Oil marketshare conspiracies

[Glom]

So there is the usual stuff about how the oil companies suppress electric cars and renewable energy to maintain their stronghold on the energy market.

Jay once slapped a poster about by saying that the only conspiring the oil companies are doing is to be the ones bringing the products to market first. It is in their interests to move into alternatives.

Oh wise sage of the mountains, what about the oil interests are holding back nuclear conspiracy theories? Are they impeding it or are they developing it behind the scenes or what?

[Larry Jacks]

Why would US auto companies be willing to lose market share (as they did during the 1970s oil shortages and they're doing again today) in order to protect the interests of the oil companies? Likewise, why would utility companies be willing to forgo the advantages of nuclear power (assuming there are any) in order to benefit oil companies? Why would General Electric and other companies that make reactors be willing to cut into their markets to benefit oil companies?

In what possible way would any of that make sense?

[stutefish]

In what possible way would any of that make sense?

All of Civilization is a massive hoax perpetrated by a shadowy cabal, to keep the masses preoccupied with dummy crises while the PTB live extravagant secret lifestyles far away from the prying eyes of us dupes.

Neither the "auto industry" nor the "oil industry" really exist, except as puppets in a Punch and Judy show. We're supposed to be so busy laughing at their antics and shenanigans, that we never stop to ask "what about the puppetteer?"

This also explains why the Soviet Union covered up the Apollo Hoax: the nation-states and their governments are also marionettes dancing on hidden strings.

How am I doing so far?

[Matherly]

Not too shabby, stutefish.

But you need to add the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria (aka the Illuminati) in there somewhere :)

[stutefish]

That would be the "PTB" and the "puppetteer" I refer to.

Control is very strict about me not using their proper name(s). I see your Minder has you on a different program...

[JayUtah]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

[Count Zero]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception . . . that it is unsafe.

The caveat to this is that, to placate concerns, designers have to drastically overengineer safety & monitoring systems, which drives up the cost of building & running nuclear plants, and this makes them less competitive.

[TriangleMan]

But you need to add the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria (aka the Illuminati) in there somewhere :)
Did somebody call? Uh, I mean . . . the Illuminati does not exist, don't be silly!

[Glom]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

Well that's good to know.

[korjik]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

So the people behind the conspiracy to keep nuclear power down is the nuclear power industry? :)

[Monique]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.
Don't you see industry delta team seek in and sabotaged both sites!! There is more :shifty:

[Roy Batty]

Don't you see industry delta team seek in and sabotaged both sites!! There is more :shifty:
...and you don't even want to know what the Alpha, Beta & Gamma teams are up to!:shhh::shifty::D

[galacsi]

All this is very funny ,but the actual competitor of nuclear energy is not oil but coal. And it is very well known that oil companies long ago bought coal mines and uranium mines and tried investing in nuclear energy.

So these investors are just arbitraging between their diverses portfolios. Oil is still the more juicy , coal is a good money maker and nuclear energy is too much complicated.
It is a conspiracy if you want to call it this way. Or it is just actual capitalism.

[Argos]

Brazil wouldn´t have been able to assemble its huge alcohol distribution infrastructure if there was a conspiracy by the oil giants. Instead, the foreign companies simply took on the new opportunity to make money. So did the automobile manufacturers, which acted swiftly to make their cars compatible with the 'new' fuel.

[Gillianren]

It is a conspiracy if you want to call it this way. Or it is just actual capitalism.

You want to make a guess?

Look, like it or not, it's a system about making money. It's flawed, gods know, but it's well-established and unlikely to go away quickly. This means that, should something work better and cheaper than oil, it will in time take over. The reason it hasn't happened with nuclear is that even people who are quite rational in other fields--like me--can be made nervous by nuclear, and the less rational can be made pretty violent about it. (And to me, it's not just the whole Three Mile Island/Chernobyl thing, though given my age during the latter, that's definitley part of it. It's also the "disposal of the waste" thing.)

[Kelfazin]

As a serious question, why hasen't then been more research and money going into the developing of alternative fuels/power? I'm not a conspiracy buff, I've done some research, I've read some books (I've been to the library, Gillian *grin*) and I can see that there are good ideas out there that just need some funding. But from a man-on-the-street point of view, we have the ability to be looking into these energy sources, but very little is being done. It appears that the oil companies are in with the auto manufacturers to make sure we keep using oil.

Some of the auto makers have released the Hybrid vehicles, but the price is so much higher than a gasoline car that it's almost as if they don't want the hybrids to sell. It may not be true, but that is the perception. And as the saying goes, perception becomes reality. If they really want to make a hybrid vehicle work, where are the ads? Where is the incentive to buy one? Don't just tell us you want to do something..actually do it.

[Larry Jacks]

During WWII, Germany spent a lot of money developing synthetic fuel because it didn't have much natural oil of its own. During the 1970s, the US spent a lot of money on alternative energy projects like shale oil, wind, and solar. However, all of these weren't deemed cost effective. IIRC, at the time, it was estimated that these technologies would be cost effective once the price of oil increased to something like $60 a barrel. However, in the 1980s, the price of oil actually dropped (a lot).

