Seeking Alpha

The White House has proposed a rule whereby all new vehicles would have to have a fleetwide...

The White House has proposed a rule whereby all new vehicles would have to have a fleetwide average of 56.2 miles to the gallon by 2025, sources say. The plan would double current fuel-economy targets and probably raise prices in some cars. Final numbers for 2017-2025 are expected in September.
Comments (135)
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    ...should be easily achievable if the current technology and the IC engine has a future...
    26 Jun 2011, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11071) | Send Message
     
    It's so easy for Presidents to promulgate rules that have no effect on their term and affects those that succeed them. Even more ridiculous is that its pure tokenism since they know the mandate can simply be reversed by others. If one is serious about some change in standards they should propose ones that have an effect during their term and stand up to the flack.

     

    Obama's green standards are all countered by the mere fact he is trying to release US oil reserves to keep oil prices down. If he were really green he'd let market forces dictate the replacement of oil with alternatives as it rises. Sadly Obama is just about everything save a believer in capitalism or the free market.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12993) | Send Message
     
    Yes, let's have the White House decide all "rules." We can just dispense with elected representatives, markets, corporations and the rest of "messy" capitalism and personal freedom. Government by fiat works just fine.
    26 Jun 2011, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    All hail to Barrack Hussein Obama Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.....

     

    Very soon, they are going to tell us that climate change is destroying trees, so they would tax us for the oxygen we breath so they can plant more trees.....
    26 Jun 2011, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Trees breathe the carbon dioxide which the EPA is trying to eliminate from the earth. So the EPA is anti-tree:-(
    26 Jun 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Actually,

     

    Most people that grow marajuana, supplment natures CO2 with additional to stimulate growth.

     

    Perhaps the left will soon embrace higher levels, given the newfound push for legalization.

     

    More crop yields should equate to more tax revenues too.
    26 Jun 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • wyobserver
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately, the elected representatives can't decide on anything.
    26 Jun 2011, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • Hellz
    , contributor
    Comments (170) | Send Message
     
    I guess you think the enviromental cost and the externalties like oil wars are included in the current price.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Well Boys, if government didn't mandate we'd still be driving clunkers that get 12 MPG with no seatbelts or airbags and a multitude of other safety enhancements related to government conducted and supervised crash tests. Traffic fatalities would be 84000 instead of a mere 42000. And many of you would be missing loved ones.

     

    YES, LETS GET GOVERNMENT OFF THE BACKS OF THE FUNERAL INDUSTRY.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Mon- spoken like a true comrade, no faith in business and complete faith in government
    26 Jun 2011, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • jpe123
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    good reply spoken like a true commie
    26 Jun 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Less people is exactly what we need. Then we could all drive 12mpg cars with less hassle and more safety. ; )
    26 Jun 2011, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Big Block Chevys forever!
    26 Jun 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Tack -

     

    In the 1960s and 1970s the Big Three North American auto manufactures resisted strenuously the efforts by the emerging consumer movement and federal governments in the US and Canada to improve standards of automobile safety, arguing that consumers really wanted exciting cars at the cheapest price and would not pay for safer construction. Governments enacted legislation imposing new standards but the Big Three continued to resist the implementation of these changes. Foreign manufacturers, responding to similar demands in their own domestic markets and in North America for safer vehicles, responded more quickly and with better vehicles.

     

    We all now have much safer vehicles, consumers expect this to be so and the Big Three have suffered a dramatic loss of market share over the past 50 or so years by reason of their slowness to respond to this challenge

     

    Are the Big Three about to do a sequel to this bad movie with fuel efficiency staring in place of vehicle safety standards?

     

    There is a role for the market place and capitalism as you envision it in these contexts but there is also a role for society through its government to help set the framework within which capitalism and the market do their thing. Let's hope the Big Three understand where they stand and what's at stake this time (i.e. by adapting creatively without delay to the new fuel efficiency standards).
    26 Jun 2011, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Well said Monngie!
    26 Jun 2011, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Bob Adamson,

     

    And Hitler was in charge in the 1930's.

     

    That was then, this is now,

     

    So, What's your point?

     

    Apparently you are not up to speed on the subject, and have not read my earlier posts.

     

    www.huffingtonpost.com...
    26 Jun 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12993) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    My remark has nothing to do with what, if any, regulations are justified for the auto, or any other, industry. I am railing against the usurpation of Legislative powers by the Executive branch of Government under the guise of "rules" and in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States.
    26 Jun 2011, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • been there
    , contributor
    Comments (80) | Send Message
     
    the reason they got 12 mpg was gas was 30 cents per gal. have some faith in the free market
    26 Jun 2011, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • been there
    , contributor
    Comments (80) | Send Message
     
    why did ford come out with seatbelts in 1956
    26 Jun 2011, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • dj10
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
    with the Energy and Conservation Act of 1975. This act, duly passed by elected representatives and signed into law by then President Gerald Ford, directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue rules on fuel economy for manufacturers. EPA is charged with calculating the average MPG. The act is still in effect, and it is the Executive Branch's responsibility to carry out this law.

