posted
If you think gas is becoming unaffordable then I repeat what has already been said, be glad you live in the US and not Canada or Europe.
Yes, there are packaging costs for those other products, but they don't have to go through the same amount of refining and shipping that those other products do. Basically gasoline has its own equivalent to packaging that drives up the price and unlike those other products you can't compensate by buying in bulk.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zarex: Naturally, but buying a gallon of milk- an endless resource- is still more than double the price of gasoline- a nonrenewable resource.
Milk is not exactly an endless resource. The cows gotta eat. No cow food, no milk. And dairy farms pollute the water and land (all that cow poo).
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here milk prices depend in large part on the grocery store. Two of our large chains (Jewel and Dominicks) are both being sued for price fixing because their prices are so much higher than everyone else - by as much as a full dollar more.
Regular price for 2% "generic" at Jewel and Dominick's is about 2.99; Dean's is even more expensive. Regular price "generic" at Cub and Meijer is about 2.59. But I can routinely buy Dean's brand at CVS pharmacy or at gas stations for 1.99, and Meijer frequently puts it on sale for 1.65 (typically advertised as 3 gallons for $5).
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, probably the biggest mistake that many are making here is the assumption that most Americans can buy cars at a whim. Frankly, I don't care how many super-cool-gas-saving electric-running automobiles are available for purchase. I still can't afford a new car. At best I would be able to afford a used car. Guess what, that would end up being a gas guzzler.
I don't doubt that new cars are bought by a large number of people. However, I would first have to know how many people buy new cars vs those who don't within a five to ten year estimate. Its just not as easy as saying "buy a new car" as the assumption seems to be here.
I would love to buy a hybrid or even non-gas running vehicle. My guess is that a number of people woul love to, but simply can't. Buy me one and I promise to get off my need for gas.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think CStroman's idea, if I understand it correctly, would take care of that problem. If all new car's were REQUIRED to be hybrids, then after a few years there would be used hybrids that were affordable to the average person. Gas guzzlers would still be around for quite a while, but hybrids would slowly become the norm.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never owned a "new" car, and my current vehicle is 11 years old. And I went almost two years without a car at all before getting this one from my father.
So we could easily be looking at 10 years or more before non-hybrid vehicles are off the road. And then what are we going to do with all of the old cars that are being replaced? Filling more junkyards with cars that can't even be scavenged for parts?
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So we could easily be looking at 10 years or more before non-hybrid vehicles are off the road.
I think it would be a lot longer than 10 years, but I don't see that as too horrible. Within ten years, hybrids would be the norm. If we tried for sudden change, it would be too costly for most Americans and probably cause the economy more harm than good. Gradual change seems more effective.
quote: And then what are we going to do with all of the old cars that are being replaced? Filling more junkyards with cars that can't even be scavenged for parts?
Whatever we do with cars that stop working now. And the only parts that couldn't be scavenged would be the engine and other fuel-specific parts.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So long as people keep buying trucks, SUV's, Hummers and convertibles because they're cool or "tough" car manufacturers will keep making them.
I don't think forcing manufacturers to adopt hybrids is the answer. If a regulatory agency steps in and starts telling them what to do I can only foresee trouble, I also think that this whole issue will eventually end up resolving itself. People will get tired of paying so much for gas and slowly gravitate towards fuel efficiency and the market will respond by putting more fuel efficient cars on the market.
I'm really not so sure govt. intervention would help in this case.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't know that government intervention is necessary, I think it would be very helpful in this case. Hopefully, the issue will resolve itself. I'm certainly not pleading for more regulation. But my fear is that nothing significant will be done until after our economy starts collapsing. I'd much prefer that we averted the danger.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Start with smaller steps. Everyone here is talking about technologies that won't be mainstream or affordable for at Least 20 years.
Step One: Get the government to announce there is a problem, and get them to commit to solving it.
