla operations, but as a status of forces agreement and under Philippine law are not allowed to engage in direct combat.[11]
The Abu Sayyaf are also a part-time operating criminal gang, where they conduct drive-by-shootings, larceny, drug dealing and excess theft in Mindanao.[4]
Rigby - I'll give you credit. Most have given up long ago.
Starting in October of last year (2002), Iraq began preparing for war with the US by instructing agents in its embassies worldwide to organize terrorist-type attacks on American and allied targets, Filipino and US intelligence officials say.
Barzan Ibrahim El Hasan al Tikriti, a former head of Iraq's intelligence agency and senior adviser to Saddam Hussein, hatched a plan to dispatch a mole to Indonesia; suicide bombers to Amman, Jordan; and a woman agent to help with planned attacks in the Philippines, according to an Iraqi defector interviewed by US intelligence.
Iraqi officials also mulled suicide attacks on US ships in the Persian Gulf, according to the defector. If true, analysts say, the plans probably represent wishful thinking, since Iraq has rarely succeeded with such attempts in the past and has not been known to use suicide bombers.
But there is evidence that Iraq may be outsourcing. Intelligence officials are concerned that Iraq is seeking out Islamic militant groups that have little ideologically in common with Iraq's secular Baath regime, but find common cause against the US.
The Philippines government, which deported an Iraqi diplomat earlier this month, says the Iraqi embassy in Manila was building contacts with Abu Sayyaf, a kidnap-for-ransom group in the southern Philippines that US soldiers have been helping to fight for the past year.
"The Iraqis are dispatching agents around the globe and they're targeting assets of the US and its allies," says Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert and author. "It remains to be seen if they'll be successful, or fail as they did in 1991."
That year, at the height of the Gulf War, Iraq sought to lash out at the US with operations based out of its embassies in Asia and the Middle East, according to US and Asian officials. They say that the same pattern of behavior may be emerging again.
The clearest evidence is the case of the Iraqi diplomat Hisham Z Hussein, who also went under the alias of Hisham Al Hidith and Abu Geith, according to Philippines intelligence officials.
FrankeWye : You are confusing Iranian terrorism and retaliatory attacks planned if the US attacked Iraq, as Iraqi involvement in terrorism. Which is totally false. Iraq never had any involvement in terrorism at all. The closest you could come was the allegation Iraq had planned to assassinate Bush Sr. in Saudi Arabia, but there was no proof of that.
It does not matter if the area known as Palestine was never an independent entity. The people have lived there for over 7,000 years, and earned their independence by helping us defeat the Ottoman Empire in WWI. It is illegal, unjust, and evil to delay their independence any longer.
Are we do be a society under the rule of law, of just a bunch of barbarian feudal lords? There is no question Jerusalem was outside the Jewish partition devided by the UN, in 1948. So then the occupancy of Jerusalem by Israel is illegal.
There are 10 million Palestinians in concentration camps of less than 20% of the area, while the 5 million Israeli immigrant Jews occupy 80% of the land. That is intolerable by any standard.
It is easy to say that now but Europeans, as well as any conquering country (Ottoman, etc.), went all over the world and created countries. Once that is done, we always deal with the leaders of that country. That means that the leaders of the country are responsible for dealing with their problems. The Palestinian problem is largely because Jordanians did not want them.
And, as our country is inundated by foreigners moving here and changing our cultrure are we being "occupied"?
Creating the border between Pakistan and Afganistan also created a lot of problems because it divided the Pashtuns. The difference is that a lot of people of different nationalities want Isreal/Palestine and the Arab countries use the situation to divert attention from their authoritarian rule. In hindsight it may have been better to create Pashtunistan, Kurdistan, Palestine, etc.
FrankWye : No, Jordan should probably be part of Palestine, not Palestine part of Jordan. And international law made acqusition of land by conquest illegal, even before WWII. That is what WWII was all about. The Palestinian problem is not an internal Israeli problem, but that Israel is the problem, and in violation of international law. We are not talking about a cultural "occupation", but a military one of force, to violently dispossess the Arabs from their homes. No where else in the world has anyone violently dispossessed the indigenous population in the last 100 years. The 1948 UN partition did create Palestine. We have just failed to defend it from Israeli takeover.
Jordan part of Palestine?! You are nuts. WWII was about coal and oil. No one defended Palestine because its not a country. Its a region. The only time arabs were disposessed of their homes was when they were involved in terrorism or firing rockets, at least allegedly.
FrankWye : Of course Palestine is region, but one that was promised independence in exchange for fighting the Ottoman Empire. Jordan and Syria are the artifical constucts, not Palestine. Palestine goes back 7 thousand years.
And you are totally ignorant of the massacres of Arabs like Dier Yassin. Over 95% of the land in Israel was owned by Arabs. But over 5 million Arabs were beaten, killed, and forced from their homes at gun point. The greatest crime since the Holocaust. The concentration camps the Arabs are forced to live in are horrific. Gaza has the highest population density in the world, and they are help capitve behind barbed wire. And considering these violations of the 1948 UN treaty by Israel, why should Israel not be wiped off the map? Clearly they have shown an inability to coduct themselves according to the basic principles of law.
I am not a History Expert. I do recall hearing about a war in 1967 that was started by the Arabs, against Israel, in which the Arabs lost territory, and then whined about Israel winning. I have no sympathy for the Arabs. IMHO the Arabs (if that can be considered a real designation) are tribal, and are only distracted from fighting amongst their tribes by the 'common enemy' of Israel. If Israel were ever 'driven into the sea', then the Arabs would return to their tribal conflicts. 'Peace in the Middle East' has long been, and will continue to be, a pipe dream.
Aside from that, who decides to whom land belongs ? Does the United States properly belong to the extinct humans that pre-dated the Native American tribes ?
GlennA : No, you most certainly are not a history expert, but I do not blame you because there is so much misinformation out there. But clearly Israel admitted starting the 1967 war themselves. They said it was a pre-emptive strike because they felt the Egyptians were massing in the Sinai for an attack, but that is false.
And it is easy to tell that the version of history you have been told is false. For the Palestinians never had any arms or army. They never started or were ever involved in any war, except as unarmed victims. If Egypt were to attack Israel, that would somehow justify Israel invading Jerusalem and forcing all the Arabs from their homes? Clearly that is nonsense.
As to who the land belongs to, by all measures, historic, legal, moral etc., it is Palestinian. We can't give the US back to the Native Americans because they are long dead. We gave the remnants more land per person then they used to have 200 years ago. But the victims and the thieves in Israel and Palestine still live. We not only can right these wrong, but must. It is a legal and moral imperative. We will have severe world unrest and war until we have international law.
And I have never heard anything as silly as the claim of tribal conflict. Is there tribal conflict in Saudi Arabia, the center of the Arab tribes? For over 1000 years, the Arabs had the most advanced civilization in the world. The Renaissance was just because of what little the Crusaders brought back with them from the Mideast.
Rigby5; As you said, there is a lot of misinformation. Somewhere between the two sides is the truth. As far as 'true' history, Iran denies the Holocaust. "Whoever controls the Present controls the Past. Whoever controls the Past controls the Future". What makes you believe that you are privy to the absolute Truth ? Why are you so biased against Israel ? At times I have had co-workers who were Palestinian etc, and the hatred they openly expressed for Israel (and any 'infidel') was shocking to me. I was also surprised that they had open contempt for any other Palestinian who was not a blood relative. Did you not read of the conflicts between Sunni and Shiite ? Or between Iraq and Iran pre the Bush invasion ? Why is it the Arabs are so bent on giving Israel to the Palestinians ? Because they refuse to give any of their own territory to them because of tribal hatreds. Both sides in this have blood on their hands. Why do you minimize the Arab contribution to this conflict ?
GlennA : History is not vague or beliefs, but can be researched and known as fact, if one is willing to look at enough sources. Israel is clearly in the wrong because of its continual violations of law. The UN has hundreds of ruling against violations by Israel that the US blocks any enforcement on. There is no doubt of guilt. Dispossing indigenous populations should be hated. There is no excuse for that.
But Shiite and Sunni has nothing to do with Arabs, but is a Islamic faction split similar to Protestants and Catholics. Similarly Iran is not Arab, and their conflict was over the fact Iraq was secular, (at least it was until we invaded).
No one is bent on giving Israel to the Palestinians. The land in Palestine and Israel simply has been owned by Arab families for over 7,000 years, until just 60 years ago, and those families must be allowed back into their homes. There is no other choice. It is a legal, ethical, and moral imperitive. Offering Palestinians other land is pointless. There is no blood on Palestinian hands at all. Anything they have done or will do is justified by the massacres of Arab in 1948. If someone breaks into your home and muders your daugher, you do not have blood on your hands when you kill them. The European Jews did not have to go to the Mideast after WWII was over. Europe was by far the safest place in the world at that time. And they did not have to try to take over and murder all the Palestinians. They are the ones with the choices and decided on violence.
Yes, I agree with you, however, that it was a trajedy that the people that lived there were displaced as often happens to a conquered people-throughout history. But then it depends on the situation. For example:
IRON : It is impossible to justify Isreli aggression such as the 67 war. For example, the linked timeline contained quotes by Iraqi and Iranian leaders, when up to that time and for decades to come, Iraq and Iran had absolely no involvement at all in the conflict. Just look at a map of the 1948 UN patition to see the real aggressor.
You can quickly see why Egypt and Jordan were upset. Most of the border between Egypt and Israel was supposed to be separated by Arab Palestine territory. And Istrael was supposed to be well away from Jerusalem and the West Bank access to Jordan. It was Israel that had made the area dangerous, due to its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories well beyond what the UN gave as its partition.
Then compare maps of populations and village names, and you will see the systematic ethnic cleansing the Israelis carried out, and still are carrying out.
It is impossible to justify the 1967 war the Israelis admit starting.
Yes, that is the map but every time Isreal gets bombed by missiles or terrorist suicide bombers they feel they must provide buffers and that means creating those buffers outside of Isreal.
Why is the Israel / Arab issue here at all? -Because the world depends on oil and the scaremongers, who apparently have crystal balls, think that we can't handle it so they want to force the rest of us to do it their way, ie. electric and hybrid vehicles and spend, spend, spend on technology, like they did in late 70's and got nothing.
I think that website about the six day war explains very well what happened.
FrankWye : The timeline is totally out of rational proportions. Arabs being murdered, dispossessed, and illegally exiled by the millions is not mentioned at all. While a few toy rockets you can carry in one hand, that to date have harmed fewer than 20 Israelis, get headlines. It is illegal to create buffers beyond your national borders.
The reason the Palestinian/Israeli issue is important is becaues in the past it caused Saudi Arabia to sell us more oil, in order to buy weapons from us. It also distracted the Arabs from concern about how we manipulated their governments, with anger directed at Israel. But since the blowback, such as the 9/11 attack, this is no longer such a good idea. With the Arab Spring, we won't be able to buy Arab cooperation much longer. Arab democracies are going to demand the highest possible price for oil, and we won't be able to afford it.
I have no idea what you are talking about, because rising oil prices as supply lowers is not a question of "handling" anything. Nor did we spend any money on technology in the late 1970s, although we should have. You seem to keep forgetting that oil is necessary for food production and distribution, and that should have priority over transportation. We should have transitioned away from internal combustion, with hybrids, in the 1970s, once we understood the starvation the whole world faces.
Rigby - I think I am the one that keeps showing the facts. I use dates, names, websites, etc. to get historical information.
For example: Israel's critics maintain that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression rather than a war of Israeli self-defence. Yet, earlier on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops had begun moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops, too, were preparing for battle along the Golan Heights, 3000 feet above the Galilee, from which they had shelled Israel's farms and villages for years.
Buffers are not illegal if they are in self-defense. It's better, arguably, than just wiping them out.
Oil prices are world prices. The more affluent will buy more. As the price/demand goes up the supply will lag but go up also because more exploration happens and technology allows us to access more.
ABSTRACT: This paper documents nearly a half century of U.S. federal government support for energy research and development (R&D). Data on energy R&D expenditures disaggregated by major program area are presented here for the first time for the period 1961-2008. This paper also documents U.S. federal government spending on key large scale energy R&D programs that were initiated in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
Since 1961, the U.S. government has invested nearly $172 billion (in inflation adjusted
2005 US dollars) for the development of advanced energy technologies and for the necessary underlying basic science. Over this period, nearly 24% of the total federal investment in energy R&D occurred during the short seven-year span of 1974-1980.
From 1977-1981, energy R&D investments briefly rose above 10% of all federal R&D; however, since the mid-1990s energy R&D has accounted for only about 1% of all federal R&D investments.
FrankWye : That is ridiculous to claim you have used any "facts" at all. Sure the Israelis "claim" to have attacked preemptively because of the Egyptian and Syrian buildups, but the actual truth is that the Egyptians and Syrians were building in preparation for the obvious build up of Israeli forces. You have provided not a single name, date or link.
And buffers most certainly are illegal when they are not on your land or even in your country. One country can not simply decide to demolish miles of building on the land of another country, because they wish to have a "buffer zone". That is totally criminal.
Nor is it rational to claim oil supply will go up, regardless of price. Price has nothing to do with it. The reality is that governments will have to ensure there are food supplies in order to prevent riots, and will have to confiscate oil if necessary. And the remaining oil is going to simply be harder and harder to find and extract. Oil is not owned by any private company, but by the country that owns the land it is found under. Your claims are as unreal as someone sure of the whale oil industry in 1890. Technological advances will be necessary to even maintain a fraction of the oil we use now.
And spending $4 billion over 14 year is nothing. We give Israel over $5 billion a year in foreign aid and loans guarantees. You must have a typo, since the correct figure is more like $4 trillion from 1961 to 2008. But we all know that far more of this government R&D money went into research to help oil companies, like for deep water drilling, than it did for alternative renewable sources. The government never built any fusion reactors, solar energy farms, etc. In fact, the majority of the money seems to have been spent on coal, oil, and gas research, just to extend commercial profits, regardless of the long term problems.
RIGBY - One thing that I like about this kind of commenting setup is that anyone can go back and read what has been said by both you and I and see that you are an illogical kook.