     

    So the answer, you dumb ass, is yes, the White House gets to make the rules on this because Congress has authorized them to.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Actually you will find that the vast majority of the now-standard safety equipment like seat belts and air bags and antilock brakes and such were developed independently by companies in The Automotive Industry, in competitive R&D efforts to make a Better Automobile for the people. Such safety equipment only became mandated by The Government AFTER they were well-proven by The Industry.

     

    The government has invented NOTHING useful for the Automotive Industry, aside from quick-rinse bankruptcies and casually blowing off previous investors and stakeholders. It is almost literally like The Government sees The Industry try something as an optional upgrade, then decide that it was a really good idea, then mandating it for the rest of the industry to copy, after most of them already have done so.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    You would think that all the trees and prairie grasses and bushes and such would just be loving all this extra carbon dioxide we are emitting. We don't complain much when they put out extra oxygen do we? That O2 stuff is deadly poison to them, not to mention being "acidic" to all the iron and other metals and things that readily rust or otherwise oxidize.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Motion for adoption is seconded. Marijuana (and Cousin Hemp) is singularly one of the most useful weeds (no pun) on the planet, second to none for making a wide assortment of extremely useful and natural(!) products.

     

    It could easily be a multi-billion dollar cash crop, that readily grows almost literally everywhere, and yet it is banished to the back alley. It would even be an excellent source plant for making biofuel or ethanol fuel - even better than corn - due to its ultrafast growing biomass capability. But we are talking about The Government here, who knows about these things much better than Mother Nature.
    27 Jun 2011, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Remember also that these people back then used to think that seat belts were death traps for trapping helpless people in wrecked and possibly burning cars. It was thought better to be thrown from a car during a wreck, than trapped in it after. Thus Spake Zarathustra.
    27 Jun 2011, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • tweaks
    , contributor
    Comments (180) | Send Message
     
    I want sunset at precisely 7:31 every day. Hear me, Washington? Do it by 2050 - that should be long enough...
    26 Jun 2011, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • Dibber
    , contributor
    Comments (1361) | Send Message
     
    Right. This White House loves mandates. They solve the uninsured problem by mandating that anyone without insurance go out and buy it. What's next? End hunger by mandating that everyone buy food?
    26 Jun 2011, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7710) | Send Message
     
    Simple.. Make the cars smaller so that more people die in minor accidents.
    26 Jun 2011, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    wyostocks -

     

    It wouldn't be so if cars generally were smaller. As it i now we're all in a veritable arms race with each of us trying to drive the biggest tank on the road for fear that someone with a bigger tank will cream us.

     

    It's as if on the way to work each day we're re-enacting the 1943 Battle of Kursk on the plains of the USSR.

     

    Unhappily there appears to be no reasonable way out of this predicament (i.e. unless the price of gas goes up exponentially - which would be a cure worse than the disease).
    27 Jun 2011, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • Dibber
    , contributor
    Comments (1361) | Send Message
     
    Actually in battle of Kursk size of the tanks wasn't the decisive factor. Numbers, speed and tactics were. But that's neither here nor there.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • headlocal
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    good point, Wyostocks -

     

    make the smaller cars more confusing to drive, maybe with mandatory stick shifts so senior citizens will be preferentially offed, before they load FICA and Medicare for 25 years.

     

    And, mandate more added sugar into food while we're at it - that way, obesity and heart attacks will firther help "solve" the unfunded $44T promises.

     

    I can't wait to see a Republican commercial with Granny dying in a flaming wreck, mandated by Obama, "because it's fair", of course.
    27 Jun 2011, 03:21 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    You may have missed it, but actually the freeway "arms race" ended when Ford cancelled the Excursion, SUVs generally turned into Crossovers, and Hummer went defunct. Chevy Suburban sales are way, way down, along with all the large body-on-frame SUVs. Ford Explorer is now a Taurus unibody platform, and most of the other midsize and light SUVs have already gone to unibody car platforms.

     

    Yes there will always be some heavy duty work trucks out there for people that absolutely need them to move materials and such, and yes these will (almost) always win in a head to head battle in spacetime with small cars that try to take over a truck's personal space. That's physics.

     

    Oh and yes, we will also have plenty of jack@$$&$ out there who jack up their truck suspensions to look "cool" and "offroady" and "monster-trucky", so that their bumper is now about window-high on the rest of traffic. If the US and State Governments want something to do, it would be to set bumper heights or blocker beams to be 100% compatible across all roadworthy vehicles, so the smaller vehicles at least have a fighting chance to properly absorb some of the collision forces as designed.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    They forgot about the some laws that will still trump any wild kneejerk laws they can dream up.

     

    The Laws of Physics.

     

    Why not just make it 100 MPG?

     

    That would be a nice round number too.
    26 Jun 2011, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    This reminds me of a campaign promise from the old Rhinoceros Party of Canada (jokers but Communist oriented) whereby they said they would eliminate unemployment in Canada by abolishing Statistics Canada (the equivalent of the BLS) - no estimates therefore no unemployment!

     

    Sheer genius!