Bush still won't even admit that human exhaust is part of the cause of global climate change, or for that matter, that global climate change is even a problem. The first step to solving your problem is to admit you have it.
Step Two: Use the tools we have.
We currently have the ability to create mass amounts of energy through renewable resources, but we choose not to. Yes, it's more expensive, bite the bullet. If you don't pay the higher price now, it will never get cheaper in the future. So swallow that realization, we'll have to pay for it, but it's an investment, both in our environmental, and defense future. So short term plan, is to use the tools we have, we have hybrids, so build more and sell more hybrids. We have solar power, built more cells, create more jobs, sell more solar panels. The price drops, innovations lead to better PVC, and that's the future.
Step Three: Innovate.
Step two will make step three a lot easier. Also, by the time step four comes about, it will be a much easier transition once step two is in place.
Step Four: Energy Revolution.
Once we innovate and get the technology, we make the switch to new 21st century forms of power, whatever they may be. Hydrogen, fusion power plants, mass transportation with mag-lev trains, whatever. But this way, we can spread out over a 30 year period the money we will have to spend, and won't be as badly in debt by the time the revolution is at hand. Also, people will be weaned off of fossil fuels, it won't be some massive switchover that freaks out a lot of people.
I don't think the movement is going to get as far, as fast as they want without setting attainable short term goals, steps, to success. "Get an energy plan that works!" sounds really great, but then what? You haven't even gotten everyone to acknowledge that we NEED a new energy plan that works.
Anyway, after much thought, I think that is the best, national policy the environmental movement could take.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Bush still won't even admit that human exhaust is part of the cause of global climate change, or for that matter, that global climate change is even a problem. The first step to solving your problem is to admit you have it.
The only fact is that climate change is happening, it is not an established fact that human activities have anything to do with it. There is still much to debate about regarding climate change.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even so, the argument goes beyond global climate change. Is there any argument at all that the air quality in America is poor? That those living in industrialized cities have higher rates of lung cancer than those living in rural areas? GCC is important, but if it's the sticking point, let it go. There are plenty of other arguments that can be used to get America to steps 2-4.
Freeing America from oil gives us incredible independence and safety. It could make America an energy exporter, rather than resource importer. It will create jobs. It will bolster America's image in the world as a leader. It will reestablish some of our moral superiority, which we like to claim anyway, but makes us all that more resented around the world.
The reasons are there. Our leaders just need to stand up, say them all out loud, and make it a national priority. This isn't about fringe environmentalists, or teams of scientists. This is a matter of national security, just as important as terrorism, and in the long run more important.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This isn't about fringe environmentalists, or teams of scientists. This is a matter of national security, just as important as terrorism, and in the long run more important."
I agree! Well, calling it national security isn't much of a slogan though because it is too vague of an idea. But I agree with it, our dependence on gas has funded terrorism. And in computer security terms, why would we be so silly as to have such a weak single point of failure. Take out fuel and what do you know, nobody in cities will be able to eat because the trucks can't bring in the food or other resources we need.
And climate change or not, bad air quality and stupid gas prices and Middle East dependence are reasons enough to get government involved in moving technology ahead. Places like LA have already stepped in (because of air quality).
If we really wanted to be intelligent on this, we would study what LA has done. Being lazy, I'll just spin off what is on the top of my head, which probably is ludicrous, but I'm not really caring much right now...
Car makers pop out gas guzzlers because the public demands them and making fuel economic cars just isn't very profitable. Well, the government can get involved and make it profitable. Subsidize hybrid cars!
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone here read the book RingWorld, by I forget-who-wrote-it. In that book there is an interesting alien named Nessus. Nessus describes the economic and environmental problems of his civilization. One of the most interesting statements by Nessus is that the waste product of any civilization is heat. He goes on to claim that no intelligent civilization can live in a world and not change its environment. I thought that it was extremely interesting, especially since it was written far before global warming.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would subsidizing hybrids help? All that might do is let automakers build cars that no one will buy. It might let automakers get a profit, but at the expense of our taxes and without a majority consent. If automakers are going to get a profit on hybrids, then it should be through our direct purchase of them.