FrankWye : Yes the proof is there. For example your timeline link should be obvious propaganda to anyone who looks at it. It is most telling that you would still try to call it "fact", even though it contains only false information, such as quotes from Iranian and Iraqi leaders, even though those countries took no part in the 1967 war at all. It is clear to anyone familiar with the actual history of that time and place, that this fake timeline was trying way too hard to make Israel appear to be the victim, even though it was Israel that had all the lastest US weapons, and was the one that attacked. Adn the goal was obvious. Jerusalem. Since the UN would not give it to them legally, they stole it by force. And no fake claims of pre-emptive strike can explain why Israel would have to launch a ground assault into the West Bank of Palestine, into Jerusalem. That did not make Israel safer, but much harder to defend the larger and more convoluted corridor, filled will Arab villages. It is not at all like the Golan Heights where one could accurately claim there was a tactical advantage of taking the high ground.
As for your hybrid argument, it basically is wishful thinking, based on the ignorant assumption that when gasoline gets expensive enough, that somehow enterprise will rise to the task. And it should be clear the reason that is ignorant is because enterprise can't make oil. Oil can only come from 100 million years of concentrated sunlight. We don't have the resources to grow enough crops to satisfy even 10% of our current use, and our use is doubling every 10 years at the current rate. Any rational person would see that is soon to be unsustainable. It is not that hybrids are a perfect solution, but clearly anyone with only an internal combustion engine will be stuck waiting in long lines, paying huge sums of money in the near future. It has already happened sever times, but not nearly as severe as it is going to be. And even though pure EV is not necessarily practical now, hybrids have the flexibility of both worlds, and can take advantage of gasoline when available, or recharge stations when they are available. Any rational person can easily see there really is no choice in the near future.
I think that you will see that my sources are like: Wired.com - not known for a right-wing bias, which references the US Dept of Energy. Unless you are saying that they and the State Dept for both political factions is lying to us...
Sixdaywar.co.uk has cited all its quotes and information. I got a lot of it from wikipedia too. Maybe you can cite where your propaganda is coming from.
FrankWye : You are lying. Sure you linked a Dept of Energy site, but it only contained comparison figures between the amount of federal money spent on exploiting between the oil, coal, and gas, with very little spent on nuclear, solar, or anthing else. Which means it did not at all back up any of your claims.
Nor is wikipedia free from propaganda. And you 67 war timeline on Wiki never claimed to explain the causes at all. It was simpy a compilation of headlines, most of which had been delibertely exaggerted in order to lead up to the war started by Israel.
To claim you supplied any facts to back up any of your positions is a lie.
In contrast, I have posted numberous link, maps, quotes, etc., to show that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory, and is in violation of dozens UN resolutions:
Rigby - I will give you credit for twisting things around. Here is a good article about all the money spent on Energy over the years and what we have to show for it, contrary to its stated goals.
Lying is the intent to deceive. I may be misinformed but I don't think so. And, I have said that it is always a tradgedy when people are displaced from their homelands but Palestinians/Jordanians weren't the first and wont be the last. Then, there is the "spoils of war". But, there is also plenty of documentation on Palestinaian attacks before their removal and voluntary moving.
FrankWye : You are lying because the links you give have nothing to do with the discussion, and yet you claim to have verified your position with links.
As for the department of energy, is has always just been facilitator for commercial enterprise. If it did its job properly, it would make private enterprise redundant and unnecessary over energy. Private enterprise does not at all create any energy, and the energy that does exist is being wasted by private enterprise shell games. We could easily have had electric commuter cars decades ago, that would have allowed us to use oil for food for centuries longer than we now have.
Sure the displacement of the indigenous Palestinans won't be the last, but the "spoils of war" have been illegal for almost 100 years, and is morally bankrupt because the British never allowed the Palestinians to be armed and have any chance at self defense. It is one thing when a contest is decided by fair combat, but it is disgusting for an armed and trained European IDF to massacre unarmed Arab civilians like they did, over and over.
And no, there are NO accounts of Arabs ever being the ones to start anything. If they were, then the tiny Jewish population of 30,000 in Jerusalem would have been quickly wiped out under the Muslim Ottoman Empire. It is extremely clear the Zionist terrorism started in the 1930s.
FrankWye : I don't know what you mean? What started with the Crusades? The loss of independence happened to the Palestinians with a long succession. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites, Mittani, Assyrians, Egyptians, Hyksos, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc. The Ottoman Empire was supposed to be the last, because the British promised them independence once again, after 4000 years of being dominated. But the Zionists screwed that all up.
The conquered are normally always allowed to rearm. That is because they are integrated in to the society of the conqueror eventually. And once faced with a mutual enemy, they become allies.
With Zionism in Israel you have a very unusual and unique situation, where the goal is not to just dominate as the Ottoman Empire did, but the complete extermination of the Palestinians. That is extremely rare in history. It is also extremely disgusting.
You can draw lines as it suits you but I think it is better to be fully informed. I didn't mention 628AD the Battle of Trench, 732 AD Battle of Tours, 1571 Battle of Lepanto, 1683 Battle of Vienna... ...9/11...
The Battle of Trench, Battle of Tours, Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Vienna, etc., have nothing at all to do with Palestinians. There were a series of nomadic tribes that rode in off the steppes, and not only invaded the Mideast, but much of Europe as well. They often became Muslim because that was the dominant religion of the time. But they were not Arabs and they did not follow the peaceful tenents of Islam. They include the Sythians, Huns, Mongols, Moghals, Turkmen, and Ottomen.
Do not confuse the sedentary and peaceful Arab Muslims with the aggressive invading horsemen from Asia that later became Islamic and spread the religion. One of the most well known for example, was Tammerlane, and he most clearly was Moghal, and not Arab or Muslim.
Yeah, lets hear it for peace loving Arabs. Saddam, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, wahabists, moro islamic front, moro national liberation front, abu sayyaf, rajah sulaiman movement, jemaah islamiyah, hizballah, iran plot that included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, MOIS chain murders, Iran & Libya backing militants in Somalia, 9-11 hijackers, Anwar al-Awlaki in "Yemen-The new Afganistan". There is more but the point is that they are all waiting for the next Arab Mahdi to "spread justice and equity and eradicate tyranny and oppression." If the US and Isreal and Brittain are the face of tyranny and oppression then it will never end.
Which is more peaceful: thousand of arabs/muslims currently living peacefully in the US and Isreal or thousands of christians, isrealis, europeans, americans being killed systematically in the Arab world?
FrankeWye : That is ridiculous. No moral person could support ruthless colonialism over independence and self determination. Starting with the slaughter of the indigenous Moro rebellion in the Philippines, all you have shown is that the US has often been guilty of war crimes against indigenous natives.
Jews have always been safest in Arab lands. It was the Bablyloneans who protected the Jews from the Assyrians and others, and it was Saladin who protected the Jews from the murdering Crusaders. If the US would stop being a colonial oppressor, then there would be no violence at all. All the violence is caused by the US, (and other colonial powers.)
Ask any of those "peaceful Arabs living in the US", and they will tell you how little you understand reality.
Of course we don't support "ruthless colonialism" or any colonialism. The Moro Rebellion was before your imaginary 100 years too.
After a series of unsuccessful attempts during the centuries of Spanish rule in the Philippines, Spanish forces occupied the city of Jolo, the seat of the Sultan of Sulu, in 1876. The Spaniards and the Sultan of Sulu signed the Spanish Treaty of Peace on July 22, 1878. Control of the Sulu archipelago outside of the Spanish garrisons was handed to the Sultan. The treaty had translation errors: According to the Spanish language version, Spain had complete sovereignty over the Sulu archipelago, while the Tausug version described a protectorate instead of an outright dependency.[2] Despite this suspect claim to the Moro territories, Spain ceded them to the United States in the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War.
The US, not believing in colonialism but in the right to determination and independence recognized Philippine Independence July 4, 1946. Unfortunately, we cannot go back and right all wrongs. The fact remains that when Isreal became a State the Arabs and or Palestinians were welcome to stay. Many chose not to and fight a war instead, lost and then remained displaced. But many did stay- see what they are doing...
You ask why is it that Arab immigrants assimilate better in the United States than in France (November 19th)? I would like to provide a parallel case from when I taught in Italy as one possible explanation. At my school, a group of students was referred to simply as "the Japanese". Eventually, I discovered that these students had been born in Italy and held Italian passports, yet no one ever referred to them as Italian. Because of their long history, the definition of what is "a European" is resistant to change, whereas the terms "American" and "Canadian" are being redefined constantly.
The Ministry of Justice filed 41 prosecutions while the American team was in Nigeria, the report said. Even so, the commission recommended that the United States include Nigeria on a list of 13 nations called "countries of particular concern" which engage in "severe violations of religious freedom."
CNN has reached out to the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria for comment, but has so far not received a response to the report.
FrankWye : No, the US has been colonialist for the last 100 years or so, and still is ruthless. The Moro Rebellion was around 1911, so was almost exactly the 100 years I mentioned, and was why I picked 100 years. The Moro rebels had been promised independence for helping us against the Spanish, and we lied to them and reneged on the deal. Spain had no authority to cede the Philippines to the US. It is bizarre you would even say that.
And NO, the Arabs were NOT welcome to stay in Israel. Thousands were murdered. Did you not even look at the Dier Yassin link I gave you? Noy only were most of the men, women, and children butchered by the Israelis, but dozens were captured, paraded down the streets of Jerusalem, and then slaughtered. These monsters were the Hagganahl, Irgun, Lehi, and other Zionists militants who later because the IDF.
And it is nonsense to claim the Palestinians chose to fight a war. They NEVER did. They had no arms or armies. They never fought anyone. You have absolutely no clue at all what you are talking about.
As for your propaganda video, there is not a single Arab that prefers Israel of an Arab state or self determination. And everything he said was a lie. Very few Arabs are allowed to run for any office, and very few Arabs are allowed to vote. They are not allowed to get building permits, work permits, maintain their orchards, their cisterns are demolished, the homes confiscated, they are not allowed to use the same roads, etc. The occupied areas are not allowed any contact with the outside. Israel controls all borders and imports, with high tariffs and taxes on all goods. The Palestinians are supposed to be given these tariff and tax revenues, but have not been for over a decade. Israel is Apartheid. Or do you believe Jimmy Carter was making it up?
I don't think logic is your strong point. Example, Spain controlled the Philippines for hundreds of years, and whether or not you think they had the authority, evidently Spain did, and then ceded control as a result of the war.
I could go on but I seriously think you are whacko.
FrankeWye : You are insane. Spain did not legally own the Philippines, but brutally colonized it by force. A process the US is supposed to be against. But that is only half of why is it wrong to believe Spain could cede the Philippines to the US. The main reason is because the US promised the Philippine independence for helping us defeat the Spanish. The rebellion by Emilio Aguinaldo started before the US and Spain went to war. We had made promises of independence in exchange for help against Spain. We reneged. That was criminal.
What you suggest would be like us accepting France from Hitler in WWII, so that Hitler could end the fighting on the western front. Hitler would have no authority to cede France to the US. But you SHOULD already know that. Any sane person would.
FrankWye : No, Spain was no more the legal owner of the Philippines than the French owned Vietnam, England owned India, etc.
That is not ownership, but criminal occupation and suppression of inherent indigenous rights.
Haven't you ever read the Declaration of Independence? It does not just apply to the American colonies you know. It is a statement about the generic, inherent rights, of all human beings, everywhere.
The length of time is irrelevant. What you are saying is like saying we should just let the Ottoman Empire kept all of Jordan, Syria, Israel, and Palestine, because they had occupied it for hundreds of years.
Yes but we are not exactly going to go out and try and free everyone-that is what the cold war was about and even after WWII we controled Japan long enough to set up a new government.
Remember POTUS promising 2.5 million new "green jobs"? Or was it 5 million "green jobs"? I can't really remember because everything that comes out of Oblamebush's mouth is total BS. Let's take a look at some of those "green" companies that Obungler threw money at and their success stories. Here's a partial list.
SunPower, after receiving $1.5 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs.
First Solar, after receiving $1.46 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs.
Solyndra, after receiving $535 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Ener1, after receiving $118.5 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Evergreen Solar, after receiving millions of dollars from the state of Massachusetts, filed for bankruptcy protection.
SpectraWatt, backed by Intel and Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Beacon Power, after receiving $43 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Abound Solar, after receiving $400 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Amonix, after receiving $5.9 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company), after receiving $178 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
A123 Systems, after receiving $279 million from DOE, shipped some bad batteries and is barely operating. It cut jobs.
Solar Trust for America, after receiving a $2.1-billion loan guarantee from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Nevada Geothermal, after receiving $98.5 million from DOE, warns of potential defaults in new SEC filings.
Spain was the model for Obozo's "green jobs" fiasco.
And let's not forget Spain, the model for Obama's clean-energy policies. Spain announced on April 7, 2012 that they would halt all new renewable energy and co-generation projects.
Spain has seen the light. That for every "green job" that was created in Spain, 2.7 jobs were lost.
FrankWye : I agree the US has neither the resources nor the obligation to free all the oppressed people of the world. But I think we should stop supporting most of the oppressors of the world, and we since we are giving Israel $5 billion a year, then the Palestinians are our responsibility.
But I don't agree with your perspective on solar industries having financial trouble.
We expect solar industried to have trouble since they don't have economy of scale yet, China is illegally dumping solar products, and all industries like auto makers and banks are also having financial trouble right now.
As for Spain, you spin is incorrect. Solar is doing well in Spain. So well that there is currently an excess of power production. So the cut in production of new generating stations in Spain is temporary. They still manufacture and export solar power products, and in fact are installing huge solar thermal system in AZ.
Well since most of the countries around Isreal have threatened to "wipe them off the map" or "push them into the sea," we help with their self defense. Plus the fact is that they are the only free and open country in the area contrary to your beliefs. But we also give billions to Egypt and the Palestinians (which mostly goes into peoples' pocket, ie. Arafat), I think mostly to stop them from siding with Russia or China.
FrankWye : If Zinoists had not massacred innocent Arab civilians like a Dier Yassin, and had not tried to illegally establish an independent Israel in land legally bound to Palestine, there would have been no problem. Israel should have remained a homeland within an Arab Palestine, as the treaties established. But there is no "freedom" in Israel. Ask anyone who is known to be fair, like Jimmy Carter:
We gave billions to Egypt in order to bribe them. But no more.
And no, we never gave billions to Palestine.
The few hundred million we gave Palestine did not even cover water and gargage collection. They can't side with Russia or China because they are blocked from international access by Israel.
If the Arab world didn't gather to attack Isreal they would not have tried to defend themselves. Of course, there was a few extremist Zionists that did commit attrocities and that should be condemned, but that is nowhere near the attrocities commited against Isreal. The imposibility is that Isreal can never have a "guarantee" of security like Carter suggests.