     

    I am surprised this administration hasn't come up with this one yet.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    100 mpg might be feasible with a 1.0L class diesel-electric hybrid electric powertrain. Place your orders.
    27 Jun 2011, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • Del3d
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    My fairly large 7 seater European car (Peugeot 5008 - with 5 star NCAP safety rating) does 53 Miles per **Litre** (3.7L per U.S. Gallon) on combined driving! Well done on your progress! At €1.50 per litre ($8.11 per U.S. gallon) over here it really matters.
    26 Jun 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Del3d,

     

    "does 53 Miles per **Litre** "

     

    That would be about 200MPG!

     

    What have you been smoking?

     

    Are you sure you are not really from California?

     

    Please provide Data.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • laogao
    , contributor
    Comments (88) | Send Message
     
    www.car-emissions.com/...

     

    Maybe "combined driving" means he gets out and pushes for 155 miles for every gallon driven.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Del3d
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Apologies... I meant 53 MPG (UK Gallon, which is 4.5L).... I think I was breathing in too many car fumes when I wrote that! It's a 1.6L diesel.
    www.car-emissions.com/...
    26 Jun 2011, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Don't confuse us with facts please Del3d...
    26 Jun 2011, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    Not bad, the VW diesel gets around 42 mpg out of a 2 liter diesel and runs pretty damn good. That thing would be great for the city, I don't think it would do well on I95 though. Does it have all of the DOH requirements as far as crash protection and stability control? If not, once it's US compliant it's gonna have a few hundred extra pounds on it so as to survive a head on collision with a semi since US drivers must text message/econference instead of watching the road. Remember, we had 45 mpg vehicles decades ago, but that was before cars turned into tanks.
    26 Jun 2011, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    kcr357 my cousin drives one since he got it new in 1998, he sees more than 50mpg in highway driving and is a great all round car. Easy to maintain and operate for a diesel and very well made. I can tell you this, its no Geo Metro.
    26 Jun 2011, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3368) | Send Message
     
    European drivers have made better use of diesel fuel which happens to be 30% more efficient than gasoline engines. What they do is introduce small 1.6 liter engines and then add both a supercharger and a turbo charger to it to make up for what would otherwise be a gutless performance. I agree with this strategy but find the US slow to change due to environmentalists blocking extended use of diesel fuel due to particulate pollution.
    26 Jun 2011, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    An occasional huff on a tailpipe is okay here. Most of these guys are sucking on an exhaust pipe frequently:-))
    26 Jun 2011, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Duude,

     

    Much of the issues you refer to have been recently addressed.
    Ala Mecedes Blue-Tec etc, and Urea injection.

     

    Refining processes in the US have yet to adapt however, due to the Hydrocracking in the US based on the Gasoline/Diesel Ratio, thereby keeping diesel expensive in the US.

     

    If I may add.
    If one took the Technologies you refer to ( Diesel) and added Hybrid or Mild Hybrid tech, even further advances are currently possible.

     

    Nobody has yet commercially combined diesel with Hybrid, at least Yet.
    26 Jun 2011, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    Whoops, meant I wouldn't take one of those peugots on I95, VW-hell yes.
    26 Jun 2011, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Yes and since British gallons are 20% bigger than US gallons, 53 mpg in the UK is more like 44 mpg US. Most of the newer compact and subcompact cars coming out now in the US are right in there, also in the 1.6 to 2.0L class, and using gasoline!
    27 Jun 2011, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    You may have missed it, but The Government changed the way they calculate MPG from the way they did decades ago. Cars that were quoted at 45 mpg back then are requoted now around 30-35 mpg. And cars that are now quoted today at 30-35 mpg can actually achieve 40-45 mpg or more with careful "hypermiling" - which simply means driving more economically than the way the government mandates in EPA tests.

     

    The Ford Fusion Hybrid, for example, is quoted by EPA at 41 mpg, but actually achieved 85 mpg in tests with expert hypermiling techniques.
    27 Jun 2011, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Never heard of a diesel electric engine? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    27 Jun 2011, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • apberusdisvet
    , contributor
    Comments (2867) | Send Message
     
    Without a "game changer" in new technology, few Americans will be able to afford to purchase "green" vehicles without major government assistance, especially in the face of skyrocketing energy and food bills. All of the energy initiatives proposed by this Administration (especially the EPA) are job killers, wealth killers, and are fraught with corruption and crony capitalism. The Pickens plan for converting trucks to our abundant resource of natural gas would solve some of the problem but is off the table; you have to wonder why.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • laogao
    , contributor
    Comments (88) | Send Message
     
    Most Americans can afford bicycles, indeed many Americans HAVE bicicles.
    And bicycles have better than 56.2 MPG.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Or perhaps instead of buying a 15mpg full size truck to haul topsoil once a year they could drive something smarter. The Chinese are raising fuel efficiency requirements faster than us, and so is every other advanced economy, but we expect our gov't to safeguard the price of oil for us because we are somehow more entitled than everyone else in the world....
    26 Jun 2011, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I disagree with almost everything you have to say, BUT, why is the Pickens plan off the table? It's the one plan and probably the only plan that will get us off of foreign oil and the entanglements that go along with it. It could possibly save this country!
    26 Jun 2011, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Mingie,

     

    Why,
    'cause people like you will find a problem with that too, that's why.