And since when did private companies deserve subsidies? They are a waste, and they encourage overproduction of an unused product.
This brings up another problem, though. How does a majority of the public come around to buying enough hybrids to make them profitable? Through peer pressure. If it becomes a niche trend, then people will begin buying hybrids in larger quantities, especially when they see that they can spend money that they saved on gas on other things. That's what it will come down to, too. People will definately want to help the environment, but it usually comes down to income decisions.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Subsidize hybrids to make them cheaper so more people buy them.
Just an idea anyway. I don't really feel that strongly about hybrids. I just think they are cool and want one and wont be able to afford one for a long time.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
First, even if hybrids existed in a vacuum, subsidization would enable automakers to produce cars at a lower price, which would lead to increased sales, though it would also lead to a surplus due to the supply curve being messed with a little. So that's something more than letting carmakers build cars no one will buy, right there.
Second, hybrids do not exist in a vacuum. For many people they constitute a near-substitute good to other vehicles. Even assuming consumers will choose between vehicles based purely on price (when for many consumers there will be a preference towards hybrids, and for some a preference against), if the government can bring the price of the hybrid down to a price-competitive point with other automobiles, sales of hybrids will skyrocket.
Private companies deserve subsidies to serve the appropriate (meaning largely relating to safety, security, and stability) aims of the government, largely due to externalities which are beyond the capability of the market to adjust to. For instance, the EU chose long ago that it was important (for reasons relating to war) for each country to be self-sufficient in agriculture. The free market will almost certainly not lead to this, so instead a system of subsidies is in place to ensure sufficient incentive to produce for local farmers. There are now other externalities greatly influencing it as well; for instance, CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) subsidies are often seen as payoffs to member countries for integration.
There are other instances where subsidies might be appropriate due to externalities . . . such as where it is in a country's best interest to reduce dependence on oil, even if market pressures keep it advantageous for consumers to buy high gas consumption vehicles (absent subsidies).
Much as some might like to make it some, economics is not a moral science. There is nothing immoral about subsidies, they just lead to certain inefficiencies. This is a cost societies which use subsidies should be aware of, but it is one many are willing to bear for aims which will not come about under the operation of free market economics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A year ago I put my car in the shop and rented a car. The car rental place offered me the hybrid for $25 more and I didn't want it. But the guy said it uses virtually no gas and it was a really COOL car. I'm a sucker for cool, so I got it.
It was cool. Everyone gave me envious looks. Oh, and it was quiet. No starter motor and no idling.
But more impressive was the millage. I drove at least 90 miles. They said to fill the car back up when I was done. So I drove to the gas station, put the nozzle in, pulled the handle, and "chug, clink!" It clicked off. I pulled the handle again, "chug, clink!" I thought I broke something, but I couldn't see anything wrong. Finally I looked at the dashboard and the gas meter said the tank was full. How could that be? My car goes down at least 1/4 a tank after 90 miles.
Now I'm feeling completely stupid for trying to put gas in a full tank, and I click the handle a few more times to see if I can get more than $.25 in the tank. I think I actually got it to $1 before I gave up and drove it back.
Before driving the hybrid, I couldn't care less about them. After driving hybrid, I want one TOO badly.
So I've paid attention to hybrids. They aren't all peaches and cream. They are a complete maintenance unknown. The only place you can have them repaired is the dealership. Non-dealerships don't have a clue how they work and wont touch them. There is also some question as to how long they will last. And every hybrid is different. There was a problem that hit the Prius where it would sometimes stall at freeway speeds. It didn't happen to me, but it happened enough to make it to the papers. I believe Toyota fixed it, but it goes to show that the hybrids aren't the status quo.