Two things are working to increase the cost effectiveness of alternative energy sources:

1) The technology has improved. Today, research is underway to find more efficient (and less polluting) techniques for harvesting shale oil. Wind technology is better today than it was decades ago. The cost of solar cells has dropped considerably, probably due to more efficient silicon technology as a result of microprocessor technology.

2) The cost of oil has increased. This makes alternative sources more cost competitive. For example, I've read that Canada is opening some massive tar sand fields for oil production. This source wasn't cost effective when oil was cheap.

To date, it seems that many of the proposed alternatives have been heavily subsidized. I remember back in the 1970s when huge tax breaks were given for large wind projects as well as individual solar systems (I had a solar hot water system in my first house). Ultimately, unless you want to subsidize a technology forever, it has to eventually be cost competitive with other sources of energy to be successful. It doesn't seem likely that the cost of oil is going to decrease any time soon, so alternatives have the potential to find place in the market.

[Argos]

Kelfazin wrote: It appears that the oil companies are in with the auto manufacturers to make sure we keep using oil.

There´s more to the pic (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/media/press/rfa/2006/view.php?id=748) than meets the eye.

The USA will become the biggest ethanol producer (surpassing Brazil) in 2006. Will all those greedy oil barons allow that?

[Swift]

As a serious question, why hasen't then been more research and money going into the developing of alternative fuels/power?
I don't how much more is more, but there is certainly R&D money going into alternative fuels, both from commercial interests, and at the academic/government level. The company I work for is involved in materials that may be used in such technologies as coal-to-gas and methane-to-gasoline conversions. A lot of our customers are from the petroleum and petrochemical industries. I just read an article in the July 3 issue of Chemical & Engineering News about research to create plastics and other feedstocks from biological materials.

I suspect how much any of this becomes commercial technologies will depend on cost and selling price. Certainly, the increase in crude oil prices has sparked much greater interest (even just judging by interest from our customers).

[peter eldergill]

Another couple of things to think about hybrid cars.

Automakers are very good at making internal combustion engines, having about 100 years experience or so at making them.

People, in general, are not willing to spend an extra dollar on fuel efficient cars (and in many cases, appliances...why are top-loading washing machines allowed to be sold in N. America?). This keeps the cost per unit very high, if there is no demand for them. A vicious circle indeed.

The infrastructure in North America (can't say about other areas) is designed for gasoline, not other fuels

Hybrid vehicles are "new" technologies, making buyers weary of quality, reliability, etc.. pretty much true with any new line of car

Time to get off my soap box now and enjoy my airconditioning...

Later

Pete

[Argos]

The infrastructure in North America (can't say about other areas) is designed for gasoline, not other fuels

Yeah, but any liquid [at room temp] fuel can fit into that infrastructure without problems.

[Glom]

I think I have it better. Uranium is not needed in such vast quantities and with lucrative mines in Canada and Australia supplying all we need, you won't get multinationals globe trotting to dig it up in ever increasing quantities and they do with oil and gas.

In terms of hardware, because nuclear reactors are very powerful, you don't need as many of them. That means, like the commercial aircraft market, there is no room for bit players. That doesn't stop some multinationals like Westinghouse, Mitsubishi and the Lord of the Universe General Electric (also a big wind provider) from horning in as well as the dedicated contractors like AECL.

I was originally thinking why my company, BP, isn't involved when they seem keen on diversifying into the renewables market. I suppose the problem is expertise. The difference between a nuclear reactor and other power hardware is the requirement that the people involved actually be intelligent to build the things. I mean how much specific expertise does it take to make a windmill? It's a giant propeller attached to a dynamo. In that way, it was probably easy for BP to get into it. On the other hand, starting up a nuclear sector requires learning a great deal more.


You want to make a guess?

Look, like it or not, it's a system about making money. It's flawed, gods know, but it's well-established and unlikely to go away quickly. This means that, should something work better and cheaper than oil, it will in time take over. The reason it hasn't happened with nuclear is that even people who are quite rational in other fields--like me--can be made nervous by nuclear, and the less rational can be made pretty violent about it. (And to me, it's not just the whole Three Mile Island/Chernobyl thing, though given my age during the latter, that's definitley part of it. It's also the "disposal of the waste" thing.)

Don't you get nervous about disposal of all that coal ash?

[galacsi]

Brazil wouldn´t have been able to assemble its huge alcohol distribution infrastructure if there was a conspiracy by the oil giants. Instead, the foreign companies simply took on the new opportunity to make money. So did the automobile manufacturers, which acted swiftly to make their cars compatible with the 'new' fuel.

Ethanol from sugar cane like in brazil or from wheat like in france or biodiesel from colza (rapeseed ?? ) like in europe too are not price competitive with oil . , They are pushed forward by agricultural lobbies and have had limited sucess . Nothing to worry for the oil companies.

And also Oil company as powerfull as they are are not all powerfull , they must accept to let some crumbs to other peoples. Because politics is still an independant factor in some countries.

[galacsi]

You want to make a guess?

Look, like it or not, it's a system about making money. It's flawed, gods know, but it's well-established and unlikely to go away quickly. This means that, should something work better and cheaper than oil, it will in time take over. The reason it hasn't happened with nuclear is that even people who are quite rational in other fields--like me--can be made nervous by nuclear, and the less rational can be made pretty violent about it. (And to me, it's not just the whole Three Mile Island/Chernobyl thing, though given my age during the latter, that's definitley part of it. It's also the "disposal of the waste" thing.)