     

    articles.nydailynews.c...
    26 Jun 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • KashMoneyKapital
    , contributor
    Comments (408) | Send Message
     
    KML-

     

    Notice how oil collapsed to 30$ a barrel when price discovery was allowed for a brief period in time in 08-09 and speculators were out of the market?

     

    Peak oil is bullshit.
    27 Jun 2011, 03:04 AM Reply Like
  • Econdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (2944) | Send Message
     
    more Obama nonsense
    this sort of edict reminds me of the sort of garbage that used to come out of Gosplan in the former Soviet Union

     

    it is like the incandesecent light bulb ban

     

    let the market decide, let people decide,

     

    the prices arewrong. put a $1/gallon clmate change tax on gasoline, do the same with electricity derived from coal - put a 2c/kwh climate change surcharge on ot. Then just get out of the way.

     

    and if someone wants to pay and have a big car with lousy fuel economy and chooses incandescent bulbs in a house fueld by coal based power - let them. it is their right.

     

    Anyone but Obama 2012
    (except Palin, Paul, Gingrich, Bachman and Santorum - all loathsome and objectoinable)

     

    E
    26 Jun 2011, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • mattyw
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    I wouldn't let people decide, they will make bad decisions, such as getting a mortgage when they can't afford it. People are not rational. If you don't like it, don't vote for Obama. The fact that he's far ahead in the polls shows how not mainstream your view is.
    26 Jun 2011, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • KashMoneyKapital
    , contributor
    Comments (408) | Send Message
     
    mattyw-

     

    no, hes not far ahead.
    27 Jun 2011, 03:05 AM Reply Like
  • mattyw
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    Kash,

     

    1. His approval, while down from its post-bin Laden high, is at 47 percent. He can certainly win reelection next year with a number in that range: President Clinton had a similar approval rating this time in 1995.

     

    2. Pitted against nearly every potential GOP candidate, Obama would be suppprted by a majority of voters.
    27 Jun 2011, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • laogao
    , contributor
    Comments (88) | Send Message
     
    E-cars don't use gallons.....
    26 Jun 2011, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    ... but pounds? (of coal?)
    27 Jun 2011, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    econdoc

     

    instead of climate change surcharge
    we_need_your_money surcharge

     

    instead of $1
    your_$

     

    hard codes should be avoided
    ======================...
    How much of GOSPLAN have you read ?
    26 Jun 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (455) | Send Message
     
    Anybody got a SUM for sale?

     

    (sport utility moped)
    26 Jun 2011, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Well, there's this ... www.can-am.brp.com/
    27 Jun 2011, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • Serious Cat
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    The feds are concerned with the large flow of money out of the country for imported oil, and are trying to insure that the average fuel-consumption of vehicles improves over time. We will produce more oil here, but this will not lower the cost significantly because we can’t crush the price by out-producing the Middle East.

     

    This regulation is a fleet average which would include all of the plug-in electric and hybrid variants which achieve very high “calculated MPG.” Add some of the extremely efficient new diesel vehicles (the new ones don’t smoke and stink any more) and the fleet average could indeed be 56.2 in 2025. This kind of “corporate average” MPG standard just means that if you want to enter the truck market, you might have to design a Prius.

     

    The “climate change tax” we need now is a tax cut; the new car fleet would get higher mileage now if diesel fuel was taxed the same as gasoline.

     

    As for the cost of the vehicles, you can’t blame the feds for dreaming that if we could stop sending billions of dollars a month out of the country to buy oil to make fuel for vehicles our economy would be in much better shape. And you can’t blame the feds for understanding that the real goal is not to spend money on American oil instead of Saudi oil, but to help the economy by spending less money on oil.
    26 Jun 2011, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • j-dub
    , contributor
    Comments (1234) | Send Message
     
    My proposed "rule" would be to remove all socialists and/or communists out of the White House by Jan 2013, at the latest.
    26 Jun 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Serious Cat
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Changing over the congress in 2012, 2014 and 2016 to completely remove the group which took a balanced budget in 2000 and created a federal deficit of 10% of GDP by 2008 (11% now) would be more useful in the long run.
    26 Jun 2011, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Serious Cat
    Changing over the congress in 2012, 2014 and 2016
    ======================...
    It the same group which j-dub is talking about.
    Try to look not at their D/R
    Look at the issue
    26 Jun 2011, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Never again voting in NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS would go a long way to solving our problems.
    26 Jun 2011, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • mattyw
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    J-dub, you're a backwards hick.
    26 Jun 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2788) | Send Message
     
    The politics of energy are driving the agenda. Nuclear Technology already exists which could supply our country's energy needs for generations in a much safer manner than current nuclear plants provide.

     

    Spend 10 minutes and learn about Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors.

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    26 Jun 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (427) | Send Message
     
    "Spend 10 minutes and learn about Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors"

     

    But won't the control rod mechanism affect headroom in a sub-compact ?
    26 Jun 2011, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (455) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, but it's better than the light-water reactor in my old Yugo.
    26 Jun 2011, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2788) | Send Message
     
    LOL.