Anyway, I think it is a good idea to start adopting hybrids. Until a year ago, I don't even think consumers even had hybrid choices that made sense. Now I hear they are very popular. With or without government help, hybrids are cool and will make everyone happy. Hybrids are like iPods.
Perhaps everyone should just go rent one and see what I'm talking about.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make a good case, Fugu13. So, are the subsidies ended when hybrids become common and competetively priced? Subsidies are hard to end on a bureaucratic level when they become unnecessary and counterproductive. That really isn't the point, though. What I want to know is, should they be the only option? Are they the only option? If they work, then that's good, but often subsidies end up being a political payoff rather than sound economic policy. This is what I'm afraid would happen, and that's why I'm not fond of the idea of subsidizing hybrids.
Your case is good, but can it work? I'm not criticizing you, but I just want to know if it can work as you say. Honestly, I don't think free market economics can work to the same end either because that would make us rely on foreign oil, and all oil, for a long time. That is dangerous. (I might be introducing a point counter to what I said before, but I was dealing with an ideal scenario, which rarely happens. Please call me on it if it is a real contradiction. I hate those, and I'll try to fix it.)
I can't solve the problem, I just think that there must be more options than subsidies and completetly free market economics, and the possibilties haven't been adequately explored.
Edit: I might rent a hybrid, because I think they are kind of cool, too.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know whether its the right policy; I suspect its better to target fuel economy than the means for achieving that end, both in terms of economic support and in terms of regulation (for instance, get rid of the SUV loophole -- sure, drive an SUV if you want, but there should be a pretty decent minimal fuel economy required for new ones).
Also, subsidies are hardly the opposite of free market economics, they're just inefficiencies in a still generally free market (as we practice them).
They are politically frought because of their tendency to stay around past need, that's part of the cost that needs to be included if one is making a policy decision to implement one.
There isn't an easy answer, what's needed is to do careful analysis of the options and weigh likely outcomes using sound economic and policy thought.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you like free markets, then higher gas prices are good. It encourages conservation, development of alternatives and better reflects the macro costs of using a substance that creates environmental waste.
At about $75/barrel the Alberta Oil Sands kick into high gear unlocking the world's largest reserve as a virtually domestic supply.
Sounds cheaper than pouring all that military money into the middle east all the time...
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the technology didn't exist yet to make that oil sand stuff competitive. I was under the impression that it was being worked on, a process to extract the oil in a more efficient way.
Subsidizing Hybrids is hard, at what point do you say "they are competitive now, we can stop helping them?" When you can make an Escape hybrid and an Escape for the same price? That'll never happen, the Hybrid has more parts, it will always cost more.
Subsidies can be messy, but the other route is tax incentives to the people who buy them. The problem with that, is getting the word out. How is someone going to know they can get $2,000 off their hybrid unless it's advertised, and that requires 1. Car companies to actually start advertising for hybrids like they do SUVs, and 2. for the government and private car companies to get a lot closer and work together. Either way, a lot has to change first.
The major roadblock for hybrids right now is price. If everyone in America could get a hyrbid vehicle version of the car they want to buy, I think the majority would choose to get it, so long as they didn't have to pay a lot more for it. And I think people are willing to pay more for it, but not too much more, not three or four thousand more for the car, that's almost another third of a second car. There won't be a surplus of cars that no one wants to buy, people will snap American made hybrids up all over the world.
It's all part of Step 2 =)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Everyone here is talking about technologies that won't be mainstream or affordable for at Least 20 years.
Toyota now makes the prius and a hybrid SUV, the Highlander. Lexus makes a luxury hybrid SUV and next year there will be a hybrid version of the Camry. Honda makes three hybrid versions of their cars. I'm pretty sure they are signigicantly more expensive than the regular models if at all. Hybrids are definitely affordable for most new car buyers and are becoming increasingly mainstream as they become availabe in more versions and different types of automobiles.
quote: Step One: Get the government to announce there is a problem, and get them to commit to solving it.