About "Apartheid" in the title of his book, Carter has said:
"It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not.[5]
"I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction."[6]
This helps prove about what I said about Isreal being a decent place to live, no matter who or what religion. Those that stayed and chose to live there are at peace. Those that chose to join in the War are not. And, there was never a country of Palestine.
Do you understand the concept of "country", not region? Countries usually have international borders and a president or dictator, etc. Before Isreal was peritted to re-incorporate there was no country of Palestine or Ruler of Palestine.
The problem with elitist liberal christians is that they think that giving in to demands will solve the problem. While it can on a personal level it hardly ever does with national(and international) problems.
FrankWye : No, the Zionists attacked Arab villages like Dier Yassin FIRST. They started murdering Arabs in the 1930s. And the death rate has always been ove 10 Arabs murdered for every dead Israel. You know that not only from the statistics, but from the fact the Zionists had vastly superior weapons. They had bombers, fighter planes, and the latest tanks, while the Arabs mostly only had WWI surplus.
There is no democracy in Israel. If it were, then the vote would be to return the name to Palestine. Of the 10 million Arabs in Israeli occupied areas, only a half million are allowed to vote.
If you read more than one small sound bite, you would know that Cater was referring to the occupied territories as being Apartheid. The fact is 5 million immigrant Jews dictate to 10 million indigenous Arabs, and occupy over 90% of their land.
The fact the Ottoman Empire prevented there from being a Palestine country, does not mean it should not be. It is Israel that should not exist, because it is always wrong to take land from the indigenous people, and it is always wrong to bad a country on religion or culture. It is Israel that was created by terrorism and requires terrorism to exist.
So the fact that the Jews were enslaved before the Palestinians and lost their homeland means nothing, right.
Like I said what happened in 1930 was an atrocity. But all the subsequent attacks on Isreal are not about that. And, if someone kept launching missiles and sending suicide bombers at me I would hope that I would wipe them out before they wiped me out.
FrankWye : Wrong again. The Palestinians were there first, and the Hebrew tribes coming off the Sinai invaded the Palestinians.
You do remember how the Hewbrew tribes attacked and massacred Jericho, right?
The land never belonged to the nomadic Isralites. It was always the origin of the sedentary Palestinians.
And yes, all the subsequent fighting has been over continual massacres by Israel.
Why do you think the Olso Accord failed? It was because Israel continued to illegally expell Arabs from the occupied territories, and build Jewish settlements where the Arab homes used to be. There has never been an end to the theft.
So, should everyone leave America and leave it for the aboriginals? Are there any 100% "native" anymore? Is it first come first served or last here last keep?
FrankWye : We covered that already. The US DID make reparations to the indigenous natives that were left. But you can not compensate those who are dead and left no decendents.
That has nothing to do with Israel because both the thiefs and the victims still live.
FrankWye : False, the Palestinians have the lowest income in the world, because they are locked in concentration camps by the Israelis.
The fact the Saudis have lots of money is irrelevant. They never got involved and don't care about the Palestinians. Why should Arabs automatically have anything in common? The Palestinians are more Greek, Babylonian, Akkadian, Phoenicians etc., then they are Arab. The Palestinians have always been virtually unarmed.
FrankWye : No, you know nothing about the Mideast. The Palestinians never migrate. They are not nomadic. Their culture and custom is they must stay on the land where the bones of their ancestors are buried.
The reason the Palestinians can not leave or even travel at all is because the Israelis have them behind barbed wire.
They are not allowed to travel by the Israelis, and even those who won scholarships to universities in other countries, are not allowed to leave.
The only Palestinians who can travel are those that got out before the Israeli occupation.
FrankWye : Anyone who would quote Newt Gingrich with "TRUMPET AND FANFARE!!!"
automatically loses. Obviously the Palestinians are many people, and their ancestors have always lived in Palestine for over 7 thousand years. They are the only indigenous people to the land now occupied by Israel.
Typical Lefty strategy. Ignore the facts, attack the person. I really didn't care about Newt, the only thing that the article was saying was that what I have been saying about Palestine has been verified by the Palestinians themselves. Watch the video.
Interesting that I was watching a geneaology show tonight and the person on the show was tracing her family back to Europe, Eastern Block and Russia. The Jews were exterminated and removed from their homelands, at the time, and today no one cares. No one is crying for the return of their homelands. This has happened throughout history and like the video shows it is because solving the Palestinian problem doesn't help them. Like the Lefties of the world, they need their victims.
So, in about another 20 years there will not be any more "theives and victims". Done.
FrankWye : If you did not care about Newt, then you should not have used a video that was obviously corrupted and was trying to glorify Newt. It not only ruined its credibility, but should have warned you that it was out of context sound bites designed to deceive. Palestinians and Christians are being abused by Israel.
Palestinians do exist, have done so for over 7000 years, are the indigenous natives, and have a right to independence.
In contrast, Israelis are mostly of European origin, are largely descendents of Khazar converts who did not even come from the Mideast, (the Ashkenazim). The Hebrew tribes were historically nomadic and have no claim to any land. And the current population of Israelis are all guilty of new crimes as new illegal settlements are constantly built on land illegally confiscated from Arabs who are continually being dispossed and expelled. The crime every day is the failure of Israel to follow the Oslo Accord, the UN Resolutions, or international law. Time will never erase this continuing crime. There is no purpose or excuse for the existence of Israel. Israel not only makes Jews much less safe, but violates the basic principles of Judaism, where we are supposed to wait for the coming of the Messiah for the creation of Zion on Earth, not create is out of pride and greed, by force.
You obviously didn't watch the video because Newt wasn't in it. I found the video of a Palestinian official on a web page that was showing how Newt agreed with the video.
This is how you twist things. I never said they did not exist. I said there never was a country of Palestine. And just because you want to ignore the Jewish tribes that existed there doesn't mean they didn't. You are picking a side. I am picking NOW. THere are too many wrongs done in the past and we can never solve them all. You want to ignore facts like the Palestinians were Jordanians too before they tried to organize.
FrankeWye : You claims are ridiculous. The Palestinians were NEVER Jordanians. The Palestinians have coastal origins, going back to the Phoenicians, Akkadians, Greeks, etc. The Jordanians are inland and much more Arab. There are no cultural similarities even. The reality is that there have always been more Palestinians than Jordanians, so Jordan should really be part of Palestine.
Sure there were Hebrew tribes that lived there thousands of years ago, but they were nomadic herders until about 1000 BC, when they invaded Jericho, and they only ruled for about 400 years. Insignificant in the sands of time. And they were not even called Jews back then, because that word only came from after they captured Judea.
Actually, I will correct myself, hopefully before you try to obfuscate some more. British Mandate controlled all of Palestine until 1923 when they divided it into two administrative districts- Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, the latter being east of the Jordan River.
Because no other peoples had ever established a NATIONAL homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few indigenous Arabs there were or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!
FrankWye : You are totally misinformed. The British Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour Declaration NEVER remotely intended to establish an independent Jewish homeland, but only a homeland colony within an Arab Palestine, government entirely by Arabs. That was clearly and specifically stated by the Churchill WhitePaper of 1922, after some tried to claim the Balfour Declaration said something else.
{ ... The White Paper stated that Britain stood by the Balfour Declaration, and that the Declaration, "re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change". The document reiterated the considerable progress that the Zionists had made in building a community with "'national' characteristics", but made clear that the British did not support a separate nation as a Jewish National Home, only a continuation of the community within the Palestine region. Notwithstanding these assurances, in July 1922 the British partitioned the area of the Palestine Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah to rule. ... }
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. ... }
And clearly is says there were only 80k Jews in Palestine, while there were over a million Arabs in Palestine in 1922. And clearly they are referring to the area west of the Jordan River, to the Mediterranean Sea, when they speak of the Arab Palestine with the Jewish colony within.
The "Mandate for Palestine" was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:
"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
It is important to point out that political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon and Syria (The French Mandate), Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate].
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.
FrankWye : You are totally misinformed, and have not read any of the information or links. Clearly the British Mandate for Palestine was to create an independent Arab state of Palestine. Jews were allowed and even encouranged to move there, but were never supposed to have anything to do with the government of Palestine. That was always to be the indigenous Arabs.
A "national homeland" does not mean they would have their own country. It means the Arab nation of Palestine would always be willing to accept Jews. They were to have access, but absolutely no control at all. None!
And by the way, the League of Nations has absolutely nothing to do with it. It did not exist when the Treaty of San Remo created the British Mandate for Palestine, and it was desolved before Israel was created by the UN.
In early 1921, prior to the convening of the Cairo Conference, the Middle East Department of the Colonial Office set out the situation as follows:
Distinction to be drawn between Palestine and Trans-Jordan under the Mandate. His Majesty's Government are responsible under the terms of the Mandate for establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. They are also pledged by the assurances given to the Sherif of Mecca in 1915 to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in those portions of the (Turkish) vilayet of Damascus in which they are free to act...
...On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Palestine Mandate, which brought Transjordan under the mandate and stated that in that territory, Britain could 'postpone or withhold' those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish National Home. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate (including Transjordan) was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922.[13][14] In August 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 12 August.
Abdullah established his government on 11 April 1921.[15] Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan.[16] Technically they remained one mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. In May 1923 Transjordan was granted a degree of independence with Abdullah as ruler and Harry St. John Philby as chief representative.[17]...
FrankWye : You link about myths concerning the British Mandate for Palestine clearly is a myth itself. The British Mandate for Palestine was always about helping the Palestinian Arabs get ready for independence, in return for their help in defeating the Ottoman Empire. There never was any sort of Mandate for Israel or any Jewish state, ever. In fact, the creation of an independent Jewish state of Israel is totally illegal and in violation of the Treaty of San Remo and the Sykes Picot Agreement.
For example, when I link the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, I linked and quoted interpretation, but I also linked and quoted the exact paper.
There can be absolutely no question that it was Arabs that were supposed to rule from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and not Jews. The Jewish homeland was never supposed to be independent. Anyone can read it.
Rigby - I just had to share this "How to"... Write about Isreal.
Writing about Israel is a booming field. No news agency, be it ever so humble, can avoid embedding a few correspondents and a dog's tail of stringers into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, to sit in cafes clicking away on their laptops, meeting up with leftist NGOs and the oppressed Muslim of the week.
At a time when international desks are being cut to the bone, this is the one bone that the newshounds won't give up. Wars can be covered from thousands of miles away, genocide can go to the back page, but, when a rock flies in the West Bank, there had better be a correspondent with a fake continental accent and a khaki shirt to cover it.
Writing about Israel isn't hard. Anyone who has consumed a steady diet of media over the years already knows all the bullet points. The trick is arranging them artistically, like so many wilted flowers, in the story of this week's outrage.
Israel is hot, even in the winter, with the suggestion of violence brimming under the surface. It should be described as a "troubled land." Throw in occasional ironic biblical references and end every article or broadcast by emphasizing that peace is still far away.
It has two types of people; the Israelis who live in posh houses stocked with all the latest appliances and the Arabs who live in crumbling shacks that are always in danger of being bulldozed. The Israelis are fanatical, the Arabs are passionate. The Israelis are hate-filled, while the Arabs are embittered. The Israelis have everything while the Arabs have nothing.
Avoid mentioning all the mansions that you pass on the way to interviewing some Palestinian Authority or Hamas bigwig. When visiting a terrorist prisoner in an Israeli jail, be sure to call him a militant, somewhere in the fifth paragraph, but do not mention the sheer amount of food in the prison, especially if he is on a hunger strike. If you happen to notice that the prisoners live better than most Israelis, that is something you will not refer to. Instead describe them as passionate and embittered. Never ask them how many children they killed or how much they make a month. Ask them what they think the prospects for peace are. Nod knowingly when they say that it's up to Israel.
Weigh every story one way. Depersonalize Israelis, personalize Muslims. One is a statistic, the other a precious snowflake. A Muslim terrorist attack is always in retaliation for something, but an Israeli attack is rarely a retaliation for anything. When Israeli planes bomb a terrorist hideout, suggest that this latest action only feeds the "Cycle of Violence" and quote some official who urges Israel to return to peace negotiations– whether or not there actually are any negotiations to return to.
Center everything around peace negotiations. If Israel has any domestic politics that don't involve checkpoints and air strikes, do your best to avoid learning about them. Frame all Israeli politics by asking whether a politician is finally willing to make the compromises that you think are necessary for peace. Always sigh regretfully and find them wanting. Assume that all Israelis think the same way. Every vote is a referendum on the peace process. A vote for a conservative party means that Israelis hate peace.
The Israelis can also be divided into two categories. There are the good Israelis, who wear glasses, own iPads and live in trendy neighborhoods. They are very concerned that the country is losing its soul by oppressing another people. They strum out-of-date American peace songs on guitars that they play badly, but which you will describe them as playing "soulfully", and they show up at rallies demanding that the government make peace with the Palestinians.
When writing about them, act as if they are representative of the country's youth and its best and brightest, which for all you know they might be, because you rarely meet anyone who isn't like them, because you rarely meet anyone who isn't like you. When you do it's either a taxi driver, repairman or some working-class fellow whom you have nothing in common with, and who turns out to be a raving militant when it comes to the terrorism question.
These are the other Israelis. The big swarthy men who have no interest in alternative art exhibits. If you have to deal with them at all, get a quote from them about their hopes for peace and how much they dislike the government. Pretend that the two things are connected, and that everything that your friends, who are aspiring artists and playwrights, as well as volunteer humanitarians, told you about the country being ready to rise up against right-wingers like Barak and Netanyahu, to demand peace, is absolutely true. Don't ask yourself why the country keeps electing right-wingers.
Israeli soldiers should be depicted looming menacingly over children. Your stringers are already experienced at urging a child into camera range, then getting down on one knee and tilting the camera up just as an Israeli soldier walks into the frame. If there isn't time to set up the shot, get what you can. The photo can be cropped afterward to show just the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian child, even if the two are not actually interacting in any way.
In print, contrast the bored detachment of the soldiers with the prolonged miserable suffering of the Arab Muslims. Checkpoint lines should consist entirely of old and pregnant women waiting to visit their families. If you are Jewish then mention that the soldiers have given you special treatment on account of your race, even if the actual reason is because you are a journalist and your kind doesn't set off bombs, your kind acts as the propaganda corps for those who set off bombs.