     

    LFTRs don't HAVE any control rods so headroom isn't that much of a problem. The cooling towers might result in a bit more wind resistance at high speeds however.
    26 Jun 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    As dictator, my first move would be to outlaw education,except for the children of the bureaucracy. Everyone else would be required to report to concentration camps where they would be assessed for usefulness as laborers. Body mass measurements would be taken to insure that fat people and other undesirables do not use up valuable resources. Those deemed undesirable would be mailed to Cuba and Venezuela. Fit individuals would be required to work 30 hours a week and would be fed food pellets. Leisure time would be spent watching TV, fornicating and getting stoned. Chronic illness would result in being mailed to France. Terminal illnesses would be hastened with massive doses of morphine. The bureaucracy would get to do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't mess with me. Take that Barry.
    26 Jun 2011, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • miscon2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Congress represents the interests of corporate interest, not common Americans. Big oil doesn't want efficiency, and big auto doesn't wants to keep doing things the same old way - this despite the fact that they are either subsidized or straight up bailed out on the backs of the working class. They will never voluntarily move to the level of efficiency this country needs to remain healthy, viable, and competitive because they have no allegiance to America, only their own personal profits.

     

    This is EXACTLY what Obama needs to be doing. Thank god he's got the cahones and vision to try to do something for the people of this country - apparently no one else does.
    26 Jun 2011, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Hussein obama doesn't care about the middle class, he cares about his reelection and thus the parasite class....

     

    I miss the thumbs down system.....
    26 Jun 2011, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3368) | Send Message
     
    The problem isn't with big oil. The problem is auto manufacturers try to deliver to American consumers what they want to buy. That's why SUVs are everywhere. For some reason people don't like shoe-horning their families into a small economical vehicle that has to be down shifted and driven in the truck lane with every hill.
    26 Jun 2011, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Mis-con2,

     

    Apparently you are Mis-informed.

     

    Only two years ago all parties (Feds Automakers,California, etc.) got together and agreed on the Phase in of very strict but uniform MPG and emmission standards.

     

    www.huffingtonpost.com...

     

    Those have not even been phased in and now we want to raise the bar again.

     

    Nevermind my last Post.

     

    Lets just make it 250MPG.

     

    That should hold for another two years or so.

     

    That should suffice for some more Market "Certainty" for a capital intensive manufacturing industry that may be one of the most important segments of the economy.

     

    So important in fact, that Obama believed it justified bailing out.

     

    Or maybe it was just the Union votes that only really mattered.

     

    We know it was not the interests of the Mom & Pop bondholders, that's for certain.
    26 Jun 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Joe, I do too. I'd give you one on this.

     

    You just want to scare the shit out of everyone by invoking President Obama's middle name. Why don't you just go BOOOO!!!

     

    Pretty infantile stuff Joe.
    26 Jun 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Mongie,

     

    And what do you have to offer?
    Nothing, as usual.

     

    Check with your buddy Tigerscam.

     

    BTW, are the two of you related?
    26 Jun 2011, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    I didn't know mentioning the complete name of a person was "infantile stuff"....

     

    Keep this in mind, this from a Tack post, kudos to him:

     

    Joe:

     

    Further, and coincidentally, to my previous comments, the following arrived in my inbox this afternoon from somebody's broadcast e-mail:

     

    Fifty-Four Years of Math 1957 - 2011 In America:

     

    Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. Why do I tell you this? 

     

    Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s: 

     

    1. Teaching Math In 1950s 
    A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ? 

     

    2. Teaching Math In 1960s 
    A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit? 

     

    3. Teaching Math In 1970s 
    A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

     

    4. Teaching Math In 1980s 
    A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20 ...

     

    5. Teaching Math In 1990s 
    A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)

     

    6. Teaching Math In 2000s

     

    If you have special needs or just feel you need assistance because of race, color, religion, sex, age, childhood memories, criminal background, then don't answer and the correct answer will be provided for you. There are no wrong answers.

     

    7. Teaching Math In 2011 
    Un hachero vende una carrtada de maderapara 100 pesos. El costo de la producciones es 80 pesos. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

     

    Again, kudos to Tack.
    26 Jun 2011, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • Dibber
    , contributor
    Comments (1361) | Send Message
     
    There was a time when liberals wanted to make the world a better place. Now they just want to stick it to American corporations and millionaires. It's an odd mindset when you think about it.
    26 Jun 2011, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    There was a time when politicians wanted to make the world a better place. Now they just want to stick it to the American people. It's an odd mindset when you think about it.
    26 Jun 2011, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • tweaks
    , contributor
    Comments (180) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, I notice on most comment boards now that there's only "like" buttons. WTH???? Give me a $*()# break.... If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all? What are we coming to???
    26 Jun 2011, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3368) | Send Message
     
    If he can sign his name to legislation certainly it must be possible. LOL! Obama was also full of hope for a new wave of electric automobiles. No one told him the average person wasn't interested in paying a premium price for a heavily government-subsidized econo box with a 60 mile all-electric range. It sounded reasonable to Obama.
    26 Jun 2011, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "No one told him the average person wasn't interested in paying a premium price for a heavily government-subsidized econo box with a 60 mile all-electric range. It sounded reasonable to Obama."

