kerry to ban trucks and suvs rasing gas tax by .50

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
There is no plan at this time to actually build a new nuclear reactor, members of both groups emphasized

---

Nobody spends $500M over 6 years to get a license they don't intend to use, do they? This isn't a charity going after the license.

We need to be smart here. The Yucca mountains are one site where we can dump radioactive waste. Build several reactors there underground. Take the waste material, after recycling, and drop it down the shute to the radioactive core of the earth, where it will increase the earths overall radioactivity by 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% over the next 1000 years.

Keith.

 

[needtoknow]

I don't know if we all support energy conservation or not. I think as the scarcity becomes larger most who don't support conservation will wonder why we didn't act sooner. The US seems to have the opinion that we can go on forever using massive amounts of cheap energy. The market will adjust but the longer it waits the harder the adjustment. One idea I heard proposed a fixed date, maybe 5 years, for a large gas tax, in the meantime the government would buy back all those gas guzzling SUV's (crushed) as they would be obselete after the tax. Detroit would then get to make replacement energy efficient vehicles. The tax could then be used to promote all forms of energy conservation as well as road construction and repairs. Either way you are going to either send your money to OPEC or keep it here (taxes) to promote a more efficient and conserving for the future policy.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

It may force affordable light duty diesels into the market. Some of us here have been eager to see light duty trucks (1/2 tons, 1/2 ton based SUVs, and compact trucks) with fuel sipping diesels.

---

I sure hope so. I loved (and loathed) my Peugeot 504 diesel wagon ...29 mpg all the time (when it wasn't in the shop for some other problem) ..even when loaded to the near 3/4 ton passenger/cargo capacity. The Jeep Liberty is supposed to have a light duty diesel available sometime this year. I hope it is a good one and that it spills over into the Wrangler line. It would be nice to have one that could attain 25+ mpg.

CAFE didn't apply to SUVs and PU for a while. If it did, I don't think you would see any less SUVs on the road ...you would see far MORE throw away fuel squeezer sold at a loss so the the national motoring fleet would alter the figure. There are PLENTY of people who can't afford an new SUV ..but plenty that need newer cheap transportation.

 

[JohnnyO]

I read in the paper yesterday that Kerry says he's going to lower gas prices.

The only four ways I can think to do that are #1 more exploration to increase supply, #2 less regulation so we can have the economy of scale of same gas mix nationwide, #3 lower taxes on gasoline, and #4 more domestic refining capacity. All four of which are an anathama to the Dem platform. If oil-man Bush can't make nicey-nice to OPEC, Kerry doesn't stand a chance.

 

[needtoknow]

Here's a piece from the CATO Institute on the new energy bill Bush is pushing for.

CATO Institute news release January 21, 2004
http://www.cato.org/new/01-04/01-21-04r.html
Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies, on the energy bill:

"President Bush's call for Congress to pass the energy bill rejected in the Senate last year was a pro-forma gesture of support for a legislative package that simply cannot pass in its current form. And that's all to the good. The energy bill, which will add $30 billion of spending over 10 years, is a potpourri of handouts and special preferences to virtually every energy business with a lobbyist in Washington. It will not reduce American imports of foreign oil, will not reduce energy prices, and will harm--not help--the energy sector as a whole.

"The energy bill takes America in the wrong direction. Rather than rigging energy markets, Republicans should be freeing energy markets. The Congress--and the president--should start over."

 

[TC]

THE RHETORIC: "If the government put such a requirement into place, if would in effect be outlawing mid-size and larger passenger cars - and all SUVs and pickup trucks." (Original thread post)

WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE ON EARTH:
"A sport-utility vehicle modified by engineering students has won this year's FutureTruck challenge...The first place team succeeded in reducing the greenhouse gas index by 50 percent and increasing over-the-road fuel economy by 45 percent...Using a bio-diesel hybrid electric advanced technology system, a team of students successfully managed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a 2002 Ford Explorer without sacrificing performance or safety...The competition attracted 15 teams from top universities across North America. The second-place hybrid electric vehicle, from Michigan Tech University, ran on reformulated gasoline...Seven out of 10 teams achieved better overall over-the-road fuel economy compared to the base 2002 Ford Explorer and two teams managed to exceed the base Explorer's performance, while still applying environmentally sound applications."
http://www.news.wisc.edu/story.php?get=7622

Of course, Detroit has NEVER cried "Wolf!" in the past on forced improvements, has it..?

-GM President Frederic Donner told Congress in 1965 that turn signals and seat belts ought to remain optional features.
-GM even resisted installing seat belt anchorages and fittings as standard equipment, to allow individuals to install seat belts on their own.
-Detroit spent millions waging all-out war against mandatory air bags beginning in 1969, postponing any standards a full 21 years until 1990. The New York Times stated, "American auto makers, always ready to underestimate consumer sophistication and ever resentful of interference by Government, oppose air bags because they would give regulation a good name." Today Detroit can't brag enough about their air bags and side impact curtains.
-Other improvements have included laminated windshields, collapsible steering columns, strengthened door latches and seat anchorages, tire safety standards, shoulder harnesses, head restraints, side-impact standards, and fuel tank impact integrity. AUTOMAKERS FOUGHT TO ELIMINATE OR WEAKEN VIRTUALLY ALL OF THESE INNOVATIONS.
http://www.nader.org/history/bollier_chapter_5.html

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE ON EARTH:
"A sport-utility vehicle modified by engineering students has won this year's FutureTruck challenge...The first place team succeeded in reducing the greenhouse gas index by 50 percent and increasing over-the-road fuel economy by 45 percent..