Hey there is no shame to be afraid of something dangerous !

[galacsi]

Kelfazin wrote: It appears that the oil companies are in with the auto manufacturers to make sure we keep using oil.

There´s more to the pic (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/media/press/rfa/2006/view.php?id=748) than meets the eye.

The USA will become the biggest ethanol producer (surpassing Brazil) in 2006. Will all those greedy oil barons allow that?

Yes they own the fields too ! they own everything !

[Van Rijn]

Some of the auto makers have released the Hybrid vehicles, but the price is so much higher than a gasoline car that it's almost as if they don't want the hybrids to sell. It may not be true, but that is the perception. And as the saying goes, perception becomes reality. If they really want to make a hybrid vehicle work, where are the ads? Where is the incentive to buy one? Don't just tell us you want to do something..actually do it.

A hybrid vehicle is substantially more complex than a conventional vehicle, and there is less manufacturing experience with hybrids. That raises cost.

[galacsi]

Yeah, but any liquid [at room temp] fuel can fit into that infrastructure without problems.

Yes sure , you know , privilege of age i remember , 30 years ago when some people try to sell the use of methanol instead of gazoline in France . The cars companies , Renault , Peugeot said : Impossible ; methanol will wear rubber in the admission and you cannot build a car burning methanol .

Not a single scientist , ingeneer or journalist dare to contradict them .

[Glom]

Hey there is no shame to be afraid of something dangerous !

Maybe not, but nuclear is not dangerous in any practical sense of the world.

[Van Rijn]

Yes sure , you know , privilege of age i remember , 30 years ago when some people try to sell the use of methanol instead of gazoline in France . The cars companies , Renault , Peugeot said : Impossible ; methanol will wear rubber in the admission and you cannot build a car burning methanol .

Not a single scientist , ingeneer or journalist dare to contradict them .

I don't recall anyone saying you couldn't build a methanol fueled vehiclie in the U.S. but there were real world issues: Existing autos would have needed to be heavily refitted to run methanol. It certainly would "eat" various materials in the fuel system and engine. New vehicles could be built to run it, but before computer-run everything, efficient "flex fuel" vehicles were trickier. And you had to have the methanol in the first place.

[Argos]

Ethanol from sugar cane like in brazil or from wheat like in france or biodiesel from colza (rapeseed ?? ) like in europe too are not price competitive with oil . , They are pushed forward by agricultural lobbies and have had limited sucess .

In fact, better not generalize here. The Ethanol program originated from strategic considerations (regardless of their merit) by the then ruling military. Farmers just followed behind, being practically forced to produce alcohol, when they wanted to make sugar for export. So, there are no such lobbies. As to the success, well, I´d really be lying if I told you that the Brazilian effort is a failure. Sugar cane growing and processing have changed quite a bit. Technologies have been developed. Genetically modified varieties now make production costs highly competitive. If you consider a high scale of production/consumption, as in the case of this country, you get a viable and economically sound market.

[Kelfazin]

A hybrid vehicle is substantially more complex than a conventional vehicle, and there is less manufacturing experience with hybrids. That raises cost.

And I understand that, but why don't you see more ads pushing the Hybrids? how many ads do you see on TV and on hear on the radio , or read in a magazine for cars? Thousands, you can't go more than a couple minutes in any medium without running into a loud, overbearing, obnoxious car commercial. Granted a lot of those are from your local dealers, but even the ads by the manufacturers tend to push their regular cars rather then the hybrids. I know that you advertise to your market base, and the market right now is mainly for the gasoline cars, but as a consumer I don't even know, without doing more research online, who offers a hybrid vehicle. I can think of maybe 2 car makers off the top of my head that I KNOW produce a hybrid. Car makers push their new cars on us like no other industry, but they don't push the hybrids at all. Why is that? Again, man-on-the-street point of view, it's because they have little confidence in the product and want to keep us buying gasoline cars.

If the hybrid technology is sound, even if it's more expensive, why not push that product WHILE you push the new 9 mile-per-gallon SUV that is so big you can't park in one of the parking stalls without having to get out through the sunroof (I keep waiting for the new SUV with no doors, only a sunroof and ladder on the back). Americans are legendary consumers, and as a whole, we tend to believe what the TV commercials tell us. If you tell the consumers that the technology works, and it actually does work, then people will buy them. If instead, you tell them to come buy this "brand new SUV, the biggest in its class!! Because by driving this it shows you are a leader, and where you lead others follow" (which is an actual slogan of Cadillac) then people are going to buy that instead. It is car companies pushing the low mileage gas guzzlers that keeps the oil industry happy.

How would the oil producers react if all the big car makers went 75% hybrid (the other 25% being diesel)?

(Sorry if this post seems a little rambling, I've had a meeting and a phone call interrupt my writing of it..darn work getting in the way of important stuff)

[JayUtah]

You don't see ads for the Prius because Toyota can't make them fast enough. You don't need to advertise something whose demand far outstrips supply.

[Kelfazin]

You don't see ads for the Prius because Toyota can't make them fast enough. You don't need to advertise something whose demand far outstrips supply.

The question then becomes "WHY can't they make them fast enough?" If there is demand for these vehicles, then why haven't they increased or expanded their production lines? And is the demand on the Prius there because the other hybrids aren't well known?