     

    Reasonable because he doesn't have to drive one as he is above the rules.
    26 Jun 2011, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Venerability
    , contributor
    Comments (3048) | Send Message
     
    As everyone really knows, do they not?, this isn't going to be possible without extensive use of CNG.

     

    26 Jun 2011, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I hope so!
    26 Jun 2011, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    The type of legislation I would like to see, is Obama can't pass rules that would apply beyond the Time he is no longer of Office.

     

    Weather that be 2012 or 2016.

     

    I would prefer the former.
    26 Jun 2011, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12993) | Send Message
     
    The last time I checked the Constitution -- I realize it's just considered by some a quaint historic antiquity now, meant only for public display at a museum-- it said that the Legislative branch (Congress) made the laws and that the Executive branch (President) executed the laws. Furthermore the Judicial branch (Supreme Court) was mandated to ensure that neither the Legislative nor Executive Branch usurped powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

     

    From what I can tell, now, none of the three branches is performing the lawful assignment of duty accorded each by our Constitution. Therein lies the greatest problem and the greatest danger to the future of the Republic.
    26 Jun 2011, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    There you go Tack. While the rest gnaw on the meat you cut right down to the bone. And you did not even use your "liberals want to control everything" card . Nicely said! Very dangerous situation indeed. I only wonder how long until some "significant" event reveals that danger to the average member of the Republic. I have been waiting so long for that event I am getting sleepy too.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • j-dub
    , contributor
    Comments (1234) | Send Message
     
    Tack-
    I welcome your realization that if we lose the Republic, there will be no alpha to seek. Only the ruling class and their cronies will have any advantage to profit. To have someone as intelligent as you come to this conclusion can only be a huge positive for those in your virtual, personal and familial circles.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Liberals like you got us into this mess....
    26 Jun 2011, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    If?
    26 Jun 2011, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12993) | Send Message
     
    cbc & j-dub:

     

    I consider the abdication by the Supreme Court of its Constitutional duty to enforce the preservation of powers to the People and the States, and to enforce the Separation of Powers between, and reign in usurpation of powers by, the Legislative and Executive branches to be the most grievous threat to the future of the nation. Failure of duty by the Supreme Court is far more dangerous and nefarious than any actual mischief of the other two branches of Government, as the other two are, at least, elected, while the Supreme Court's malfeasance is beyond redress.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • j-dub
    , contributor
    Comments (1234) | Send Message
     
    I'll simplify what you just said and put it into what I believe is the correct context:
    Monkey see, monkey do.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7710) | Send Message
     
    Tack
    Great point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    26 Jun 2011, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The reason the Supreme Court isn't functioning in a Constitutional manner is it's Conservative majority!!!!
    26 Jun 2011, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (455) | Send Message
     
    How can they (the Supremes) enforce powers while they are usurping power for themselves? Reset anyone?
    26 Jun 2011, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • dj10
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    Read my prior comment. If you understood the Constitution, you might understand the why you are completely wrong on this issue.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12993) | Send Message
     
    dj:

     

    Your ignorance and abusive style hardly deserves repost, but I'll humor you and just say that if you had a genuine understanding of the Constitution you would realize that except for power specifically enumerated therein to the Federal Government, all other powers are reserved to the People and the States. This has been so bastardized by usurpation of power by all branches of the Federal Government, so as to make the original intent of the Constitution barely recognizable, now. And, more than any single body, the Supreme Court in its dereliction of duty to enforce the Constitution has permitted this vast expansion of power wholly unspecified by the Constitution.

     

    (You may now return to your rather juvenile name calling, which is the usual refuge of those unable to debate intelligently.)
    27 Jun 2011, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    I greatly miss the "Thumbs Down" button which is one of the reasons I feel less compelled to post here. You have demonstrated tremendous patience and erudition here but I suspect to a liberal you sound like an alien being.

     

    Without negative feedback it is impossible to learn anything in life - just look at all the losers with high self-esteem.
    27 Jun 2011, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I really don't think you can pin this on liberals. It was the centrist Democrats and Republicans along with the NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS (NSFCR) AND NEOCONS . The centrist DEM and REPUBS gutted the regulatory impediments that prevented stupid and illegal behavior on the part of Banks and Financial institutions. The NSFCR's spent money like drunken sailors and the NEOCONS got us into a very expensive war in Iraq on false pretenses (Read Lies).
    27 Jun 2011, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Couldn't agree more. It's particularly nefarious and dangerous when they give corporations the rights of citizens.
    27 Jun 2011, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • dj10
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    Tack, you have an originalist view of the Constitution, which makes a debate with you senseless. We don't live in the world of 1789. Cars didn't exist back then. The constitution enumerates certains powers that are not specific, such as the Commerce Clause. If you don't think that the Commerce Clause - or even the duty of the government to promote the general welfare - allows Congress to regulate automobiles, okay. But you are among a very small, yet
    dispropotionately loud minority.