---

Good post TC. I should also point out that PZEV (partial zero emission vehicle) is here now, e.g. Ford Focus 2.3 PZEV.

In laymans terms, PZEV means the cars emissions are equal to or less than the total powerplant emissions produced in order to recharge an electric car. (excluding nuclear power plants which would be rated as zero emission).

The future is here. You can buy PZEV and hybrid cars right now, on your local Ford and Toyota car dealers lot. This isn't a science experiment, this stuff is in large scale production. It's exciting to see these cars and given recent events (9/11 and OPEC) they deserve to sell.

Keith.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Keith, all we really need now are solar panels to charge the car.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Keith, all we really need now are solar panels to charge the car.

---

Sounds good, but you would need huge panels. With car roof size panels, you only get enough energy from the sun in a typical day to go a mile or two on the charge. The cars that you see in competitions covered in solar panels are ultra lightweight cars, with really thin and hard tires, and carry one person with no passenger compartment heating or cooling. Solar panels are not going to be a big factor for real world cars.

The cost and energy used to produce the solar panels is better used elsewhere.

Keith.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Keith, all we really need now are solar panels to charge the car.

---

Sounds good, but you would need huge panels. With car roof size panels, you only get enough energy from the sun in a typical day to go a mile or two on the charge. The cars that you see in competitions covered in solar panels are ultra lightweight cars, with really thin and hard tires, and carry one person with no passenger compartment heating or cooling. Solar panels are not going to be a big factor for real world cars.

The cost and energy used to produce the solar panels is better used elsewhere.

Keith.

---

Good point.
With solar radiation hitting the ground at 1.4kW/square metre, and a car having a plan of (say) 8 square metres, gives about 15 hp at 100% efficiency, and about 3hp at typical cell efficiency.

The solar challenge cars that race across Australia every year can make do with 3hp, as they are very light, and have minimal friction.

The future for solar as I see it is for heating household water, which it does pretty well.

Rooftop collectors, putting power into the grid during the day, and retrieving it at night (good for the thermal power stations too). There are hundred and hundreds of acres of useless roof space. The collectors should be old, less efficient, proven technology, other than the last 0.0000001% in efficiency (read expensive).

There's a 250MW solar power station due to start construction soon, which I am fairly excited to see how it works.

 

[cryptokid]

i am in favour of this supposed 36mpg fuel economy requirement.

back in the 70's vw made a diesel pickup truck that got 50mpg. isuzu made one too called the pup. granted these things were gutless non turbo in direct injection diesels that couldnt to 80mph unloaded. but if these companys were to apply modern direct injection turbo diesel engines to a similar vehicle, it would make a nice small truck with decent acceleration and towing capacity for its intended class.

my 4 door kia with a miata engine gets 34mpg, and thats only 2 short. add some light weight aluminum body panels and suspension and that would probably take up the 2mpg difference. thats not very much work. my car isnt a compact car, but it isnt a fullsize either, its somthing in between.

as for big trucks and such that will not get 36 mpg, certainly alot of people have a truck or suv when they do not need one. but i am not sure what to do about that. my dad has a ram 2500 with a cummins turbo diesel, he actually uses the truck to its intended purpose, towing his camper which fits in the bed, and a second smaller truck gets towed behind the ram with a mtorcycle in the bed of the second truck. so should someone like my dad have to suffer because he has a big truck? or should someone who has a truck because it looks cool......

maybe we should just raize the gasoline tax to $5 a gallon, and those who can still afford to drive a large gas guzzling hunk of iron should be allowed to. and let diesel remain at a low price.

 

[Asinine]

When I buy a home, I plan on having a 100W solar panel (about 2'x4') and a marine-grade, sealed gel-cell battery w/ inverter on hand at all times. Powers grids are good these days, but you never know when a drunk school bus driver is going to take out a sub station.

You can run quite a few things with a 110Ah battery and a 600W inverter. And 8 hours of bright sun will fully charge it.

 

[JohnnyO]

I would really prefer not to go about my business driving a glorified golf cart and having to choose between heat and making it up the hill to my house.

Y'all don't know the driving I sometimes have to do in a day.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

I read in the paper yesterday that Kerry says he's going to lower gas prices.

---

I love when election-year Dem's...
a) Promise a solution to each and every issue involving cost
b) Do not back up ANY of their claims with sound, solid facts, and
c) Complain incessantly about each and every nit-pick thing.

Kerry promised to lower gas prices and promise me the world, but both would are still lies. Kerrynocchio.

 

[Asinine]

quote:

---

a) Promise a solution to each and every issue involving cost
b) Do not back up ANY of their claims with sound, solid facts, and
c) Complain incessantly about each and every nit-pick thing.

---

a) like... promising large job creation? No delivery on that yet.
b) like... WMD?
c) like how pretzels should be easier to chew?