When visiting "settlers," a term that currently covers a sizable portion of the country, describe them as "dogged" and "fanatical." Dwell on their beards and on their assault rifles. Convey to the reader that there is something disturbing about the tenacity with which they cling to the land, while making it clear that they will have to be ethnically cleansed from the land for there to be peace. Do not use the word "ethnic cleansing," use "evacuation," it sounds cleaner.
Palestinian politicians are always willing to make peace, even when they aren't. Work at it and you will get a hypothetical quote about their willingness to one day live in peace with the Jews. Turn that quote into the centerpiece of your article. Contrast it with Israeli leaders who still refuse to come to the table. Never ask them any tough questions about the budget, their support for terrorists or why they refuse to negotiate. Instead feed them softball questions, take their talking points and plug them into the template for the same article that your predecessors have been writing since the seventies.
If an Israeli tells you that there is no such thing as Palestinians, that they're gangs of Muslim militias who have no interest in running their own country, or that Jordan is the actual Palestinian State, ignore him. You're here to tell a story. The same story that has been told for generations about villainous Israelis and the heroic Muslim resistance fighters battling against them.
Write about the hills and the blood-red sunsets, mention all the armies that probably passed over them in a history you never bothered to learn. Talk about your mixed feelings as a Jew or part-Jew or someone who has Jewish friends, at the sight of Jews oppressing another people. Describe the black soulful eyes of a Palestinian terrorist leader. Write about how the soldiers and their guns make you uncomfortable. Close with an old man who expresses hope that one day peace will come to this troubled land.
FrankeWye : The problem did not exist until European Jews started illegally immigrating to Palestine after 1920 or so.
There is no question the European Zionists are the cause of all the violence, and they are living on the land legally owned by Arab individual that were illegally dispossessed by the Zionists.
I got ya. Call it illegal when Brittain controlled it until '34, or was that '36 when they gave it to the king of Jordan. Dont mention that Jews were immigrating before that. Forget that the Arabs that wanted to stay, did. Sure there was some bad incidents... on both sides...
FrankWye : Why is it you still don't seem to know anything about the Mideast? The British were given the Mandate for Palestine solely to prepare it for Arab independence, and had no other option or desire. Only a dishonest and immoral person would even hint that any of the Arabs did not want to stay. The only reason any Arabs left is because they were being murdered, raped, beaten and robbed by the illegal Zionist immigrants. We are not talking about "bad incidents". The entire existence of Israel is based on murder, rape, extortion, and terrorism. It is not their land, they don't belong there, and they are the mass murderers, in the past, present, and future.
FrankeWye : What more do you need? I already gave you the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that clearly said there was to be no independent Israel, but only a Jewish homeland within an Arab Palestine. And that was long after Jordan was given to the Hashemites.
Perhaps if you read what T.S. Lawrence had to say?
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. ...
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.... }
It is impossible for any responsible Jew to support Israel and what Israel has done.
FrankWye : Clearly the British were trying to get what support they could for WWI, and they played up both the Arab and Zionists. But once the interpretations came into conflict, the British had to authorize an explanation to clear up any disputes, confusion, misinterpretation, etc. And that is the Churchill Whitepaper you can find at the Avalon project. It makes it absolutely clear that the Palestine Arabs were supposed to be prepared for independence, while a Jewish home land within the Arab Palestine was also to be supported and encouraged. It was not legal or practical to even consider an independent Jewish homeland. That was created by the UN, 26 years later, after the Holocaust, millions of addition Jewish immigrants, and terrorist attacks by Zionist gangs like Irgun, Stern, and Lehi made a peaceful single country solution unlikely. But since the 1948 UN partition, the Zinoists have constantly been conducting ethnic cleanings, confiscating not only Arab property in the Israeli side, but invading, occupying and confiscating Arab property in the Arab side of the 1948 UN partition as well.
FrankeWye : Your questions do not make sense to me.
It was perfectly legal for the British and the allies to create countries by giving indigenous people their independence in repayment for their help in WWI.
The point was that the British never intended or ever did try to create an independent Israel. Their intent and mandate was to only create a Jewish homeland community within the Arab country of Palestine. There was no question of Jewish independence, because there were only about 30,000 Jews in the whole area, they spoke Arabic, and did not want independence. Only foreign European Jews wanted an independent Israel, like Weisman and ben Gurion.
Israel happened as an independent country because the British were tired having their soldiers killed by Zionist terrorists like Stern and Irgun, and handed the problem over to the UN instead of finishing their job.
As I understand the Federalist Papers, they were the opinions of only one faction, such as Hamilton and Madison, and did not reflect the founders in general.
In contrast, the Churchill Whitepaper was the official authorized intent of the entire British government, (as well as the other allies present at the Treaty of San Remo).
A faction that was the vast majority, however. The anti-Federalists were for states rights, but a smaller faction. The current US government, as a whole, does not act like either faction. And, votes decided the argument ultimately - For the Federalist system but with States/individual rights being protected by the Constitution. Now, most people don't evern realize that we actual do the opposite of what the Constitution actually says.
FrankWye : Small correction, in that only individuals have rights. And they are inherent. States have authority delegated to them by individuals, based on individual rights. So the federal government can also have delegated authority, as long as it does not conflict with that delegated to state governments.
YES! These is a law that countries can only be made according to the indigenous people. It was an unwritten law when this country revolted from England, is what the Declaration of Independence was based on, and has been written into everything since then.
The majority of Arabs left because they were being robbed, raped, and murdered.
The Palestinian Arabs took no part in any of the hostilities, not only because they were unarmed, but because they had absolutely no military training, and because they had families and livestock to take care of.
In contrast, the Zionist gangs were all hardened veterans, fully armed with the latest US weapons, like tanks, bombers, artillery, machine guns, etc.
FrankeWye : You wrote, "So, if I get the majority of people in my neighborhood to sign a declaration, we can become our own country?"
I don't get it, because that would make no sense if the majority of the people in your neighborhood were not indigenous, or were not the major culture in the larger, country sized entity.
That has no bearing on Palestine, which clearly is composed of indigenous people, is of country size, and was only prevented from previously being an independent country by Turkmen invaders. It has all the qualities necessary to be a country.
FrankWye : I know what determines a country, and it is not the politcal sturcture or entity. It the commonality of culture of the people and shared resources.
That is why Yugoslavia should still be the country, and not Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia. That was a horrific mistake, which lead to lots of ethnic cleansing. Just as the artificial separation of India and Pakistan.
And if you would argue Palestine should not be a country because it is composed of Greeks, Akkadians, Phoenicians, Jews, etc., you would be wrong, not only because they are intertwined in geography, but because they share so much culture.
It is Israel that should not be a country, because it defines nothing. It is a incompatible merger of disparate Ashkenazi, Shephardic, and Hassidic cultures, on Arab land, that attempts to claim religion as the basis, when there are historically more Muslims and Christians than Jews there.
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [ Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."10 (Article 2)
{ ... The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [ Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."10 (Article 2) ... }
Clearly it is calling for the Jewish National Home to be within the Arab governed Palestine. It would have to be. That is because even with the millions of Jewish immigrants, the population was over two thirds Arab. So while you can declare a country to be a national homeland, where members of that ethnic culture could always be allowed in and find a home, they could never be allowed to rule.
The minority, especially a non-indigenous recent imported population, can never rule. That should be obvious.
And clearly that is what all documents say. At not time was there ever legally supposed to be an independent Jewish nation. It makes no sense and violates the normal definitions of legal conventions.
Yes, what the UN did was probably illegal. The allies had promised the Palestinians independence, that was the right thing to do, and the UN had no right to give half of Palestine to recent, illegal, European immigrants.
FrankWye : You are totally wrong about the Mideast. The Treaty of San Remo created the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. The British Mandate for Palestine was all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The land east of the Jordan river was known as Trans Jordan. Transjordan had been part of the Syrian administrative unit under the Ottomans. It was part of the captured territory placed under the Allied Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).[30] Following the final surrender of the Ottomans, the British withdraw their army from the region leaving it to be administered by Faisal as a province of Syria[31]
Your claim the British divided Palestine into a Jewish and Arab administrative districts is totally and absolutely false. There was always only one Palestine under the British Mandate, and it was always to be Arab governed. It was only after the Zionist terrorism like the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, that the British gave up and handed it over to the UN to finish.
And only after the UN decided to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Arab sections in 1948, did there ever exist any Jewish country in the last 2000 years.
Absolutely no part of Palestine was ever east of the Jordan River.
FrankWye : NO! The border of Jordan, Trans Jordan, etc., NEVER went beyond the Jordan River. It NEVER went to the Mediterranean, and there was ALWAYS a Palestine on the map. Palestine is older, more stable, and always had a much larger population than Jordan.
Since the establishment of limited Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s, the U.S. government has committed over $4 billion in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, who are among the world's largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid. Successive Administrations have requested aid for the Palestinians to support at least three major U.S. policy priorities of interest to Congress:
• Combating, neutralizing, and preventing terrorism against Israel from the Islamist group Hamas and other militant organizations. • Creating a virtuous cycle of stability and prosperity in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians—including those in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip— toward peaceful coexistence with Israel and prepares them for self-governance. • Meeting humanitarian needs and preventing further destabilization, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
Since June 2007, these U.S. policy priorities have crystallized around the factional and geographical split between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
AND WHY IS IT THAT--Arab states have made relatively small annual contributions.? Nobody really wants peace because it is so useful to use it to hate on the US.
If you are anti-American/freedom its bribery (the $ given to Egypt.)
If you are a civil person it about: ...Since her appointment as U.S. ambassador to Cairo in March 2011, Anne Patterson has been the target of numerous attacks in the Egyptian press. The campaign against her was stepped up following her declaration, at her nomination hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June of that year, that the U.S. had channeled some $40 million to civil society organizations in Egypt with the aim of advancing democracy in the country. Indeed, the issue of foreign funding of civil society organizations ultimately led to a crisis in U.S.-Egypt relations.
If you gave me dates for "massacres" I could look them up to see if it was a result of terrorism or not.
Yes, all countries' boundaries are artificial constructs. But it is the legal structure for dealing internationally with representatives of the people in the area.
FrankWye: It is not hard to look up the terrorism that drove most of the Arabs out of Israel. But you can not ask for a single date, because it started as early as 1920 and still continues today. Around 1948, dozens of whole Arabs villages disappear from the map, but public outcry was so great that since then it has been much more subtle. But it is still not hard to research. There are maps showing land ownership, populations, etc., from British census information during the Mandate, and we can see that the Arabs were always over 70% of the population and owned over 95% of the properties. With each war and day by day since 1948, we see a constant eviction or murder of Arabs, with subsequent new illegal Jewish settlements condemned by the UN.
As far as borders and representatives, there can be no doubt Jerusalem is outside the legal boundaries of Israel, and the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel is illegal.
"international law made acqusition of land by conquest illegal, even before WWII." Which law would that be? Would that be after Brittain controlled the Middle East? Tell that to USSR vs Afganistan- nobody did anything about that except us. And then what about Russia vs Georgia? What about the Eastern Block?
Now the trick is to send "advisors" in to a country to help a side that is closer to your own philosophy.
Arab terrorism is directly because of our willing to do anything includinng supporting the worst oil dictators which the terrorists object to invading their lands and taking their oil. If not for oil we wouldn't give 2 cents for the Persian Gulf or them us. Let's get off oil and it's path to bankruptcy before we are completely broke.
Clinton wanted him out, not to go to war for 10 yrs killing 5000 US soldiers, maiming 50k of them and over $2T in costs.!!! Trying to blame Clinton shows just how biased you are. If you want oil wars, go fight them yourself.
For that kind of money we could get completely independent of oil, oil terrorism, oil recessions, oil wars which also would balance the budget from lower energy costs, lower balance of payments, lower military and other costs.
I'm not saying disarm but cutting back 50% so we'd only be larger than the top 10 armies together instead of the 20 now. Without the need for subsidizing the oil companies, oil dictators and oil terrorists we could cut fed taxes by 25% or more.
I am sooooo sick of hearing how the US is responsible for all the ill's of the world. Islamic militancy, dictatorships, and terrorism all predate the US and the oil economy. The world is a crazy place run by crazy people and it's NOT ALL OUR FAULT.
What I like about Engineering is that it's not about finger pointing, ideology, or symantics. Your design works (and meets its requirements) or it doesn't. Hybrids are included in this; they must work (economically) or they will pass into the dustheap of history.
Bottom line: I own a hybrid. Not because of some political bent (a Hummer is greener cradle to grave than a Prius), but because it met my requirements. I needed a car large enough for my family, with good acceleration, and good mileage. Higher up front cost, but lower lifetime cost was OK (I own cars for decades not years, so operating costs are key).
When it's time for me to get another car, I really don't care if it's a hybrid or not. But it does have to meet my requirements. And that was the point of the article.
3grob you mean we/CIA r then didn't overthrow Iran's elected gov and replace it with the Shah of Iran in 53 or so? No?
We installed most of the oil dictators, at least the ones that haven't been overthrown since, and continue to support the most backward countries in the world simply because they have oil. No?
Would we give a Rat's a-- for that area if it didn't have oil?
And it's all about corporate welfare for big oil and the congress, pols they can buy. Just look at the lying anti Obama ads big oil is running saying he is responsable for higher oil prices which they know isn't true. When it's their money fighting at every turn to prevent the US from being held hostage to oil spikes and paying more and more for it.
Wouldn't a rational response to the oil caused recessions and the military says is our biggest security threat to get off oil and stop paying $.5T/yr to subsidize it? It's your tax $.
We have no lack of energy in the US as it's most everywhere and much of it for free though as we say in sailing, it costs a lot to catch it. But that cost is now at parity and dropping. So just you stick with oil and pay through the nose and think of me driving at such a low cost in my lightweight EV's so low it's hard to measure at $120/yr for batteries, electricity,tag, etc.
And you can keep lying to yourself we only do good things killing for oil. Wouldn't it be better if we just stop doing that? Plus saving $.5T/yr to pay down the debt and creating a million new US jobs be a far better plan?
Jerry, we did lots of stuff back then. Even some stuff before that. But the world is more complicated than the simplified version you are imagining. During WWII and the Cold war lots of smaller countries became pawns in the larger conflict between the radical socialists (either national or international) and everyone else. And we are not out of the woods yet.
Despite the fact that we were (as we should be) pursuing our own interests, we did so with a level of selflessness that hasn't been equalled in human history. That's why we helped other economies grow instead of just pushing our own on everyone else (as China does). That's why we spent American blood in places without oil to prevent the growth of radical socialism.