     

    Perhaps Idaho should adopt a rule that cars must have an MPG no greater that 5, and Oregon a rule that cars must have an MPG no less than 40. That would work well (for Oregonians, at least)
    27 Jun 2011, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7710) | Send Message
     
    Tack makes good points. WTF are you talking about?
    27 Jun 2011, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Wyostocks,

     

    Do not be Afraid.

     

    dj10 is just one of those people that think the constitution is a 'Living Document" subject to political mood swings almost equal to the monthly, hormonal mood swings I have to deal with as far as my spouse.

     

    Thankfully we have processes to deal with that.
    27 Jun 2011, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • dj10
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    There's a woman for every man out there, no matter how undesirable his genetic offering might be. Thus, thirty years hence 2010XLS will be making inane posts in the family tradition.
    4 Jul 2011, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7710) | Send Message
     
    What is the MPG of the presidental limo? Will this also have to meet the new standard?
    Don't bet on it.......................
    26 Jun 2011, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Wyostocks,

     

    Please,

     

    Do as I say, not as I do.
    26 Jun 2011, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Hussein obama, is an hypocrite.....like all the liberals.....
    26 Jun 2011, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    This is just another version of cap and trade which did not pass, not unusual for this President to find a way around the Congress. I would guess they picked 52MPG by 2025 because its impossible for the auto industry to attain with a standard gas powered engine, so what the alternative, how about hybrid and electric cars. Just another nudge by government, no its more like a shove by this president to get what he wants no matter what. Just Obama flipping the Congress and America the bird, AGAIN!
    26 Jun 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    It was 56 mpg not 52 but I think that is very doable. Now, I do not have a huge background in the combustion engine but did you ever hear about Bucky Fullers dymaxion car? In 1933 it apparently got 30mpg. Some interesting conspiracy theories suggest that banks and the auto industry made sure the design was never produced. Anyway check out the link if you are interested.
    26 Jun 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Whoops heres the link
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    26 Jun 2011, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    Interesting counterpoint to the OMG we're gonna die from global warming crowd-"Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other."
    www.geocraft.com/WVFos...
    26 Jun 2011, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    The liberals don't like facts.....global warming is a hoax.
    27 Jun 2011, 06:52 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Ford's Model T got 21 mpg, and was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol! Of course it only weighed 1200 pounds and reached maybe 45 mph with a 2 speed transmission (plus reverse). The point is, you must burn fuel (or something) to make energy to propel the mass of the vehicle plus passengers and payload. It is not like we can invent an engine that is 200% efficient, aside from "gaming the system" (changing the energy source) with plug-in electrics and hybrids, which burn pounds of coal offsite (external combustion engine?) instead of gallons of gasoline internally.
    30 Jun 2011, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Why do people keep repeating the coal thing, 100% of the energy to my property is nuclear/natural gas, so if I used an EV I wouldn't burn a pound of coal. For that matter, neither would 53% of other US households, considering coal is just 47% of generation.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    If you actually read that Wiki article, you will see that Fuller's car showed numerous defects in the design which rendered the car utterly useless and unsafe at any speed. There is no way it would have met any safety standards. It is pretty easy to build a "dream car" out of paper and soda straws, and it might even use apparently little fuel to roll around the parking lot at the fair. Making it safe and roadworthy is the hard part.

     

    He killed the car himself with ineptitude and ignorance.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    KMI,

     

    And, 47% is not a significant amount?

     

    What comes out of todays gasoline powered cars is cleaner that what comes out of a Coal Fired plant, that's why.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Is 53% not a significant amount? I don't understand what you are complaining about 1980, it's a simple point, the 'all energy going into your EV comes from dirty coal' BS is wrong for 53% of Americans.

     

    i.e. a majority, albeit, a slim one, wouldn't recharge with coal. So quit with the FUD.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    KMI,

     

    Not saying all is dirty.

     

    Just have to use the average.

     

    While you may not get yours from coal, others may be at 100%

     

    That is unless you are advocating regional application of EV's.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Let's not get grade school here 1980, my comment was to specify that the chatter that is repeated way too often about charging an EV is that the energy isn't clean because it is coal based, and I am pointing out that more than half of the energy in the US - or more than half of the energy potentially juicing EVs - is not coal.

     

    i.e I am arguing against the repeated obfuscation in where EV recharging energy comes from. I don't know what your point of contention is or why you keep trying to find an angle to nullify my comment.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    I never said "All comes from dirty coal"

     

    Using your numbers, I merely pointed out that regional application could in fact, truly be clean.

     

    Without regional applications one would have to use the average that is my point.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    kmi - you must then conclude that fleet-wide or on average, roughly half a plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle's electrical energy from charging comes from burning coal.

     

    You also seem to ignore that it is a national grid, or maybe continental including Canadian sources. The powerplants closest your residence may well be nuclear or hydro or wind, and coal plants farther away, but when this or that plant reduces output, or goes off-line for maintenence or repairs, the grid supplies power from elsewhere - possibly from a coal plant that is hundreds of miles away!

     

    Meanwhile, go ahead and ask the Japanese how clean and wonderful their nuclear plants are. Not a swipe at nuclear power per se - just the old outdated plants that are or should be on their very last legs. My view is we need to rapidly start building new ones to supplement, replace, and retire the old ones before they start to have "accidents".