Bush still won't even admit that human exhaust is part of the cause of global climate change, or for that matter, that global climate change is even a problem. The first step to solving your problem is to admit you have it.
What does global climate change have to do with gas prices, granted that's a concern if humans have any control over it, but that wasn't part of the conversation at all. The problem that Bush has to "admit" to is that gas prices are getting out of control and that oil may not be around forever and I'm not so sure Bush has denied that to be a problem. I just don't think there's much Bush can personally do as president to combat either problem.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Production viability at $75 per barrel means most of the oil produced will be burnt to provide the energy to get the oil out of the deposit. The Alberta fields are large only in the total amount in the ground; what can be gotten to the gas pump is small. 2) China has bought a couple of Canadian companies' holding drilling rights, partnered with a couple more, and is in negotiations with several others for either partnership or outright purchase. With China's ~$200billion trade surplus with the US, "Wal*Mart"Americans are essentially providing the money for China to purchase Canadian oil fields.
Federal subsidies for hybrids ends when 60thousand* vehicles are sold. Annual sales of new cars in the US are approaching 18million. ie When hybrid sales reach one out of three hundred new cars sold, there will be no subsidies for hybrids. Compare that to the federal subsidy for the purchase of Hummers, Navigators, limousines, and other automobiles weighing over 6000pounds, which essentially says "The taxpayer will buy the car for ya. All you hafta do is burn a LOT of gas." So basicly, it's cheaper for a business to buy a gas guzzler than an economy car over a six year period. How many company cars are kept for more than six years?
With the exception of the Prius, hybrid systems are not being used to maximize fuel economy, but rather to boost power: eg the HondaCivic hybrid goes from 0to60mph / 0to100kph a half second faster than the non-hybrid version of the same vehicle.
quote: Hybrids are definitely affordable for most new car buyers and are becoming increasingly mainstream as they become availabe in more versions and different types of automobiles.
Affordable? To who? Hybrids on average cost a couple thousand more than the non hybrid version of the same car. If there had been a hybrid version of my Focus I would have loved to get it, but never could have afforded another even 1,000 on the sticker price. Mainstream, yes they have the recognition they need, but affordibility is somewhat arbitrary when the median income in America hovers around 40K. Further, if you think the average household can afford a Lexus, regardless of hybrid or not, I don't know how firm your grasp is on the finances of even the slightly above average American right now.
In the other sense though, I guess I was referring more to future technologies like hydrogen power, and mass produced solar power, that kind of stuff.
quote: What does global climate change have to do with gas prices, granted that's a concern if humans have any control over it, but that wasn't part of the conversation at all. The problem that Bush has to "admit" to is that gas prices are getting out of control and that oil may not be around forever and I'm not so sure Bush has denied that to be a problem. I just don't think there's much Bush can personally do as president to combat either problem.
It's all interrelated. On a subject like this you need the widest possible range of reasons to start an aggressive, far reaching, and expensive campaign for chance. I was just tossing one more element into the mix. Gas prices are important yes, but that hasn't worked thus far to convince anyone to change the way we get energy, it has simply made many demand that we fidn more OIL. If someone won't accept gas prices, you try global climate change, if that doesn't work you try national security, if that doesn't work you try health concerns...and the list goes on.
Bush has repeatedly scoffed at conservation for the sake of conservation. His primary goal is to secure more oil to make American energy independent. That addresses our security issues, and in a dozen years will address our gas price issues, but does nothing for health concerns, and even at that, it's a short term solution even for the issues it does solve.
As for his personal power, there is much that he can do. People don't like the Iraq War and he spends a lot of time defending it. Many don't want Social Security changed, but he spends a lot of time out there defending it. Many don't like his Education Bill, but he spends a lot of time defending it. What's my point? Many many people want energy independence, they want conservation, they want lower gas prices, they want cleaner air, and they want to help the environment. Why does he spend so much time drawing national attention to things that the public clearly doesn't support when he could devote national attention and CONGRESSIONAL attention to something the majority of the population would like to see discussed and solved as quickly as possible.