Ask the average person in Iran if they are better off in a secular dictatorship friendly to the US or a religious dictatorship friendly to no one. They will look at you like you have two heads.
So, back on topic. Would you buy a Hybrid to replace your first?
FrankWye : You said "The fact remains that the carbon molecule is still the cheapest source of energy BY FAR."
And the reality is that the carbon molecule is not a source of energy. It does not exist in nature in a form with useful energy. Fossil fuels are merely stored energy created by stellar fusion and captured and concentrated by plants and bacteria. If that was in infinite supply, then we would not need to discuss alternatives. But the supply is over a decade past its peak, while consumption is rapidly accelerating. We have to discuss alternatives quickly. And hybrids are a good transition, although not a solution.
Make it cost competitive (overall cost of ownership) and I'm on board. But for now, the disparity is far to great to make it a sound financial decision, or even environmental for that matter, as no one is discussing the logistics and downside of disposing of the spent "battery cells" and hazardous materials from them. I believe that's why a great number of the 1st time buyers are not repeats. The return on investment isn't even close to being attractive, 'cause there is none... AT ALL.
jijon123 : That is not really fair. We don't know exactly what the long term costs are going to be with hybrids. Right now, you should not be counting in battery costs at all, because since 2000 when these hybrids started in major production, almost no battery packs have been replaced or needed replacement.
Most likely battery materials will be a valuable commodity even in defunct cells, and will be sold like lead in acid batteries, and and will not be disposed of.
So that certainly has not effected repeat buyers. I would bet the main reason for lack of repeat business has been the lack of recharging stations, for only then is the mileage savings significant enough to warrant the extra cost.
Its totally fair; even if you completely ignore any possible disposal fee; the ROI is still greater than 16 years on the hybrid vs its gas countepart (Honda Civic LX vs Civic Hybrid Base). Do the math.
jijoh123 : No, I normally keep a car for more than 16 years. I just recently upgraded from an 1988 VW GTI. I was still running great and used no oil, but the interior was getting ratty. That is 24 years. And a hybrid should last longer than that.
What you do with your cars, that is if you have even ever bought a NEW one and not a "great deal" second hand - or third hand one, is totally irrelevant to the discussion and to EVERY OEM !
OEM makes vehicles to the 82% of people that buy a NEW vehicle every 4 to 5 years and lease vehicles for 2 to 3 years.
Less than 5% of owners buy anything with intent to keep it "forever", that is why "resale value" is so important to TOYOTA buyers - and only about 1.8% actually DO (accidents, theft, even death & illness) and normal life events make that "impossible" for great majority.
No OEM in the World that is still in business today has a business model to keep any vehicle they ever made on the road, indefinitely!
The Business Model is to sell MORE than month before, and even MORE next month - when that does not happen - bankruptcy occurs, and sometimes also the end.
SAAB, GM, Chrysler, Aptera, AZD, Think!, on and on........
Longevity of vehicles is Business Model for suicide!
And customers with your vehicle buying habits are total undesirables!!!
MIROX : No, 82% of the population do NOT by a new car every 4 or 5 years, and they would have to be idiots is they did, because cars spend more time in the shop in the first 2 years, than the whole rest of the life of the car. Over 50% car owner have over 100,000 miles on their car, and intend to keep them forever.
All you have shown is that OEMs don't know anything about their customers or about how to run a business
The proof of that are all the millions of successful repair shops that do not sell cars at all, but make their profit through sevice entirely. Service is extremely profitable, more so than selling cars.
The brands that fail are those with insuffient service networks.
What you calaim is YOUR opinion based on unrealistic dream and totally closed eyes to reality around you !
What I quote is REAL DATA from R L Polk, NHTSA, DOT, CARB, EPA, DoE.
Average car that is taken out of service has between 120,000 to 128,000 miles that has been almost constant for last 11 years, and due to use of Trucks and SUV as "cars" the average service life of trucks has dropped from previous 136,000 miles to just under 89,000 in just last 3 years.
Have you noticed that only 12 million NEW vehicles were are sold last year, and that 40 millon trade hands ? Previous average for previous 10 years was 16 million annual sales - Fleet growth in 20 years less than 4% annually - IN 2009 MORE vehciles (2.5 million more to be exact) were taken OUT OF SERVICE than there were NEW vehicle sales !
Average ownership of NEW car is 70 months, average ownership of "used" car is about 52 months.
The people that actually own vehicles "forever" was statistically ALWAYS under 2% for last 26 years of data.
Just about as many as buy Hybrids !!! (2.2%) - and while OEM CATER to Hybrid Buyers and go out of their way to do so at loss.
NOT a SINGLE OEM caters to "keep it forever" buyers - and the Franchised Dealers do not EITHER - that is why independent mechanics can stil survive, but not much longer ! (They no longer exist in places like Japan, and are disappearing in Western Europe).
New Car Dealers have shortage of as of last count 180,000 job openings for trained Mechanics, and need 24,000 specialists to handly Hybrids, that are nowhere to be found !
Planned obsolescence is what makes MODERN LIFE possible - or how come you are on the Internet ?
Typewriter and US Mail wuld do just fine !!!
Are you also still using the 1980 Computer ??? Prbably NOT.
Just real life facts that you have probably not noticed - is your cell phone 10 years old ? Or your LAP TOP 20 years old ?
If there are 186 milion licensed drivers in USA driving 235 million vehicles and buy 12 to 16 million NEW vehicles annually for last 20 years, then just simple math proves that you claim of 50% of people keeping car any longer that what is the Industry average is NOT POSSILBE or else there would be over 400 milion cars in USA at this time - and that is NOT SO !!!
Just check your rear-view mirrors and how many 1990's vehicles do you see ?
The statistics is that 82% of NEW vehicle buyers buy new vehicles as often as they do - and that is who OEM cater to.
Only less than 1.8% of NEW vehicle buyers keep the NEW CAR "forever" in real life while 5% inted to do so at the time of purchase.
Any succesfull business will cater to the 82% of their repeat customers and really DO NOT care about the 1.8% that will NEVER buy another product from them ever again.
Majority of vehicle buyers buy USED cars annually (over 40 million of them) thinking that the clunker the previous owenr does not want to keep for even one more mile is a "good deal" -
MIROX : That is ridiculous. If 82% of the population only kept a car for 4 or 5 years, then there would be about 4 or 5 times as many used cars on the market, as there were new cars. But if 82% of the population was buying new cars all the time, there would be no one to buy these used cars. But the reality is that there are very few used cars on the market. Ever since the clunkers for cash, the used car market is tighter than a drum. You own statistics, that only 12 million new cars were sold, while 40 million used cars changed hands, shows that the number of people keeping cars beyond 4 or 5 years is almost 4 times the number of people buying new cars all the time.
You know nothing about the car market.
Of course no OEM caters to buyers who want to keep their cars forever, because they are idiots. In the past they knew that the attraction of cars like Volvo, Mercedes, VW, etc., was how long they lasted.
Planned obselecence is just plain stupid. It is just wasteful and buyers quickly catch on. Why do you think US car sales are doing so badly?
And with global total production of only 77 million cars a year, it is impossible for the US market to be consuming 12 million of them. That is probably much more likely total US production, most of which are exported.
It is people like you, touting planned obselecence that is ruining our whole economy. If we keep making cars that don't last, people will buy elsewhere.
Well unfortunately you do not comprehend that 82% of business for OEM is not the same as 82% of "population"
And you are totally missing the point of the article:
Polk's study revealed that only 35 percent of hybrid owners chose to purchase a hybrid again when returning to the market in 2011. The repurchase rate was even lower -- under 25 percent -- when owners of the Toyota Prius were excluded from the statistics.
Here are Brand Loyalty rates:
For conventional ICE vehicles
1-year
68%
2-year
53%
3-year
46%
5-year
44%
8-year
40%
10-year
23%
If you are not too cheap to spend $$$ you can by all the automotive data for last 32 years form Automotive News, J D Power, R L Polk, and get all the longevity data from NHTSA and DOT as well as EPA - must be heck of a conspiracy if all Government Agencies do not reflect the Data that you "believe" !
MIROX : Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that unlike computers and cell phones, there have really been no significant improvment in cars in the last 70 years, nor can there be any. I studied a 1937 Mercedes that got 35 mpg, could run on just about anything flammable, and performed as well as any modern car. The only difference is that it cost hundres of thousands of dollars, but economy of scale is not a technological break through.
It destroys the economy for use to waste resources constantly replacing things designed to wear out prematurely. It is a dispicable practice.
MIROX : You said, " I rest my case, no need to say anything more !!!"
And only an idiot would claim internal combustion engines of 70 years ago did not already have all the features of modern engines. If you think there has been a single improvement, then you could have told us one. But you can not. The fact they ran overhead cam by chain and most cars use a cheap rubber belt now, is NOT an improvement, but a cost saver. Electronic fuel injection is not nearly as reliable or perform as well as mechanical injection. There is nothing at all that has been improved upon except costs.
In the past, promblems create solutions usually due to cost. Somebody figures out a cheaper way of doing things or the cost becomes too great that people move to the next cheaper thing. That is why Statists want higher gas prices so that people would be more amenable to the changes they want to make. The Statist impulse is to either force everyone to do it their way and/or demonize those that don't see it their way. My only direct cost is at the pump and I prefer to create a competitive system that only charges for cost to drill plus cost to ship plus profit margin. That way drillers, shipper, distributors all compete.
If they can make an affordable "clean" car, great!
Peak oil only takes in to consideration easy to get oil, not the harder to get.
"source of energy" vs "stored energy" - you have got to be kidding.
I have owned a new Honda Insight since 2003. I am very confused when I read all the banter about hybrids. I normally get over 60MPG sometimes as high as 66MPG. I have never had any major problems apexcept for a rear end collision, which was repaired like new. Originally cost 20k with 3000 tax rebate.
I sometimes don't think people know how to drive a hybrid. The way you drive it depends on what kind of a hybrid it is. Honda IMA needs to get up to speed quickly using the Electric boost then getting of the gas and let the gas Engine do what it is best at, keeping the car moving. Use the boost only when needed on hills etc, don't try to stop on a dime and let the regenerative braking charge your battery while slowing down. The added feature of the engine turning off while waiting at a stop contributes highly to the gas milage.
I have taken the car on trips over 1000 mi and shorter 200-500 trips with no problems, still using the same battery...
FrankWye : The problem with letting the cost control the market is that there are actually at least 2 different mixed markets. And it would be a disaster to allow the recreational transportation market pay the same price for oil as the food production and distribution market, as they are now.
The goal is not to force change by raising prices at the pump, but to have recreational use subsidize food production uses.
Remember, that the only reason Malthus was wrong was because of the invention of means of exploiting oil in food production and distribution. If we allow oil to be taken out of food production and distribution, we end up back at the situation predicted in 1835, only much, much worse because of population growth.
FrankWye : You punish recreational waste of oil by having it pay to subsidize agricultural use, and by subsidizing alternative recreational means, like hybrids.
The fuel cost per mile is different. Say a hybrid gets 47mpg and $4.00/gal that is 8.5 cents/mile. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 99mpg equivalent which is 33.7KWHr. That works out to 3-4 cents/mile depending on where you live. The Honda Civic CNG is rated 31mpg combined and in many states CNG goes for $1.25/gal. That works out to 4 cents/mile. Home fueling can bring that down to 3 cents/mile. The Leaf will not work for everyone. A guy I know has one and swears by it. He has access to a free charging station by work and he figures he saves $1000-$2000/yr in fuel costs in addition there is virtually no maintenance and he gets to use the carpool lane. He rents a car for long trips. The Honda Civic CNG provides similar cost benefits but has a longer range and can be refueled on the road. Long trips require planning but for around town it is fine. These cars are not for everyone but for those few it can a real cost savings.
Greg, I was also surprised by the results. It's particularly suprising in light of quality and reliability studies that have been done on hybrids. The Honda Insight and Civic Hybrid have been very good and I think it's fair to say that the Prius has bordered on spectacular.
I think there are too many variables involved to make any valid conclulsions from this data as presented. For instance, I have a Saturn Vue Hybrid. There was a very low increased purchase price (~$1200) because it was a mild hybrid. Even though the Union of Concerned Scientists ranted against this vehicle it is a great vehicle. It's a small crossover and I love it. It has a 25% increase in fuel economy over the non hybrid. They're not available anymore. Not only that but you can't get a new crossover Hybrid. But now I can get a domestic non-Hybrid crossover with about the same fuel economy. Also, my boss just got a Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. He previuosly had the regular gas model. He loves the Hybrid. He is getting over 40 MPG. I started off saying "too many variables". They are overall availability, configuration availability, difference in quality of initial hybrids, more fuel efficient non-hybrids available now, and the economy in general. If you really want to study the "popularity" of hybrids you need to do it model by model and find out all the different reasons people opted to buy another one or not. Any other generalizations made about these particular numbers just don't mean anything.
I believe that consumers are perhaps becoming more sophisticated when it comes to automatically accepting or rejecting what is marketed as "green" or what is marketed as being a money saver for them.
In my opinion, many of these so-called "green" products such as hybrids are marketed based on a single variable - in this case gas mileage. However when looking at the complete life-cycle picture of what went into manufacturing such a vehicle, Many of us question how "green" it actually is.
Besides - the purchase should make sense from an economic perspective - not just the emotional "green" perspective.
Those that are ttruely interested in buying 'green' have begun looking at the cradle to grave 'green' and not just operation. I recall that Toyota acknowledged that their 'greenest' cradle to grave vehicle was not a hybrid.
I agree with this assessment. I believe that consumers are far more savvy on average about "Green" than they used to be. Part of the original impetus for developing hybrids and EVs was that carbon emissions were causing harm to the environment. Now this proposition is recognized by most rational people as lacking in evidence (the global temperature has been flat for the last 15 years even as atmospheric CO2 has risen). Also, the amount of warming predicted is insignificant compared to daily and seasonal temperature swings in most places. Those who continue to insist on the truth of global warming are seen to be pushing a political rather than scientific agenda. Nonetheless, some people will buy anything claimed to be "green." However, many potential buyers, and especially those who have already owned one, now realize that the total lifetime cost of hybrids and EVs is way higher than the benefit obtained, and that the environmental issues are not nearly as urgent as they seemed 10 or 15 years ago.
Incorrect. The global temperature only appears to be flattening due to the huge spike we had in 1998. The reality is that in the last 5 years the Arctic ice cap has started totally disappearing, with an open summer Northwest Passage for the first time in tens of thousands of years.