A Google search reveals that Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Ford, Lexus, Mercury, Chevrolet, Dodge, Saturn, Nissan, and GMC all have hybrid vehicles. Is the demand on these vehicles as great as the demand for the Prius? If they truly want to sell these vehicles, why don't I, as a consumer, know they exist without doing an online search. They shove every other vehicle down my throat, why not the ones that use less oil?

Perfomance can be one of the reasons they don't push them hard, but not all of the hybrids have significantly worse performance then their gas cousins. According to this article from MSN (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheCostlySecretsOfHybridCars.aspx)



The Lexus RX 400h (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?modelid=11603&src=LeftNav), a luxury hybrid, carries a sticker price about $10,000 higher than that of the RX 330, the regular version of the crossover SUV. The hybrid clocks 31 mpg in city driving, compared to the gas-powered's 18 mpg.
"The Lexus story is that the new hybrid gets 13 mpg better than the standard V6 RX, but also gets 38 more horsepower," Stern said.
Lexus is also trying to bridge the price gap by making standard some of the features that are optional in the gas version. But there's still a pretty big difference in price tags.
There's a smaller gap between the hybrid and gas versions of the Ford Escape (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?modelid=11254&src=LeftNav). The all-wheel-drive hybrid costs about $28,000, compared to $26,000 for a gas version with similar performance.

(bold mine)

So why don't they advertise this? Because they don't want to sell as many of the hybrids as they do the gasoline versions?

[PhantomWolf]

I want to point out that most Energy companies are actually actively working in the alternate fuel market anyway. The executives are stupid, they know that oil won't last forever. Thus they are looking into ways to supply cheap Hydrogen, ethanol, boi-diesels and other things so as to keep their market share of the energy market when they can't sell oil any more.

[captain swoop]

If alternative fuels are being suppressed why has a massive Bio Diesel plant just opened up the road from me on Teesside?

Its right in among the Petro Chemical works at Seal Sands as well!

[Argos]

In the Oil Drum ("discussions about energy and our future") site, Robert Rapier [from the oil industry] slams ethanol (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/24/202222/351).


Say what you want about me. I work for an oil company. You can suspect my motives all you want. But I acknowledge up front that gasoline should not be the basis of our future energy policy, and I acknowledge the problems from wide-scale use of fossil fuels. I advocate conservation and alternatives that make sense.

[Larry Jacks]

The question then becomes "WHY can't they make them fast enough?" If there is demand for these vehicles, then why haven't they increased or expanded their production lines? And is the demand on the Prius there because the other hybrids aren't well known?

It takes time, money, and the willingness to accept a degree of risk. Establishing a new auto assembly line is very expensive even if you start with an existing plant. You have to also consider the ability of your subcontractors to increase their production. If they can do it by adding another shift, then the cost is relatively low. However, if they have to build a new factory because their existing setup is running at full capacity, then it can take a significant amount of time and money to build the new facilities, buy and install the factory equipment, and hire and train the new personnel necessary to work there. It's the same all up and down the supply line.

While today's gas prices are high and aren't too likely to come down anytime soon (if ever), we also have to look back at what happened in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1970s, the price of oil quadrupled (doubled in 1973 and again in 1978). As gas prices rose, people started buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars. However, in the 1980s, the price of oil tumbled and gas prices stabilized. As people got used to the prices, they didn't care as much about fuel efficient cars. I suspect the auto companies are concerned that the same thing could happen again, leaving them with an over supply of cars that people won't want to buy. That can make them less willing to risk the money to expand hybrid production capacity.

[Swift]

<snip>
A Google search reveals that Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Ford, Lexus, Mercury, Chevrolet, Dodge, Saturn, Nissan, and GMC all have hybrid vehicles. Is the demand on these vehicles as great as the demand for the Prius? If they truly want to sell these vehicles, why don't I, as a consumer, know they exist without doing an online search. They shove every other vehicle down my throat, why not the ones that use less oil?

I don't think all of those are current, production vehicles and some of those are "soft" hybrids. An excellent, if somewhat biased site for the latest hyrbid news is hybridcars.com/ (http://www.hybridcars.com/)

[Swift]

Maybe not, but nuclear is not dangerous in any practical sense of the world.
I said before that I am pro-nuclear, but I think it might be a little bit of an over-statement to say that nuclear is not dangerous in any practical sense (I guess it depends on what you mean by "practical"). Nuclear power has its dangers, as does coal or even just electrical generation in any form. The question in all of these is how does one manage the dangers, and what are the costs for doing so, and what are the relative risks and benefits of the various technologies.

[Kelfazin]

According to that website, Honda, Lexus, Toyota, Ford, Mercury, and Chevrolet all have hybrids currently available. Hyundai, Nissan, Dodge, GMC, Porsche, and Saturn all plan to have one by 2007. I believe that my comments still apply. You do not see these hybrids advertised much, if at all. Can you (the global "you", not just Swift) honestly say, had you not done research or read what was on this forum, that you knew all those manufacturers had or were planning to have hybrid vehicles? I consider myself reasonably up to date on what cars are out there, but I had no clue there were this many hybrids, "soft" or otherwise.