His power to actually get something done is limited, that is Congress' domain. But his power to raise the level of debate, to call attention to an issue, and to force people to talk about it is immense. He is the leader of his party, and it wouldn't take much for him to make his party the party of energy independence.
Claiming he has no power to effect change in the price or gas is giving the President a convenient escape route from his duties. He can't snap his fingers and change it no, but he can start right now, right here (with Step One I might add) and proclaim this the centerpiece of his administration and declare the War on Fossil Fuels off and running. He can start the fight, or he can pass it off to the next President. But if he passes it off, it isn't because he doesn't have the power to change anything.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among other things, the President has considerable power to get a large number of federal agencies to conserve energy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claiming he has no power to effect change in the price or gas is giving the President a convenient escape route from his duties. He can't snap his fingers and change it no, but he can start right now, right here (with Step One I might add) and proclaim this the centerpiece of his administration and declare the War on Fossil Fuels off and running. He can start the fight, or he can pass it off to the next President. But if he passes it off, it isn't because he doesn't have the power to change anything.
For the sake of our future as humans, this is something that needs done more than almost anything else. If he doesn't start it first, and he won't, then we as a people will have to go on to conservation on our own. Or wait until 2009.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple thousand balances out when you consider the money saved on gas long term. Honestly, if you couldn't afford to pay $1,000 more than you did, maybe you should consider being more conservative with your purchases.
quote: In the other sense though, I guess I was referring more to future technologies like hydrogen power, and mass produced solar power, that kind of stuff.
But that's not largely what was being discussed in the thread and you argued that other people were discussing technologies that were too far in the future.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Honda Civic Hybrid costs under 20k for the manual transmission, and gets ~48MPG. I bought mine without the deduction (the car was technically used, though it only had 100 miles on it), and after haggling, and adding LoJack, extended warranty (due to previously mentioned maintenance unknowns) the car came out to about 21.5k. A similarly equipped non-hybrid Civic would cost about 2-3k less... And honestly if lots of people got regular Civics instead of the hybrid (or anything else), it would be nice to see.
However, I don't buy the argument that Hybrids are out of the range of normal Americans... Those large SUVs (which outnumber the hybrids even here, near the People's Republic of Cambridge) have to cost about the same.
EDIT: My last paragraph above is dealing with statistics, not individual cases.
posted
I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing. DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation, AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL. A TOQUE IS A HAT, A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH, AND IT IS PRONOUCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1,000 dollars more would have added something like 30 dollars to my monthly payment, and I carefully budget my money, don't have a 30 dollar leeway. Irresponsible would have been buying a car I couldn't afford to begin with, like many teenagers do, rather than buying a less expensive, less cool car with good fuel economy. But that's neither here nor there.
I'll give that hybrids are certainly more affordable now than they were before. I'm not arguing against the purchasing or selling of hybrids, I'm advocating the selling and buying of hybrids. I just think we should make it as easy as possible to buy them. With gas prices being so high, it might more than balance out, the difference in price versus the savings in fuel, but not by a whole lot, it's more of an investment. Plus, repair bills are higher on hybrids, and you have to replace the batteries in the trunk every so often, and they aren't cheap. Those things must be taken into account.
quote: But that's not largely what was being discussed in the thread and you argued that other people were discussing technologies that were too far in the future.
Okay, no, it wasn't what was LARGELY being discussed here, but it was mentioned, and it has been mentioned at length in other threads on Hatrack. So sue me, I'm pulling it into the conversation. The conversation at many points in this thread has turned to how important energy conservation and the energy crisis is to America, and in that sense, future technologies is perfectly fitting within the context of that discussion. Thus, I don't feel I was that far out of line.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of derailing, what about biodiesel? I've heard people say it's the wave of the future, in fact there is a biodiesel refinery being built right now in Alabama, and I've heard people say that if we made the switch to biodiesel we don't have enough acreage to grow enough soybeans to produce the amount Americans would need in their cars.