Anyone who does not think global warming is still not a serious problem, must not live near the coasts or tornado zones.
And the main point of going green has nothing to do with global warming, but with the realistic concern that future shortages in this finite resource will cause global starvation. How many deaths do you want on your hands?
Please, Rigby5, try getting some of your information from reliable sources. Over just the past few months we've been shown more evidence -- not that there was any lack -- of misstatements and outright hoaxes from the anthropogenic global warming crowd. The Himalayas aren't melting away by 2035, Greenland isn't fading like an ice cube in a cup of coffee (as at least one formerly highly respected atlas claimed) and the New York skyline isn't the tops of a few skyscrapers sticking forlornly out of the water. The East Anglia disgrace was just the tip of the (growing) iceberg -- failing to buy an electric golf cart won't put any innocent blood on our hands.
Saving money is the only reason for buying a hybrid; not saving lives, certainly not "saving the Planet." I love driving the Prius -- it's a great product, and as an Engineer it tickles my fancy to drive a car that makes efficient and seamless use of two different torque signatures -- but I drive them for my own pleasure.
Sorry, that is profoundly ignorant. There has never been a hoax associated with global warming, and instead it is far understated because there is no one who can profit from recognizing the reality of it. Yes, the mountain reservoirs ARE melting at an alarming rate. And Greenland is not floating ice, so no one rational would ever have compared it to a floating ice cube. But Iceland has over a mile thick layer of ice that is rapidly flowing off rivers of fresh water into the ocean. It is clear this is submerging the Gulf Stream, and causing all these terrible cold temperatures in Europe. No one in the scientific community denies these realities.
But obviously it was saving money that I was also concerned about. It is not just that gasoline is going to be over $5/gallon soon, but that in 10 years is will probably be over $20/gallon. Anyone not looking 10 years ahead is being foolish.
Rigby, you are profoundly misinformed. There is absolutely no physical evidence that the planet is warming in an abnormal fashion. Earth was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now, and Russians were sailing the Northwest Passage in the 19th century. And, yes, there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not accept the output of highly questionable computer models. The recent cold(!) weather in Europe is not a result of global warming! Notice that you ignore the record high temperatures that Australia was enduring at the same time. But neither has anything to do with global warming. I don't really need global warming theory to predict that it will be hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Since we are likely very close to the end of the Holocene, I expect that the longer range climate, say for the next 20,000 years or so, is going to be a lot colder than it is now. And it has nothing to do with CO2.
tcvaughn : You are completely wrong! There are reasons like solar flares, precession and nutation, etc. that the Earth has been and should have been warmer in the past. But not now. It is supposed to be betting colder, from the basic ice age cycle. Anyone who claims otherwise is not a scientist.
And no, it is asolute fact the Northwest Passage had not been open for tens of thousands of years, until 2007.
{ ... There has been speculation that with the advent of climate change the passage may become clear enough of ice to again permit safe commercial shipping for at least part of the year. On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute this is the first time it has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972.[4][15] The Northwest Passage opened again on August 25, 2008 ... }
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
There had been some coast hugging explorations through Hudson Bay and Canadian archipelagos before that, but they took many summers to completely, had to use icebreaking techinques, and were not in the ocean.
And while it should be a lot colder in the next 20,000 years, it clearly is not going that direction at all. If you lived on the Maldives, you would understand better.
Rigby - Except that Mars is also heating up more than historical temps and Greenland w a s G r e e n ! back then! and the Middle Ages had higher temps.
FrankWye : Wrong! Mars has most certainly NOT been heating up. The martian CO2 poles are extremely variable, effected by many different factors, and the astronomers assure us that heat has nothing at all to do with it.
And no, Greenland was never green. There were a few coastal southern areas that could be lived on during the Medieval Maximum, but we know about the high sunspot activity that caused it. We know it was not common, and we have the Maunder Minimum to use as comparison.
We know there is not high sunspot activity now, that could possibly account for the current heat retention. And we know CO2 must retain, heat. It can be no other way. We can easily prove it in any laboratory.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
FrankWye : Wrong, Martian polar CO2 deposits growth and shrinkage have no correlation to solar input. "observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."
Just another example of the government trying to tell the market where the money is. When hybrids are affordable, efficient, reliable, practical, and nice-looking, the public will buy them. So far they ain't!
We need better reasons than Uncle Sam says to buy them. There is a not more engineering that needs to go into them first.
I think they will get there, arren. The Prius already has big sales numbers. The head-scatcher for me is why the other hybrids (but not the Prius) have such poor loyalty.
". . . why the other hybrids (but not the Prius) have such poor loyalty."
Failure to "manage user expectations" comes to mind. With the exception of Honda, the other hybrid vendors seem to think the word spelled "H", "Y", "B", "R", "I", "D" is enough to mitigate the sting of paying the gas bill. GM certainly thought that was all they had to do ... put the word "hybrid" on the doors and body.
IMHO the problem is non-Toyota hybrids are only getting mid-30s MPG. The owners probably thought they'd get Prius performance or at least mid-40s MPG. I sympathize with their angst but have no sympathy for their failure to perform "due diligence."
Although I didn't buy one, the Hyundai "bluemotion" appears to be headed to the same boneyard as the GM 'two-mode' transmissions . . . another over promised, under performing technology.
Hybrid 'pretenders' have only themselves to blame as they've never realized the Prius made the word "hybrid" a performance spec that they continue to screw-up.
The only real disappointment has been Honda. Some of their owners are enthusiastic but the Hondas are really built for Japanese-style bodies . . . not the type found in the USA.
Hybrid performance must be in the mind of the beholder.
I have a 2009 Chrysler Aspen 5.7 liter Hemi Two Mode Hybrid, similar to the GM that you say over-promised and under-delivered. I am happy with my hybrid - it meets my expectations. It was time to replace my Jeep Grand Cherokee, 4.7 liter, 4 wheel drive. I didn't keep close records of my average gas mileage, but it was about 18 mpg. The Aspen is bigger = 8 passenger, has all-wheel drive, and I usually average 22 mpg - to me a 20% improvement. The clincher was that Jeep no longer makes a 4.7, so to get a Jeep I would have gone to a 5.7 anyway, and the newer Jeeps don't have enough head room for me (as I don't recline the seat to a sleeping position to drive). I balked at buying an Aspen or Durango while looking for a replacement for the Jeep, until I accidentally found the hybrid Aspen. My wife has a 2010 Prius and gets about 50 mpg. Neither of us will drive enough miles to get a return on our 'hybrid investment', but that was not our prime concern.
When alternative fuels gain market share - propane, compressed natural gas, (hydrogen is iffy) - the 'energy recovery' of the hybrid design will help to make them practical.
For the most part, I think we are looking at the buyers that can afford to be curious. When I buy, I go with the tried and true because I cannot afford the surprises and risks of some new technology. A car is a huge purchase for me and Hybrids and EV's would make the purchase even bigger. If this market ever reaches a point where it can compete on true economic terms and win true customer comfidence, then a survey such as this would have much more meaning.
Another reason why people are not repeating the purchase of a hybrid involves resale value. Have you checked what a used hybrid gets these days? Practically nothing compared to a conventional vehicle. That also hurts owners trading in their first hybrid on a new one. Most hybrids being produced now are significantly better than ones from just a few years ago, and that kills the resale market. When you also factor in a possible battery replacement cost, the value of a used hybrid goes way down. So I suspect that people looking to replace their hybrid are shocked at the low trade-in value and don't want to get stuck again.
@Lyngengr: That is an excellent point. Why would any one buy a used hybrid when the technology changes so rapidly. That's actually the downside of being an early adopter of new technology. Once you buy it, you're stuck with it because the next generation definitely supplants any value of the purchase.
"Why would any one buy a used hybrid when the technology changes so rapidly." - Hybrid technology really hasn't changed since the Toyota/Ford, dual-motor system, and the Honda Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) and faux belt-assisted hybrids (BAS). The Toyota/Ford system has had some tweaks over the years but no major changes in the architecture and relative engine-to-electric power ratio. The IMA/BAS system just vary the relative amount of engine-to-electric power with the BAS systems being more 'greenwash' than real.
Our first Prius was a used, 2003 bought in October 2005. At the time, local Toyota dealers were charging an extra premium of $2-4,000 with waiting lists. But the 49,000 mile, used Prius was a bargan, at least $10,000 cheaper than the local dealer was charging. It still had the 6/60000 and 8/100000 mile warranty on the drive train and hybrid battery. With 49,000 miles and sold by a Toyota dealer, I knew the infantile problems had been worked out. This was the last model year of the 2001-03 Prius so it had all of the 'lessons learned.'
I had lost our 1991 Camry in a rain-slick road accident so we were down to just my wife's 2001 Echo. I needed a commuting car and the price-performance point of the 2003 Prius met our expectations.
I had looked at the Honda IMA but there were several problems: (1) too low, (2) rear seat did not fold down, and (3) not enough electrical power relative to the engine. Too low, I knew my wife with her back problems (two surguries) would find it too painful. The rear seat of the Civic hybrid did not fold down meaning it was configured as a sedan just like the 2003 Prius. The relatively low electrical power meant it had almost no electric-only capability whereas the Prius had enough that the engine is frequently off when commuting.
A used hybrid can be an excellent value after "due dilligence." Don't buy one broken but from a dealer with a 30 day warranty. There is a distinct price drop after the 3/36000 warranty expires and another closer to the 6/60000 warranty ending. I am for solid engineering reasons a fan of the Toyota/Ford hybrids.
Since you say you have both Echo and Prius that has the same engine can you share the MPG you get in each car that is, if you keep track of it ?
While I personally have neither, we do have lot of customers with one or the other but not both, what surprised me personally is that people with Scion Ax, the Echo at least to me report MPG that is generally higher than those with Prius.
And those are real life MPG from real people driving daily commuting to work, so not onece in a while hypermiling effort just to get impressive MPG.
And about the Insight on SynLube web, the name of the owner is there, I know him personally ad he kept a notebook in the car recording each and every fuel purchase over 150,000 miles since new.
He was keeping the records to convince Honda that there MUST be something wrong with the car - but did not go as far as Miss Peters.
When the IMA light came on the mileage dropped to low 30 MPG and the car had "no power" to go over "the hump" as he locals call it - sometimes dropping to just 30 MPH (on 65 MPH Speed limit road) that is when the car was "retired" but no one bought it for 18 months.
SO just a real life one person's experience with Hybrid - the FIRST and LAST one, he will never buy another Hybrid or another HONDA.
SO that only reinforces the "Not me for a second time" that was the focus of the original R L Polk press release.
It however claimed that MOST people will buy another vehicle from the SAME BRAND, and it seems to me that in that case TOYOTA is a clear winner, as from the EX Prius owners that we have as customers almost all bought another TOYOTA if not Prius.
FORD, HONDA, GM - the story is always the same = it costed me too much.
Cost per mile is not just the fuel, it is depreciation, insurance, registration, maintenance and in some cases battery replacement when no longer in a warranty.
I drive EV myself, and have "identical" car with Gasoline engine = the cost when batteries are included since 2003 till today is $838.00 MORE that the ICE
But it is still fun and I prefer to drive the OKA NEV ZEV locally, but I would not drive it from Los Angeles to Las Vegas as with recharges it would take 8 days !!!
The ICE car gets 49 to 70 MPG with 1970's FIAT technology - main reason it is only 1,275 lbs. LA LV trip is 3.8 hours at average MPG of 53 - @ 66 MPH
Gasoline is $4.099 today in Las Vegas and $4.399 in Los Angeles
Power is 8.9 cents per kWh in LV and 13.12 cents in LA
Add it all up and the cost per mile in EV is only 3 cents per mile and about 9 in ICE, but add in the battery cost and the EV is 11.8 cents per mile !!! = almost 3 cents PREMIUM !!!
9 years of records are available for both cars from every charge (kWh and time) and every fill up (Volume, Cost and even "fill up time").
So I am neither opponent or proponent, just reporting the REAL LIFE experience both mine and of our SynLube customers.
Main point is that just like in emissions inventory, if you INCLUDE everything then the hyped superiority of Hybrid or EV instantly vanishes.
And as "cost per mile" goes the least expensive car I have ever owned was 1969 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow, as it sold in 1989 for so much more than it costed in 1969 that driving it all those years and over 289,000 miles was actually less than a penny a mile !!! (but then in the past the fuel was really cheap).
30 year running car in good condition is worth Lot of money.
30 year old EV or Hybrid ? Will it even move under its own power ?
I have been keeping cost per mile records just for my own interest since 1968.
I was personally shocked whn I found out that my 1970 HONDA 600 two cylinder car costed me MORE to drive that the RR - thanks to keeping mileage records for business deduction for IRS.
If it was not for IRS I would have never started or bothered to do that, but now teh habbit is totally "automatic" to keep record of every fill up and every chagre up.
I have been looking at hybirds since the first Honda Insight showed up in KC in 2002. I did what most engineers do - what is the cost benefit - and found then it was way out of line. I bought a Toyota Echo instead. A third of the cost and ten years later with 250K miles, I have done nothing to the drive train or suspension. It is worth $3K on a trade in from a local dealer. What would the Insight have done? Not even close based on history of the car. I have even looked at a used Prius but the risk is too high without a new battery or a a warranty that costs a small fortune compared to "normal" vehicles. Bottom line for America is "You want me to pay $10K more on a much smaller vehicle that is worth <$3K at trade in and the battery may need replacing at 110K plus miles for $10K?" A Yaris is looking pretty good right now if I want high mileage.
Hybrids have never made sense as a goal for cars, since they have the worst of both worlds, trying to carry and maintain 2 complete propulsion systems instead of just one.
They only make senes as a transitional step for cars, before all electric models will have sufficient range.
But the resale problem could easily be taken care of. It is the high cost and risk factor from the battery packs. And the solution is to not make buyers own the batteries, but for the company to spread out the risk, by leasing the batteries and making them easily exchanged on a regular basis.
As more recharing stations become available, hybrids will become more and more attractive, and their electrical capacity and range will increase, allowing the gasoline components to shrink. (although I never understood why hybrids use gasoline instead of diesel?)
But obviously hybrids are successful and necessary for larger applications. Trains have been hybrids successfully for over half a century. In WWII there was even a successful 75 ton hybrid tank designed by Porsche, the Ferdinand.