That being said, I understand why some of the manufacturers don't advertise. For example the Chevy truck that only gets 1 additional mile per gallon (from 18mg to 19mpg). That's nothing to scream about. But what about the Ford from above? Or the Lexus that they designed to have BETTER performance than the gas powered version?


As people got used to the prices, they didn't care as much about fuel efficient cars. I suspect the auto companies are concerned that the same thing could happen again, leaving them with an over supply of cars that people won't want to buy. That can make them less willing to risk the money to expand hybrid production capacity.

Now this I can see as a valid argument. If that is the reason, then I could see the lack of marketing of those types of cars when the prices come down or when interest wanes. But right now interest is high. As Jay said, "Toyota can't make their cars fast enough." That makes a prime market for their competitors to come in and steal some of the market share. These companies have hybrids available and on the lots. Why not tell people about it? Why not sell those cars/trucks/SUV's?

All the big American gas-guzzler makers have or will soon have Hybrids on the market, yet nobody really knows about them. I'm sure the oil companies absolutely love Dodge, Chevy, and Ford. The oil companies use their lobbying powers in the US govt to make sure the auto manufacturers get some tax breaks or something, and in turn the auto makers push the "biggest SUV ever made" on the public. Sure they'll make a hybrid to show the environmentalists that they "care" and are "trying to do their part", but they don't want to actually sell them.

Edit for spelling

[JayUtah]

As Jay said, "Toyota can't make their cars fast enough." That makes a prime market for their competitors to come in and steal some of the market share.

If only marketing worked that way. Just because demand is high for one product doesn't mean demand will be equally high for competing products of the same type.

[sarongsong]

Shopped for an air-conditioner lately?

[Swift]

Kelfazin, I don't generally disagree with anything you have said... just a couple of thoughts.

I have seen ads for Honda, Toyota, and Ford hybrids on TV, though I can't say I've seen them a lot. Honda seems to have done the most of this. I believe one Saturn ad I've seen made a passing mention that a Vue hybrid is coming. I've frequently seen print ads in environmental magazines - obviously they are going after a target market.

Another aspect of advertising or the lack of, is that maybe the automakers, particularly the American companies don't know what they are doing. For example, from CNNMoney.com (http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/01/news/companies/daimler.reut/index.htm)

U.S. auto sales slid 17 percent in July as Americans shunned trucks and opted for more fuel-efficient cars, catapulting Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. past Ford Motor Co. into the No. 2 spot for the first time.

Detroit-based automakers suffered double-digit declines in sales from the peak of last summer's incentive-driven boom, with DaimlerChrysler AG's (Charts) Chrysler Group and Ford hardest-hit in a market hurt by high interest rates and gas prices.

Chrysler Group lost 37 percent and Ford (Charts) 34 percent, but Toyota (Charts) jumped an industry-leading 16 percent, driven by a 25 percent surge for passenger cars such as the Corolla.

The American companies may have counted on American's love of big cars continuing and they might be wrong.

Lastly, I get the feeling you think that few people are familiar with hybrids. I am not convinced this is true. We have had a least one hybrid in our household for three years now. While some people may be unclear about the details, I get the feeling most people are aware of them. The questions I've gotten are generally pretty informed and it has been a couple of years since my wife or I have gotten a "do you plug it in?" type question.

[Donnie B.]

According to that website, Honda, Lexus, Toyota, Ford, Mercury, and Chevrolet all have hybrids currently available. Hyundai, Nissan, Dodge, GMC, Porsche, and Saturn all plan to have one by 2007. Well, I for one knew about all the current models except the Merc, which I suspect is just a rebadged Ford. Lexus and Toyota are the same company, but they chose a different "tuning" for the hybrid versions of the RX and Highlander. The former is optimized for performance, the latter for economy. Similar comparisons can be made between Toyota and Honda hybrid sedans.

I own an RX330, and recently drove a "loaner" RX400h. These are essentially the same vehicle with different power trains. I appreciated the hybrid's peppier performance, but in driving that closely approximated my usual mix of city/highway, I got only about 2.5mpg better than I get in my gas version (26 vs 23.5). There's no way that improvement would pay back the price differential over the life of the vehicle, even with a tax credit and even if fuel prices went much higher than they are today.

So not all hybrids are going to make a big impact on fuel consumption, and the economy-oriented hybrids are the ones in the greatest demand and shortest supply.

I will certainly keep my eye on the new models coming out, but I'm not a great candidate for a hybrid since the bulk of my driving is on the highway.

My brother is the real car buff in the family, and he will happily tell you that hybrids are a scam. His reasons for that opinion have already been covered in this thread: higher purchase cost, inflated EPA mileage estimates, and less reduction in fuel consumption overall than claimed. He also says that they're bought by the wrong people (i.e. people like me instead of urban dwellers who suffer lots of stop-and-go driving where the regenerative braking gives real benefits).

Incidentally, he's seriously considering some new, non-hybrid cars with small 4-cylinder turbocharged engines, which truly deliver better efficiency under many different driving conditions.

[Larry Jacks]

One of the biggest uses of advertising is to try and induce people to buy things that currently aren't selling well. While I've seen a few hybrid ads (for example, Kermit for the Ford Escape hybrid), most dealers are having trouble meeting current demand. Advertising something that isn't available might be a waste of money except for the possibility of getting customers to look at something else when they come to a dealer (AKA "bait and switch"). Most of the auto ads (and there are tons of them) that I see are either touting special incentives on vehicles that aren't selling well or pointing out how fuel efficient their current cars are.