I don't know enough either way, but it sounds good - I mean, we already know how to make diesel engines, diesel engines that are already on the road can use biodiesel with no modification to the engine (so I've heard) and we certainly wouldn't be dependent on foreign sources for biodiesel raw materials, we have plenty of ability to grow crops in America.
So what's the deal on it? Are there downsides I haven't heard? Is it true we can't produce enough of it?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All batteries on all hybrid models are covered for 8yr/80k or 8yr/100k warranty...
With the standard 3yr warranty, you'd have a while before any repairs cost anything directly out of pocket (though I got the extended warranty in order EDIT: to alleviate any possible worries about extra maintenance... Not that I've heard of any on the Civic Hybrid side, and some folks have 100k miles on them!).
As I said in my edit though, individual circumstances will override generalities, but hybrids aren't expensive, at least compared to the vehicles (SUVs) that people are actually buying in their stead.
Now, SUVs have their place, but IMO 90% of those buying them aren't using them for those reasons. Lest you all think I'm a rabid environmentalist whacko (really, I'm just a regular type whacko).
---
The biggest thing with diesel is that while it is as efficient as hybrid/gas vehicles, the emissions, particularly CO2 I think, are much worse than even conventional gas engines. CO and NOX emissions can be made fairly equivalent in any cases.
One lesser joy of owning my hybrid is that not only is it efficient, it's also a ULEV vehicle (SULEV in california).
-Bok, in the land of $2.60 gas prices (for regular)
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of y'all follow Bush as blindly as the al-quedians follow Osama Bin Laden.
Here's the Facts:
The #2 contributor to George W. Bush's re-election campaign was EXXON/MOBIL.
In the Last Quarter, during the Gas Crisis, EXXON/MOBIL recorded RECORD profits, 8.8 billion dollars of pure profit, a 35% increase over last year at this time.
Jesus Says "You cannot serve two masters."
How can you people HONESTLY say there is no conflict of interests here?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????
posted
I know your thread title is sarcastic, but believe it or not there are plently of people who do believe America deserves a pat on the back for electing and reelecting George W. Bush, so maybe you should consider spending more time figuring out why they would think that way and less time calling them "fricking loons." Just a thought.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Didn't know that about the Hybrid warranty on the batteries. Surely, compared to more expensive SUVs they are affordable yes. I agree with that.
Biodiesel isn't petroleum based regular diesel though. It burns much cleaner, and more than meets every regulation ordered by the Clean Air act, and thensome. It is made from vegetable oil, and can be used in most diesel engines with little to no modification. It is slightly more expensive than regular diesel, but the many advantages of using biodiesel make it preferable I think. Biodiesel could replace all diesel used in America one day, but that won't solve our entire problem, it will take care of the fleets of trucks carting goods across the country. That's certainly a vast improvement over the present though, and a good start.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know your thread title is sarcastic, but believe it or not there are plently of people who do believe America deserves a pat on the back for electing and reelecting George W. Bush, so maybe you should consider spending more time figuring out why they would think that way and less time calling them "fricking loons." Just a thought.
And risk an open debate? Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't realize calling the opposition "fricking loons" was a common characteristic of an open debate.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Reader is implying that the hyperbole of "fricken loon" shields the speaker from the scrutiny of an actual open debate.
Rhetoric is a single edged sword. It shields you from the rigors of vigorous debate, and totally fails to bite back in the other direction.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Yes, remember when President Bush tried to get an energy bill passed when he first got in office because he foresaw this. Gee….. go figure. So we should blame Bush since he tried to do something about it but liberals blocked him. Ok. Sounds reasonable.
Jay, his plan was crap, and would not have helped this at all, that is why it was blocked.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
And the only parts that couldn't be scavenged would be the engine and other fuel-specific parts.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