Calling the Ferdinand "sucsessful" may be a bit of an overstatement ;)
while it would be fair to call the Panzerjager Tiger (P) a cousin of the hybrid car, I think that the average consumer would want better than its 1/4 mpg.
When you consider that the Ferdinand was over 80 tons, and most cars are about 1 ton, then when you multiply that .25 mpg by 80, you get a respectible 20 mpg.
That is not bad for WWII technology, when Germany was still using steam driven trains and horses for pulling artillery.
What I would have to question is why take an article that quoted Edmonds as a source, seriously? All the consumer magazine oriented companies have never been very useful or accurate, because they are marketing driven and are not really independent or unbiased at all. All you have to do in order to get good reviews is to give them a few free loaners for a year or so.
Even with rebates hybribs are still relatively expensive and do not necessarily deliver great value as stated by others. Worse, they are somewhat lackluster in terms of performance and you have to sacrifice some user flexibility depending on the model chosen. GM offers a hybrid 1/2T PU with plenty of towing capability but it's expensive and the mileage gain is not that impressive. If fuel stays at $4/gal. some buyers may emerge but it's a niche market. For passenger cars it's a geek market. No emotional content at all unless you can spring for a Tesla offering both looks and performance. If you are a fan of the Big Bang Theory buy a Prius. If you are into UFC type entertainment not so much. Read any of the automotive reviews of hybrids or EV's and you don't find glowing reports. Even CR (arguably a geek publication) has yet to anoint them for all around use.
In the SF Bay area, they used to allow hybrid cars with no passenger to use the car pool lanes. That benefit recently expired, so the HUGE (time is money)benefit of owning a hybrid went away. Also the subsidization of hybrid purchases by the government has expired in many markets. Taken together, what that means is that people are now looking at a totally different cost/benefit situation when deciding which car to buy. A non-hybrid car that gets 30+ MPG and costs less than $20K to buy looks like a winner when compared to the hybrid equation. I bought two Honda Fits and am very happy with them.
Just one comment on the oil situation. 40 years ago when I was in college, they were saying that oil was going to run out in 10 or 20 years. 40 years later, we have more world wide proven oil reserves than we ever have. Hats off to the engineering community who made that possible. Also keep in mind that the oil companies make a profit of about 10 cents per gallon. The government makes a profit of 40 cents a gallon (total of Federal, State, and local gas taxes) on each gallon. The oil industry works very hard for their 10 cents. And the government . . .
I've probably read more than most on both sides of the Global Warming debate. While conceding that the data is still inconclusive, I believe that it is plausible that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are causing changes. However, almost 100% of the "environmentalist" studies I've read omit in their analysis the elephant in the closet: by far the most significant greenhouse gas is water vapor from ocean evaporation, and also that the temperature history of the planet greatly exceeds anything recorded in modern times.
However, not to sound evasive - but I think there are much more tangible and practical things to debate. No matter whether the global temp is (or is not) significantly affected by man, it is a certainty that eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. Once that happens, all the global warming debate kind-of becomes moot. We will likely enter a phase where supply falls short of demand within no more than a few generations. Civilization as we know it would cease to exist without plentiful energy! Therefore, we (as engineers and scientists) should be looking at what to do about this.
1. Energy efficiency is a virtue, to slow down the depletion of fossil fuels and minimize environmental impact. We should work to engineer higher energy efficiency in all ways possible.
2. Renewable energy sources are important. Solar, Wind, others need to be rolled-out. Unfortunately, a practical energy storage system with the scale needed has not been found yet (even today's best batteries fall far short in many ways). Electric cars, in my opinion, are OK but are not really a big help in this endeavor. With today's power grid, EV's basically divert petroleum use to coal + natural gas, with approx. net-net total energy usage and emissions compared with today's solutions ....maybe only slightly better. Hybrids, on the other hand, make a lot of sense for stop-and-go city driving cycles.
3. I'm convinced we should create a "renewable fuel" that can be synthesized and stored to give 24/7/365 concentrated energy for vehicles, heating, power, everything. Until recently I thought biofuels could be the best answer...but further study has illuminated that FOOD BASED biofuels (corn, soybeans) make no sense whatsoever. Sugar Cane & perhaps switchgrass remain the best hope today...but synthetic fuels make more sense long-term. Also, algae-based biofuels remain hopeful. Overall, any FARMING BASED biofuel starts looking undesirable when effects of soil erosion, chemical runoff, fertilizer requirements, etc. are taken into account.
4. By the way, did you know that 100% of fertilizer in the USA is made from natural gas? So when fossil fuels run out, we not only have an energy problem - we have a collosal food problem.
5. So...you might ask "what is a better solar-derived fuel than biofuels"? The winner in my current thinking is Ammonia and/or Urea. Ammonia can be synthesized from renewable energy sources by electrolysing water and catalytically reacting with the nitrogen in the air (80% Nitrogen). Infinite sources of raw material...just add renewable energy! Ammonia (NH3) is an excellent fuel and can be burned in an internal combustion engine at high efficiency (equiv octane = ~110). It is like propane - a liquid at moderate pressure, but vaporizes at atmospheric pressure. It also can be used directly in fuel cells (in the future when this techology's cost comes down). And... when ammonia is burned, the products are only water vapor and nitrogen gas! Zero Carbon. Energy density and safety is much higher than hydrogen (gas or liquid), at about half the energy density of gasoline, or about the same as methanol. It is lighter than air, so any spills rise and dissipate rapidly. Ammonia can be used directly or easily converted to Urea for use as fertilizer. Absorbsion into powdered magnesium chloride is another way to safely (and cheaply) store ammonia in a fuel tank without risk of catastrophic spillage in a crash.
6. In the interim, while there are still lots of coal power plants - the new RENEWABLE synthesized ammonia can be used to scrub CO2 out of the power plant smokestacks, and the result (NH3 + CO2) is UREA, which can be used directly as fertilizer. Also, UREA is a solid, and 100% non-toxic.
We could have a non-carbon based fuel and fertilizer economy based on renewable energy with Ammonia as the universal fuel. We don't need to change to EV's as an interim step, and force consumers to accept the HUGE convenience tradeoffs that they require. I know...I'm talking about decades in the future - but someone needs to be thinking ahead ...
sorry...way beyond topic. I'll step away from the soapbox now,
Kevin, you bring up some interesting points. As you stated, regardless of which side you are on, fossil fuels are a finite energy resource and will eventually run out. Effort does need to be put into researching alternative energy resources to plan for this eventual fact.
From the alternatives that you presented, do you have a rough idea of the current cost multipliers for each one? (ex. switchgrass is 2X more expensive than traditional fossil fuels). I think that motivation for research will mostly be driven by economics with these technologies taking off when a perceived quick payback is there.
I don't have totally clean data to send you. My opinions have been formed by reading MANY articles over years of time. However, I was able to google around and find some relevant articles for you. Most biofuel articles tend to be polarized - written by either zealots (pro-biofuel) or curmudgeons (anti-change / anti-biofuel). Here's some that are pretty balanced:
1 gal gasoline =3.875 liters is energy equiv. to 1.5 gal Ethanol = 5.68liters Ethanol
My take is that most of these biofuels cost more than gasoline, but not by <that> much. Perhaps a 20%-50% premium, and for some processes, maybe 2X-3X. Most of the world already pays about this much for their fuel....we are very spoiled in the USA.
Note that the Switchgrass-sourced ethanol is still fairly expensive, but the ethanol processes are still being optimized. However, the FEEDSTOCK is lower cost than most alternatives and requires much less intensive "farming" investment and the "carbon footprint" is dramatically lower than the others. Also - look how GREAT the results are with Brazil's sugar-cane ethanol program!
I'm not normally one who likes to see heavy government subsidies or directives, but energy is an area that I think is different. As long as we can just pump-out (or mine) fossil fuels that took mother nature millions of years to create (and burn them up in only a couple hundred years) - these will be cheaper. Once fossil fuels get scarce and run out - alternate fuels will not be an option, and 1.5X or 2.0X cost vs. today's gasoline will seem just fine.
Since it may take decades of focused development to develop the technology and scale needed, and the fact that the "free market" probably won't respond until we actually start running out of oil and have an emergency on our hands (too late!) - I think the government MUST prime the pump by promoting alternative energy NOW. Hopefully in a smart and efficient way (cynics can snicker...I'm one of them sometimes too). Our future depends on it....and even if it isn't "easy", we must persist or face dire consequences.
As I mentioned before - I really think that farming-based biofuels are not the best choice. A non-carbon, mechanized synthesis process that takes solar energy from all sources (photovoltaic, wind, maybe even direct solar synthesis) and creates a renewable fuel (ammonia or urea) makes much more sense, I think. I've also read that for a given land area - much more energy can be harvested with PV than with any biofuel. That's a factor too - as there is limited land area in many areas to use for solar energy conversion.
Lastly - here's a very enlightening link to see the big picture where our energy comes from:
I really liked the Livermore graph. It really packs a tremendous amount of information into easily understandable information. I was actually surprised to see that petroleum was not larger. Also, I was surprised that the renewable energy sources were that significant.
One thing to remember with growing our fuels is the unintended effects that it may produce. For example, growing more sugar cane in Brazil will put tremendous pressure to clear more rainforest land (for more fields), thus hurting biodiversity in the process. Also, growing more fuel in the states will have some impact on food prices also, since some of this land will now be used for fuel production.
I still like the idea of growing fuel, but again, we really need to carefully think through all of the unintended effects of switching over to these and other types of sources.
Yeah, I think the Livermore graph is really insightful. I'm not quite following your first impressions on renewables, however.
The BIOFUELS are nearly 100% corn-ethanol (as mandated by the US Govt. as a gasoline addiive). Corn is probably the least-favorable biofuel source around, but with all the subsidies, etc. it is apparently profitable.
Hydro power is fantastically green, but is not being expanded in the USA because reportedly almost all good potential sites have been built already.
Nukes aren't really renewable...and have their own highly controversial issues. However, they ARE carbon-free.
That leaves solar, wind, geothermal - totaling 2.2% of electric grid share. Wish it were more...Also, this cannot rise to over, say, 25% until a breakthrough in mass energy storage, due to the destabilizing effect on the grid of the variability of renewable power. Of course, if we were to produce a synthetic chemical fuel (ammonia, anyone?) from the renewable energy - then the grid would not have to buffer it all, and we would be able to use the fuel like we conveniently use fuels now - in cars, airplanes, ships, etc.
One thing that the chart does NOT include is the massive amount of natural gas that is converted to nitrogen fertilizers, and also the USA imports a lot of foreign fertilizer. I need to investigate the relative energy content equivalency...but I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar to the total amount of natural gas burned as fuel.
Concerning breakthroughs and solar power, do you happen to know what the existing efficiency rating is of today's best solar cells that are in production? Is it something like <20%? If a technology breakthrough can be achieved in a renewable area, I can definitely see that energy segment getting more traction in the marketplace.
Exactly correct on the MPGe distortion from the EPA!
The rub is that while this is indeed the total chemical energy of a gallon of gasoline, about 2.5X - 3X this amount of fossil fuel energy (COAL or NG) is burned at the power plant to create this amount of electric power.
This is the #1 distortion that the "government" is using to try to promote EV's before their time.
The 99 MPG Nissan Leaf ACTUALLY gets about 99/2.5 = 40 MPGe if the distortion is eliminated. Doesn't this make sense ? The leaf is a small econobox with no special aerodynamics and not especially low weight - so you would expect an "average" amount of energy to push it down the road. 40 MPG is about the same as "peer" cars.
The problem with EV's is NOT the electric motor efficiency (which can be very high)....it is the LOW efficiency of the fossil fuel power plants (about 33% on-average today...rising towards 40%+ average in the next decade and ultimately may acheive 50%-60% eventually). Include also the ~7% power distribution losses and the ~20% charge / discharge round-trip efficiency of the battery and power electronics - and an EV running on today's grid is not more efficient than the efficiency of today's efficient cars (Prius's atkinson-cycle engine = ~38% efficiency), and it just burns a different kind of fossil fuel.
EV's may make energy sense SOME DAY...but not until a large fraction of the power grid sources are from renewable energy (today, this is a rather low figure in most locations). EV zealots - call me back in ~20-40 years and we'll see how they are doing upgrading the power grid.
If you happen to live in the Pacific Northwest and have ~90% hydro power, you are lucky and my comments do not apply. However, you may still find that EV's aren't the greatest solution in the winter there...
Anyway - I'm not really anti-EV, I am just saying that they are not ready for prime time and don't really help with our current energy crisis. I don't understand why the government is so intent on using distortions to promote EV's, except for these things: a) they think it will create jobs b) they think it may artificially jump-start EV development and (more likely): c) Influence of Coal and power company lobbiests.
This is also why I think that a better solution is to create a solar (and wind) based "green fuel" (such as synthesized ammonia or perhaps other liquid fuel), and then use this to run our planes, trains and automobiles. This could leverage most of the existing infastructure (gas stations, tanker trucks, cars with fuel tanks and internal combustion engines) and not over-tax the existing power grid, yet get us 100% off of fossil fuels.
No matter how you count it EV or Hybrid just does not make it on cost effectiveness, when you add a battery replacement cost then the premium is as high as driving "luxury" vehicle even when you just compare the bare minimum EV that costs about twice as much as equivalent ICE. Battery pack alone cost OEM about $12,000 in EV (and only $2,000 to $4,500 in Hybrid)
Then you are hauling 450 to 900 extra lbs at all times, at least FULL GAS TANK, gets lighter as you are using up the FUEL, but electrons are so light that FULL and EMPTY battery weigh in just the same !!!
Just go to EPA webs www.fueleconomy.gov and see how much "fuel" you waste for every extra 100 lbs you haul about at all times !!!
When COST PER MILE - does not matter, yu can get GREAT MPGe !!!
Wrong again. Battery replacement on a hybrid is only about $1500, and less then 4% of all Prius vehicles sold, beginning in 2000, have had to have new batteries.
And the Prius the battery pack is listed as having a nominal voltage of 274V and weighing a total of 100 lbs. It says the batteries come in 38 7.4V packs weighing 2.2lbs each. Not 450 to 900 pounds.