As an aside, I've noticed an apparent change in people's driving habits here in Colorado Springs. A couple years ago, it seemed that for every 10 vehicles I enountered on the road, 7 of them would be either SUVs, pickups, or minivans. This year, it seems that the percentage of cars has increased as people are looking for vehicles that are less expensive to operate. If that is true, then the marketplace is working as it should. The higher prices are affecting people's purchase and operating decisions. Also, I'd have to say that the tax incentives along with the high gas prices have really boosted the number of hybrid cars. It used to be rare to see one. Now, I typically see several every day.

[Kelfazin]

Lastly, I get the feeling you think that few people are familiar with hybrids. I am not convinced this is true. We have had a least one hybrid in our household for three years now. While some people may be unclear about the details, I get the feeling most people are aware of them. The questions I've gotten are generally pretty informed and it has been a couple of years since my wife or I have gotten a "do you plug it in?" type question.

I don't feel the general public is unaware of the hybrid cars and I apologize if that's the way it comes across. I feel that by now most people know what hybrids are. My main contention is that they don't know who makes them. I'm sure there are plenty of people like Donnie above that are aware of the hybrid market. But I wouldn't say that knowledge is universal. In my experience almost everybody knows about the Prius and the Insight. And a few people have told me they know they've seen a commercial for a hybrid car on TV, but can't recall who the manufacturer is. Compare this with the gasoline cars. Most Americans can tell you who makes the Magnum. They can even tell you what style of engine it has.

Also, all this being said, I can understand why they would advertise these cars less then their top selling gas cousins. What I don't understand is how much less they advertise.

Now also as means of clarification, I'm not some woo woo that thinks the oil industry is running our country in order to further their goal of a New World Order. I do believe, however, that do have a fairly powerful lobby and can influence certain laws and regulations to be more in their favor, and that there are other industries that will, in turn, ensure their products are oil friendly in order to continue reaping the benefits of that lobby.

[Gillianren]

I don't currently keep track of which companies offer hybrids--because I can't afford a car right now. However, I can (eventually) expect to get an enormous sum of back money, and at that point, my first priority is buying a car. When that time comes, I will start looking. (Though I have already bookmarked that website for when the time comes.) Until then, I don't really need to know, any more than I need to know what other features are being offered. It's all academic, and I'm not enough of a car person to be interested for the sake of having the information.

[Kelfazin]

I don't currently keep track of which companies offer hybrids--because I can't afford a car right now. However, I can (eventually) expect to get an enormous sum of back money, and at that point, my first priority is buying a car. When that time comes, I will start looking. (Though I have already bookmarked that website for when the time comes.) Until then, I don't really need to know, any more than I need to know what other features are being offered. It's all academic, and I'm not enough of a car person to be interested for the sake of having the information.

Ok, you're not doing the research because you aren't in the market, you therefore are not aware of the manufacturers of hybrids. Are you aware of any gasoline cars being made right now? Can you list a bunch of gasoline car manufacturers right now that have ads on the TV, billboards, magazines, radio, etc? Sure you can. Because you don't have to be in the market for a new gas car to be inundated with gas car ads.

My point is that in order to find out what gas cars are out there, you just need to not be asleep or in a coma. In order to find out what hybrids are out there, you have to do research.

[Gillianren]

Ok, you're not doing the research because you aren't in the market, you therefore are not aware of the manufacturers of hybrids. Are you aware of any gasoline cars being made right now? Can you list a bunch of gasoline car manufacturers right now that have ads on the TV, billboards, magazines, radio, etc? Sure you can. Because you don't have to be in the market for a new gas car to be inundated with gas car ads.

Actually, I can't really name any of the top of my head except the Ford Taurus, which I used to own, and the Mercury Villager, which my mother owned last I knew. I'm really not a car person. To me, it doesn't matter what company makes it, it's "you know, that one car." Or "that atrocious, unsafe, gas-guzzling SUV."

[Kelfazin]

Actually, I can't really name any of the top of my head except the Ford Taurus, which I used to own, and the Mercury Villager, which my mother owned last I knew. I'm really not a car person. To me, it doesn't matter what company makes it, it's "you know, that one car." Or "that atrocious, unsafe, gas-guzzling SUV."

Even if you can't name individual models, can you think of a number of manufacturers that produce gas powered vehicles today and are actively marketing those gas powered vehicles?

[Gillianren]

Yes, but to me, that's basically "can I name a car manufacturer?" Since the technology is new (at least in mass production), this means that every car company I can name off the top of my head (probably not all the car companies there are, mind you) makes gas-powered vehicles. This does not take much knowledge on my part. There are no doubt a lot of things more analogous to whether or not they make a hybrid that I don't know, but since I don't know cars, I can't say.

[Doodler]

Maybe not, but nuclear is not dangerous in any practical sense of the world.

While not dangerous when properly designed and operated, it is a pain in the backside to maintain. Repairs to the fuel containment units is extremely demanding, and the regulations for performing the maintenance work on them are unreal.