     

    Also not against coal plants, dirty or not - they are what they are. Obviously newer and cleaner is better. The point is, proclaiming plug-in hybrids that are absurdly quoted at 250 mpg or something, based on a hypothetical 26 mile trip where the first 25 miles were electric and the last mile used some gasoline, is just a political shell game for politicians and the ignorant. The power to drive the car the first 25 miles came from external power sources - roughly half of it being from burning coal, petroleum, ethanol, natural gas, or something. That the rest maybe came from wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric dams, river currents, sea waves, or pig $#^! is maybe nice to know. But to ignore the contribution of coal plants because you think they don't apply to you somehow is either a little naive or a little dishonest.
    30 Jun 2011, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Wow, welcome to grade school, ok children let's go over this again...

     

    Did you, or did you not say "with plug-in electrics and hybrids, which burn pounds of coal offsite" implying that energy charging EVs is derived entirely from coal?

     

    Yes you did. Certainly that might not have been your intent, but without any additional clarity one must take the statement at its face value

     

    And what did I say? Here let me cut and paste to help you: "more than half of the energy potentially juicing EVs - is not coal." With which I added the context that was missing from your comment.

     

    All the rest is bright lights and loud noises, meant to distract and obfuscate.
    30 Jun 2011, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    If you want to research elec. efficiency, you still need to factor in the efficiency losses from (start here for coal) heat transfer to water-(start here for hydro-elec)the turbine-step up transformer to get voltage up to grid levels-step down transformer to get it back down to 220 or 110v.
    4 Jul 2011, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Once again, kmi ignores the statistics and data, and his own previous remarks, while deliberately distorting and misinterpreting the comments from others, talking down to folks, and ducking from the facts of the matter.

     

    Once again, as you claim, roughly half of the electric power in the national grid comes from coal. We will stipulate that: depending on the source and method of calculation, the best estimate is that 45-49% of the produced and consumed electricity in the US comes from coal, and the figure is about 40% worldwide (nukes are more prevalent in Europe and Japan, for example). Regardless, you must agree that roughly half the electrical power for charging plug-in electrics and hybrids, on average comes from "pounds of coal". You cannot conclude otherwise! Even if you live in a state that has no coal power plants, that fact does not guarantee that none of your power comes from burning coal, because it is an interconnected national grid. In any case, we are speaking in general and on averages, not in special isolated cases.

     

    Now - let us skip "grade school", and go to college for a bit.

     

    A 100-mile range compact size EV consumes roughly 20 kW-hr to go the distance. If you assume half of that power on average comes from coal, then roughly 10 kW-hr comes from coal for each 100 miles driven. The useful energy that comes from burning coal is about 6.67 kW-hr per kg. The thermal efficiency of coal fired power plants is about 33%, so you actually get about 2.2 kW-hr of electricity per kg of coal. Therefore you will need to burn about 4.5 kg of coal, or about 10 pounds, to provide half of the total electricity to drive 100 miles in a compact sized electric vehicle (20 pounds if "all" the electricity came from coal). You would need about 2.5 gallons of gasoline (weighing 15 pounds!) to cover the same distance in a similar compact car that gets 40 mpg.

     

    Therefore - yes, plug-in electrics and hybrids, on average, burn pounds of coal rather than gallons (or pounds) of gasoline. And the amount is almost the same!

     

    Feel free to check the math. The data will set you free. Now, why it is that you continue to feel so obsessively compelled to treat others like "children" and talking down to people ("welcome to grade school") is a bit mysterious - it is insulting, demeaning, condescending and very trollish. May want to reconsider your role and approach in these discussions.
    4 Jul 2011, 05:14 PM Reply Like
  • BTM
    , contributor
    Comments (345) | Send Message
     
    That's all well and good, the 50 mpg by whenever, but lets be honest.... it ain't gonna save us. The 'West' is in decline. The next 1000 years will belong to the 'East'.
    26 Jun 2011, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Back in the 80's the Japanese were going to own us.
    27 Jun 2011, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (455) | Send Message
     
    See Monngie, there are some things we can agree upon. You are absolutely correct. I received my MBA in the early 90's and that was very much a given back then. Seems like a 100 years ago now.
    27 Jun 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    Natural Gas vehicles? Been there, done that. Nobody wanted 'em aside from a few fleet operators. Produce some "Demand", then you can get some "Supply".

     

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    27 Jun 2011, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    There's no infrastructure. There are no public NG stations at all within a 2hr drive of my location NYC, and most private parties don't want to invest the add'l $5-10k for a home refueling station.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3600) | Send Message
     
    The intent was for natural gas companies to provide adapter taps for refilling CNG cars at home. For a fee, a commercial gas plumber-type would come to your home and install a connection in your garage, along with a pump to pressurize the tank, and the gas company would bill for the gas. Of course if you don't have gas at home, or at work or something, then yes - no way to fuel it.

     

    Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    27 Jun 2011, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    The Pickens Plan relies mostly on Heavy Trucks and Gov't fleet vehicles using nat gas, thereby freeing up oil for autos.
    27 Jun 2011, 12:16 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|