TOYOTA's OWN data published in Automotive News shows GEn 4 PRIUS as vehicle with Curb weight (lb.) of 3042, while identical test vehicle wihtout the Hybrid components and only with the same ICE engine (not made for sale in USA however)
Curb weight (lb.) is only 2295
3042-2295=747
= 25% of the vehicle Curb weight !!! - is the dedicated Hybrid Stuff
= 33% Weight PENALTY
= 265% Greater power/torque needed to have equivalent performance
= NON Hybrid PRIUS otherwise identical would do just fine with 42 Hp Engine - WOW
Unfortunately TOYOTA enginers did not go as far as testing the MPG on the "non-hybrid" equivalent, the car was only built as "development excercise" - most likely it would be about the same......[my guess].
It is not a fair comparison to select a car "not available in the USA market" and ignore the latest hybrid technologies. We have no idea about how much extra stuff was taken out of the not-for-USA car such as emission controls, transmission auto/manual, and air conditioning. The USA has safety requirements that a special pleadings car might skip.
It is more accurate to compare the 'Prius c' and 'Yaris' as both are available in the USA and reflect Toyota's most recent hybrid and car technologies:
Prius c -> 2,500 lbs, 87.4 ft{3} passenger, 17.1 ft{3} cargo, automatic
The hybrid weight increase is 185/2,315 = 8%, 185 lbs for the hybrid componets. Both are 1.5L hatchbacks but the Prius c has more interior space.
The Prius c gets ~50 MPG versus 32 MPG for the Yaris, or 35% higher fuel economy over the Yaris. So the Prius c has a smaller fuel tank, 9.5 vs 11.1 gallons. The Yaris carries 1.6/9.5 = ~17% more gasoline or an extra $5/fill-up. With a Yaris range of 320 miles versus the Prius c 428 miles or 25% less range for the Yaris:
4 Yaris tanks ~= 3 Prius c tanks in miles covered
Yaris tanks cost ~$5 more per tank
BTW, the 'Prius c' and the '2001-03 Prius' are similar, 1.5L hybrids separated by 10 years of hybrid advances. Although the Prius c is a hatchback and the older one a sedan, the weight went from 2765 to 2500, nearly 265 lbs saved in a decade.
A fair comparison uses vehicles from the same manufacture, same body style, same engine size and sold in the same market, say USA configured. The "Prius c" and "Yaris" meet these requirements and the weight, payload, and mileage differences show how Toyota hybrid technology continues to improve.
I like your logic and your conclusions. I have also seen a similar false comparison - the Prius to an Italian made small diesel not available in the U.S. The Italian car got 45 mpg highway compared to 50 overall for the Prius, but the Italian cat won 'because it was more fun to drive'. That logic made no sense at all, to me.
The Gen 4 PRIUS is not even produced yet, but in November 2011 TOYOTA made identical car both with and without Hybrid technology, so the comparison is apples to apples and not apples to oranges.
Or on vehicles that are 10 years appart in production.
One main reason PRIUS is such a success where HONDA, FORD and others have failed to sustain any sales is exactly because people can compare IDENTICAL Hybrid and Non-Hybrid cars the same day on the dealer lot - and no matter how you slice it - car made on the same day that is "hybrid" is heavier and costs up to $4,500 more unless the OEM has discontinued clearance sale on them at less than euqivalent ICE car (FORD did that more than once).
The weight numbers were from TOYOTA, the other stuff calculations used in normal Automotive engineering where 100 lbs of extra weight is considered to make up to 2% negative impact on fuel economy - but 1.8% is more typical and reproducible on any vehicle with load of bricks in your luggage space - EPA did that at least 5 times over last 20 years - and while "technology" as changed a lot the impact of extra weight on fuel economy did not by much.
Yet EVERY major well selling vehicle has gained SIZE (greater aerodynamic drag) and WEIGHT - the most common exuse is because of the EXTRA SAFETY EQUIPMENT that is mandated by NHTSA.
12 Air bags with ECU to controll them and bits and pieces to mount them and hide them from view, both COST and WEIGH more than ZERO Air Bags, for example.
Same goes for ABS, Stability Control, Tire Pressure monitors, Seat Belt pre-tensionners, and on and on now add the instant by voice Internet access while you drive - all that was NOT on any vehicle at any price 70 years ago !!!
But you can not sell even one vehicle in USA (unless it is Motorcycle) without them.
MIROX : It is wrong to consider things like ABS, Stability Control, Tire Pressure monitors, Seat Belt pre-tensionners, airbags, and instant by voice Internet access while you drive as being improvement. They most definitely are NOT!
Not only can any good driver stop at least 15% shorter than ABS, but ABS is extremely fragile, expensive, and can easily cause deadly accidents. Probably one of the worst things they ever did to cars. The last thing you want to make "fly by wire" is the braking system. And it can't every work well because it can never actually know the ground speed, (unless you add RADAR or something). So all it can do is oscillate back and forth between extremes, never finding the sweet spot in the middle, which any good driver can easily do.
Airbags are dangerous, explosive, expensive, and have extremely delicate and unreliable sensors. The basic concept is absurd, in that they prevent the driver from being able to continue driving, if the car does not come to an immediate halt after first contact. That almost ensure death instead of saving lives. Much, much better would simply to use active restraints and permanent padding. You don't see race car drivers or amusment park rides using air bags, and never will. They use more sane permanent devices.
I have seen tire pressure monitors and stability control go bad so often that I can tell you don't actually ever deal with cars more than 4 years old. These systems are just plain silly. You would never see a pilot trusting systems like that, and car drivers should not be deceived by advertising hype on these systems that don't work.
And no, not one of these things are required by law. As long as one has better restraint systems, you do not have to have airbags. Nor is ABS required by law. Laws can never require features that have been proven to be ineffective and not as good as the alternatives.
Point is that current Yaris and Prius C are two totally different vehicles desinged by different engineering teams, made in different factories.
The only fair comparison would be to IDENTICAL car with and without hybrid, and that is EXACTLY what TOYOTA egnineers did in November 2011 while working on Gen 4 PRIUS (that is the NEXT generation as they are officially on Gen 3 at this time).
Reality is that LIGHTER vehicles end up costing more to produce, and to have identical car that is say 500 lbs lighter at $2,500 premium just would not sell if both had IDENTICAL ENGINES, looks and equipment that is ALL ELSE is IDENTICAL.
SO that is why such test prototype research car will NEVER be produced, but still it is interesting excecise for the Engineers and Designers that work for the OEM.
GM built close to Hundred cars over 5 years with VOLT technology using standard production platforms for testing - Malibus, Opels, etc.
It was great development tool, but if you'd try to sell Plug-In Malibu for $$$$$ extra, would anyone but Government Agencies buy one ?
It would be helpful to post the URL for the "www.autonews.com" article. Attempts to use their search engine with "Prius 3042 2295" failed and even Google's advanced search functions could not find the article described. But the specific curb weights reported can be found using "www.edmunds.com" to find:
3247 lbs - Prius v, 1.8L, automatic, midsize station wagon - 97/34 ft{3}
The curb weight numbers reported in the un-searchable "Automotive News" article are exactly the same reported for the 1.8L, automatic transmission, full-size Prius and the 1.5L, manual transmission, compact, Yaris.
The "Prius c" is a new car and the SAE has two, excellent papers describing the technology:
2012-01-1017 - "Development of the New THS-II Powertrain for Compact Vehicles," Takashi Uehara, Yasuhiro Takashi, Ryoji Oki, Takahiko Hirasawa, Yuskue Kamijyo, Ikuo Ando, Tyuta Teraya and Makoto Nakamura - summary of the car including the smallest battery pack, 20 modules versus the current 28 and original 38 modules.
2012-01-0636 - "Development of New Hybrid Transaxle for Sub-Compact-Class Vehicles," Tomoaki Furukawa, Ryuji Ibaraki, Hiroaki Kimura, Koichi Kondo, Masato Watanabe, Tatsukiko Mizutani, Hiroyuki Hattori and Akira Takasaki - specifics about how the transmission is smaller, weights less, and cooling improvements.
A little pricy at $23/each, they provide technical details not available until this month, April 2012.
The hybrid sales, dashboard report, for March showed a 3.44% "Hybrid Take-Rate." This is also the first full month where the Prius family included: (1) compact, Prius-C, (2) full-size, Prius, (3) station wagon sized, Prius-V, and (4) Plug-in Prius. Last year, there was only one Prius model but now four which gives Prius buyers choices never before available.
The non-Toyota hybrids are getting mid-30s mileage, not the 50+ MPG of the Prius. "Hybrid" is taxology, not a performance spec. But it highlights the problem of user expectations when they find "hybrid" is not a performance spec.
The Polk report joins past reports predicting the demise of hybrids and the Prius in specific. The range of efficient hybrids, not all hybrids are efficient, continues to grow with Toyota and others still trying. But a hybrid getting less than 40 MPG should go back to the engineers as it will not engender product loyalty.
Our first Prius is the compact, 2003 Prius, and remains in service, my commuting vehicle. Our second-Prius is the 1.8L 2010 Prius and our highway and 'stuff' carrier. Funnily enough, both get nearly identical 52 MPG. But the newer one has enough power to tow 1,700 lbs of trailer and airplane 600 miles.
Toyota hybrids set a high mark and obviously, many non-Toyota manufactures have yet to bring something competitive to the market. Plug-ins are now two, the Volt and Prius and remains an area all but ignored by makers of today's mediocre hybrids.
My wife has a 2010 Toyota Prius, and in warm weather can get 55 miles per gallon. My hybrid is a 2009 Chrysler Aspen 5.7 Hemi - I got it because it had a good towing rating. The best average mileage that I have ever had for a tank of gasoline with the Aspen is 25.
How difficult was it to get a trailer hitch ? Was it a dealer installed option ? What kind of mileage do you get when towing ?
"How difficult was it to get a trailer hitch?" - For my wife's car, we went with the Curt Hitches Class 1 receiver. Curt has a lot of history going back to the earliest Prius receiver hitches. For our older 2003 Prius, I used a Coastal Electronics, 2" hitch but they no longer sell them.
"Was it a dealer installed option?" - The Curt Hitches web site identified local shops that install them which is what I did for my wife's car. Just be sure to coordinate the ball size as they'll normally put a smaller one. BTW, I suggested this as a 'port option' to SouthEast Toyota but they didn't get it.
"What kind of mileage do you get when towing?" - On the empty trailer tow up, 600 miles in 65F, dry, no wind, highways, the 1,000 lb pontoon boat trailer gave ~38 MPG at 62-63 mph:
On the way back, I had an airplane on the trailer with the engine, prop, landing gear and papers in the Prius. The return trip was in 40F, rainy, windy, and gave 28 MPG at 53-54 mph:
The only change I would make would be to install stiffer rear springs as the head lights were pointed higher than desired. Still the ABS and traction control never let me down and I was fully in control during the tow. Around town, I used our 2003 Prius to move the trailer and plane to the workshed:
Understand that Toyota does not list any towing capability. However, those who have studied the computer controlled, Prius transmission know it is much more robust than folks might think. In testing and during the tow, I used OBD scanners to monitor the motor and electronic inverter temperatures. In both Prius they remained "in the green." But the 1.5L Prius engine does not perform well at higher power settings which is why I used the 1.8L that has cooled, exhaust gas recirculation.
Bob, I was warned when I bought my 2010 FFH that I'd void the warrantee if I installed a hitch (which makes a hitch a non-starter for me, at least for a few more years). Is that a problem with the Prius? I just assumed that the CVT wasn't robust enough to tow.
A warranty has value which is another reason why our first Prius was used and I bought the Toyota shop manuals before I picked it up. I had always planned to go 'self-maintenance'. But that was nearly seven years ago and lot of applied study. Much to my surprise, it became my hobby.
So when we got my wife's car, I didn't run out for the trailer hitch. It was only after I bought the airplane that I needed a trailer for the plane and a tow vehicle. So I looked at the options: (1) rent, (2) Coachman RV, and (3) Prius.
Every rental cost came in at $800-900 dollars. The Coachman gets ~8 MPG and that top heavy, nearly blind box is really not something I wanted to drive. We had two Prius and I tested them both. The 1.8L won hands down on handling, safety, and efficiency. Testing and the tow proved it out but I have uncommon Prius history and the instruments needed to manage the risks.
While the overall efficiency of conventional silicon solar cells has continued to improve in recent years, the technology faces a natural theoretical limit at around 33%. This is because the laws of physics prevent the cells from absorbing photons below a certain energy level, meaning that this low-energy light cannot be converted into electricity and is simply lost. Now researchers have found a way join two energy-poor red photons to form a single energy-rich yellow photon, allowing the harvesting of this part of the spectrum currently unused by single p-n junction crystalline silicon solar cells, and potentially enabling a record-breaking efficiency of 40%.
The technique, called "photochemical upconversion," relies on two different types of molecules that are placed behind the solar cell in a solution to combine two low-energy photons into a single high-energy photon. The first type of molecule absorbs the energy-poor red photons, preventing them from escaping and storing them in a persistent state. This persistent state lasts long enough so that the energy can be transferred to a second, organic molecule when they encounter each other in the solution.
When two of these excited organic molecules then encounter each other, one returns to its base state and the other assumes a higher energy state. This higher-energy state is extremely short-lived, as the molecule then sends off a single yellow photon that is if a high enough energy to be absorbed by the solar cell. ...
First of all, we must remember that internal combustion cars are not improving.
In the 1950s and 1960s, cars from the whole rest of the world were commonly getting 30 to 40 mpg. These include the VW Beetle, Renault 8, MG 1100, Austin America, Fiat 600, and even US cars like the Nash Metropolitan. Even the Corvair could get 30 mpg, and that had way more power than it needed.
Second is that gasoline will rapidly be getting more and more expensive.
The discoveries are less freequent, further away, more difficult to get to, there are fewer and fewer places left to look, and there are bound to be more military conflicts over the undetermined ownership of the undersea locations left. Regardless of political pressure, eventually even agent of the US like Saudi Arabia, will no longer be able to contain price spike pressures. While Israel was useful as a distraction at first, eventually even higher oil prices will likely result.
Third is there is no good alternative solution yet.
It costs more to make artifical fuel for internal combustion engines than it does to simply recharge batteries. Bio fuels compete against food, and alcohol or hydrogen use more energy than would be used to just recharge batteries.
So, while hybrids are inefficient in tha they carry the weight of 2 propulsion systems, there is no other choice.
Batteries are not up to pure electric vehicles yet because we need to do things like establish exchange standards and locations. And pure internal combustion simply will not have enough consistent supply. It is hybrids or nothing during the transition.
Tesla Motors plans to roll out a “compelling, affordable electric car” that will sell for about half the price of its high-profile Model S by the end of 2016, company chairman Elon Musk said last week.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
40 