Divers who can do repairs in the containment tanks have 15 minutes of time to do what they can, and that's it for the year. In 15 minutes, they get their maximum legally allowable dosage of radiation for the year. Divers work in tightly coordinated teams to conduct repairs to those containment units, and its entirely possible for a single reactor repair to completely expend the entire cadre of qualified divers who can do the work for a year, there's not too many people in the world with all the certs.

Some of these guys travel around the world, working in other countries after they've worked in the US, as it would seem there's no international regulation on their trade.

Its insane, but apparently, this is the way it works with nuclear reactor maintenance. On the surface its no different than any other kind of power generation out there. Its all essentially heated water pushing turbines to generate power. Its the fuel source that raises the bar. Fissionable material is some pretty demanding stuff to work with. One limit on the number of reactors in service may have nothing to do with our ability to build them, but our ability to properly maintain them.

[mid]

Even if you can't name individual models, can you think of a number of manufacturers that produce gas powered vehicles today and are actively marketing those gas powered vehicles?

Can I name you all of the manufacturers you just mentioned a few posts earlier? Sure. Can I name you more than a bare few manufacturers that release mainstream cars (i.e. not the supercars I know from videogames) to the US other than Honda, Lexus, Toyota, Ford, Mercury, Chevrolet, Hyundai, Nissan, Dodge, GMC, Porsche, and Saturn? No.

[Kelfazin]

Can I name you all of the manufacturers you just mentioned a few posts earlier? Sure. Can I name you more than a bare few manufacturers that release mainstream cars (i.e. not the supercars I know from videogames) to the US other than Honda, Lexus, Toyota, Ford, Mercury, Chevrolet, Hyundai, Nissan, Dodge, GMC, Porsche, and Saturn? No.

You guys are missing the point. I didn't ask if you can just name any car manufacturer, I asked if you could name some manufacturers that are actively marketing their gas vehicles. Granted, most of the car makers do active market, but some are a lot less then others. IE: you don't see many ads (at least not here in Arizona) for Lincolns. Very few for Pontiac. And if you can answer the question as "yes, I've seen ads for all the cars in my area," then you have proven my point. Car manufacturers advertise their gas vehicles, and don't advertise their hybrids.

And mid, I have tried to keep my comments as global as possible as I know the readers here are from everywhere, so I purposely didn't specify American manufacturers. At the same time, I obviously don't watch British TV (except for BBC America, but the ads are decidedly local) so I can't comment about the content of your commercials. However, the question would still apply as to how many ads you see on television for gas vehicles vs. hybrid vehicles. Do most of the car manufacturers that sell cars in the UK advertise their gas powered vehicles? Do you guys have ads for hybrid cars? Do the ones that make hybrids advertise this fact?

[captain swoop]

I havent seen a single ad for a hybrid vehicle in the UK but we are all aware that they exist, its just that nobody wants one of the damn things.

When u consider the most popular motoring show on British TV is Top Gear its not hard to see why. OK there are only 2 others that I can think of '5th Gear' which is just the cast of the old BBC 'Top Gear' minus JC of course poached across to Channel 5 and put into a show thats just a copy of the old Top Gear format, and ITV have a motoring sghow that I cant even rememebr the name of! They prob feature Hybrids and stuff but they are boring cars so no one is interested. U just have to face it, Hybrids arent Sexy whichever way u slice it.

When the people I know talk about cars its mainly about 0-60 speeds, Handling, Horsepower, How good a 'Drivers car' it is, the CD player and what electric gadgets it has. Economy comes way down the list in the UK.

[Kelfazin]

When u consider the most popular motoring show on British TV is Top Gear its not hard to see why.

We had a few episodes of Top Gear on BBCA for a while, I really liked that show. I wish they would bring it back :)

[Larry Jacks]

You guys are missing the point. I didn't ask if you can just name any car manufacturer, I asked if you could name some manufacturers that are actively marketing their gas vehicles. Granted, most of the car makers do active market, but some are a lot less then others. IE: you don't see many ads (at least not here in Arizona) for Lincolns. Very few for Pontiac. And if you can answer the question as "yes, I've seen ads for all the cars in my area," then you have proven my point. Car manufacturers advertise their gas vehicles, and don't advertise their hybrids.

And again, you seem to be missing the point that it's a waste of money to advertise something that is already selling really well. A national advertising campaign is very expensive, especially on TV. A single 30 second commercial on a hit TV program can cost several hundred thousand dollars (and over a million for events like the Super Bowl). Consider a hit movie - how many ads do you see for that movie when it's at the top of the rankings? Typically, you may see a few ads when the movie is about to be released, perhaps a few more when the movie's ranking begins to slide, and then a few more when the DVD is released. However, you'll almost never see it advertised when they're having no trouble packing theaters. Word of mouth advertising (the very best kind) and news hype are free. Consider about 10 years ago when "Titanic" was a megahit for weeks on end. I don't recall seeing a single advertisement for that movie and, IIRC, it grossed well over a billion dollars.

If Honda and Toyota are selling hybrids about as fast as they can make them, why advertise? How many Cooper ads do you see? I think it has been a year or two since I've seen a Cooper ad. Could it be there aren't many because in some places, you already have a 9 month waiting list to buy one?

[Kelfazin]

And again, you seem to be missing the point that it's a waste of money to advertise something that is already selling really well. A national advertising campaign is very expensive, especially on TV.

I'll concede the point. But I don't believe demand is the only reason they don't advertise. There are other cars that have had waiting lists of buyers that did not stop advertising. For example, HUMMER, when they released the H2, had a wait list ( source (http://www.azcentral.com/class/marketplace/cars/0210hummer10.html) ) but they never stopped advertising. The PT Cruiser had a wait list ( source (http://www.ciao.co.uk/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser__Review_5096004) ) but those ads continued to flow. The point is, from a non-industry perspective at least, that with the amount of influence Big Oil buys here in Washington (over $420 million (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345) dollars in the last 6 years) they are bound to have a say in what laws get passed to keep the auto makers on their side.

Edit for sentence clarification

[Van Rijn]

I'll concede the point. But I don't believe demand is the only reason they don't advertise. There are other cars that have had waiting lists of buyers that did not stop advertising. For example, HUMMER, when they released the H2, had a wait list ( source (http://www.azcentral.com/class/marketplace/cars/0210hummer10.html) ) but they never stopped advertising. The PT Cruiser had a wait list ( source (http://www.ciao.co.uk/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser__Review_5096004) ) but those ads continued to flow.


Never noticed the PT Cruiser ads, though I tend to avoid TV ads. Actually, for quite some time I didn't know the name of that thing. I thought of it as "That pseudo retro car that belongs in the Fallout 2 game." Anyway, this is an "If I ran the zoo" argument.



The point is, from a non-industry perspective at least, that with the amount of influence Big Oil buys here in Washington (over $420 million (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345) dollars in the last 6 years) they are bound to have a say in what laws get passed to keep the auto makers on their side.


I'm not seeing how you get from your idea about what constitutes appropriate hybrid advertising to oil industry deck stacking.

There probably is some resistance to hybrids by car companies. They are more complex, but California (and other states that follow CA standards) consider hybrids important for reducing in city pollution, so have set up the laws to promote them. But from a market standpoint, it isn't clear how strong consumer demand will be compared to high efficiency conventional (and cheaper) vehicles. We also have to see where gas prices are going. If things settle down some in the next five years, demand will drop. If costs go up and stay up, demand will rise.

[PhantomWolf]

Actually what I think is funny about this argument is that the company I work for, a local subsidary of a large multinational European based energy company, uses a fleet of Toyota Pruises as their company cars.

On the Top Gear note, the Episode that we are getting on Sunday night on Prime has JC testing out the Toyota Prius.

[Ronald Brak]

They never stopped advertizing the hummer because its a status good. Although I'm sure people could come up with all sorts of logical sounding reasons why they need to buy a hummer, the main reason is status. If you can convince people that only the hummer can give then the status they crave then you have a good without a ready substitute. And if you sell a good without a substitute you can make more money through high prices than by increasing the supply. The advertising is to keep people convinced that there is no substitute for the hummer. People don't need giant gas guzzelers, but they still like to show off how rich they are, just as they do with mink coats and jewelery.

[Redtail]

They never stopped advertizing the hummer because its a status good. Although I'm sure people could come up with all sorts of logical sounding reasons why they need to buy a hummer, the main reason is status. If you can convince people that only the hummer can give then the status they crave then you have a good without a ready substitute. And if you sell a good without a substitute you can make more money through high prices than by increasing the supply. The advertising is to keep people convinced that there is no substitute for the hummer. People don't need giant gas guzzelers, but they still like to show off how rich they are, just as they do with mink coats and jewelery.

I have to agree. My fiancee went to undergrad at Univ. of Vermont, and since I was at UCONN Dad decided to trade me his S-10 Blazer fro my Honda Accord. The Blazer got 25-30 MPG and I passed many a hummer on I-91 in the snow. The blazer never had a problem but I was often told by hummer owners "You need something that can get through a VT winter.

[sarongsong]

...The blazer never had a problem but I was often told by hummer owners "You need something that can get through a VT winter....without hitting anything (in Hummer2s):
August 3, 2006
...Engineers at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration are studying how a part called a steering knuckle fractured or failed in the incidents, causing H2 suspensions to collapse or their wheels to separate. General Motors denies there is a safety problem... San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060803/news_1b3hummer.html)

[captain swoop]

If u need to get through anything u buy a Land Rover or Range Rover. JC tested the Hummer onTopgear, both the big one and the smaller one, IMHO they both suck

[korjik]

Actually, if you need to get thru anything, by an H1. The only hummer series that is anything like the military HMMWV it the H1. My cavalier has just as much in common with a real humvee as an H2. I would prolly trust my cavalier in the snow more. Admittedly, that mostly means I would get it just as stuck :) After all, I live in Houston. We get snow here, we had some two christmas ago :P

[sarongsong]

Okay (and now there's even a Hummer3)...but it's gonna' cost ya'
Aug 6, 2006
...half the production on Alaska's North Slope was being shut down Sunday...severe corrosion in a Prudhoe Bay oil transit line...BP said oil production will be reduced by 400,000 barrels a day...about 2.6 percent of U.S. supply including imports...AP (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060807/D8JBAG9G0.html)

[mid]

For the record, I've seen adverts for both Honda and Toyota hybrid cars.

We don't tend to get very many adverts for hybrids in the UK, though, because people would rather buy a small diesel that has even better fuel efficiency than most of the hybrids on the market, while costing less.