backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 298 comment(s) - last by anthony34.. on Apr 17 at 10:07 PM

2008 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Ford Edge with HySeries Drive

Chevrolet Volt
Bush calls for a 20% reduction in gasoline usage by 2017

Many of the top auto manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States are at least attempting to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Big names like General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Honda have production models or prototypes that rely on hybrid, fuel cell or diesel technology to improve fuel efficiency.

President Bush wants even more progress from automakers and is pushing for even stricter fuel economy standards in the coming years.

"We have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists on 35 -- using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which will reduce our gasoline uses by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse gases that emanate from automobiles," said President Bush to reporters. "In other words, there is a remedy available for Congress. And I strongly hope that they pass this remedy quickly."

The Bush administration has calculated that the costs for the auto industry would come in at $114 billion USD between 2010 and 2017 to comply -- GM's share is said to be $40 billion USD.

Outspoken GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz was quick to respond to Bush's request. Lutz figures that in order for GM to reduce overall gasoline consumption 20% by the year 2017, it would need to raise the price of its vehicles by $5,000 to $6,000 USD. Lutz also remarked that the only way to meet Bush's goal would be to make almost every vehicle a hybrid or use other more expensive technologies like ethanol-based E85, all-electric or hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles. "This technology does not come for free," said Lutz.

That being said, GM is adding hybrid technology to existing vehicles to improve fuel efficiency. The Saturn Aura Green Line promises a 30% increase in fuel economy compared to a base Aura XE and is priced at a relatively reasonable $22,695 USD including destination charge. GM has also started early production on dual-mode hybrid versions of its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon full-size SUVs. Hybrid technology is said to increase the fuel economy of these vehicles by as much as 25%.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By 2017
By BMFPitt on 4/5/2007 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 3
I think 10 years from now when gas is $10/gal, a lot more people will be interested in hybrids.




RE: By 2017
By mark2ft on 4/5/2007 3:50:39 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone know when world fossil fuel supplies will become depleted? I think I heard something in the range of 80-100 years. Not sure though.


RE: By 2017
By aurareturn on 4/5/2007 3:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
No one knows but the estimate is around 2040.

If those giant oil companies don't bully off any major research done on alternative fuel, we'd probably have a good source of alternative fuel by now.


RE: By 2017
By arazok on 4/5/2007 4:29:07 PM , Rating: 1
I think you mean the Hubbert peak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

The world is not going to run out of oil in 2040. Nobody even knows when the peak will occur. Some say we are in it now. I think not.


RE: By 2017
By ATC on 4/5/2007 4:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think not.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think we're not?


RE: By 2017
By arazok on 4/5/2007 10:01:22 PM , Rating: 4
Because production is still rising as we speak, and the price of oil hasn't skyrocketed.

Now, someone is going to point to $60 oil and say "Hasn't skyrocketed?", but believe me oil is still cheap in the greater scheme of things.

Peak oil means we will never pump more oil per day then we at that time. No economy will be able to grow without realizing efficiency gains, rather then burning more oil as we do now. Countries will begin fighting over existing supplies, and prices will go $120, $200, $300 a barrel or more.

Peak oil means you actually carpool to work, rather then think it's just a good thing for everyone else to do. You won't have a choice.


RE: By 2017
By psychmike123 on 4/6/2007 12:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
With respect, I disagree. As a whole, oil production in many proven fields has declined. The reason that oil production as a whole has not has been because oil companies are resorting to more and more aggressive means of extracting oil. If we're not at peak oil, we're certainly getting close. Keep in mind that oil use is growing ever faster. That means that we'll likely use up the remaining oil much, much earlier than our history would suggest.


RE: By 2017
By Zeatrix on 4/6/2007 2:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
Whether or not there is more oil is irrelevant. We have to cut the emissions now anyways! The record high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will cause serious disruptions to the earths ecosystem and that is why we HAVE to stop using oil.

I recognize that we can't just stop using oil right away. But we have to do as much as we can, otherwise the future will be very grim for generations to come.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 9:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "The record high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere..."

But we're nowhere near "record" levels of carbon dioxide. Current levels are about 380 ppm. In the earth's past, they were well above 3,000 ppm.


RE: By 2017
By Steve Guilliot on 4/6/2007 6:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
True.
We should temper that fact with another. When CO2 levels were that high, the planet was much hotter and mostly tropical.

We can't wait for "record" CO2 levels, so whether 380ppm is or not is academic.

No matter the view on global warming, we should reduce our dependence on the middle east for our economic sustainability. It's as simple as that.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2007 5:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "We should temper that fact with another. When CO2 levels were that high, the planet was much hotter and mostly tropical"

Actually, during one period of extremely high CO2 levels (over 1000ppm, or triple the level they are today) the planet was locked in the coldest ice age of the past 400 past million years. Climatology is a complex business.


RE: By 2017
By Fallen Kell on 4/10/2007 10:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Actually, during one period of extremely high CO2 levels (over 1000ppm, or triple the level they are today) the planet was locked in the coldest ice age of the past 400 past million years. Climatology is a complex business."

Yes, but the reason for the high CO2 at that time was due to the loss of plant life which is what converts the C02 into the oxygen that most animal life depends on.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 9:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "As a whole, oil production in many proven fields has declined..."

In some yes. But overall world production of oil is still increasing....and many fields we haven't even begun to taop yet.


RE: By 2017
By rushfan2006 on 4/6/2007 10:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
lol...that's why I like masher...he has an answer all the time for all the scientific stuff. Seriously , I'm not saying that sarcastically....nor am I saying this as a bust/put down in anyway but rather as a sincere question of curiousity -- Masher are you an engineer or something or just a information junkie that reads ALOT.

Even though sometimes I've strongly disagreed with you, I've always admired your thing for posting information and a lot of the times I've doubled checked your info and it has been correct.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 10:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a researcher for a Fortune 50 company...and I read a lot :)


RE: By 2017
By encryptkeeper on 4/6/2007 5:25:56 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure google helps alot.


RE: By 2017
By Steve Guilliot on 4/6/2007 5:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, is there room for my lips on your ass too? Or do I need to get in line?

j/k


RE: By 2017
By Kuroyama on 4/8/2007 5:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Here's some idle speculation. Based on masher2's earlier posts I believe he lives near Marietta (GA), doesn't drive far to work, has had to (unhappily) pay bribes in his work, purchased a multi-million dollar computer for work, has worked in many countries, works as a researcher for a Fortune 50 company, and believes nuclear power is wonderful. Seems he could work for a certain very large defense company which has huge operations near Marietta, has contracts with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, builds nuclear submarines, and is famous in Japan for its bribe paying (although probably all Fortune 50 companies have had to pay bribes I'd guess defense and oil have to pay the most often). Of course, I may have got some of these statements wrong, people change jobs all the time, a person's opinions need not be aligned with their employers lobbying interests (I certainly don't like the union I'm stuck in), and Cobb county GA certainly has offices from plenty of other huge companies too, so if anyone actually sees this post then don't take it as more than the aimless speculation that it is. (OK, it's only fair, as if anyone cares: I work in a university so although I'm obviously left-wing I may even be to the right of the average political orientation in my line of work)


RE: By 2017
By Kuroyama on 4/8/2007 5:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oops. The company I was thinking of is only #52 on the 2006 rankings, so guess I was wrong.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/9/2007 8:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not too bad...but I haven't worked for a defense contractor in well over a decade :)


RE: By 2017
By psychmike123 on 4/7/2007 12:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
My point remains: That overall oil production has not peaked because of increasingly aggressive means of extracting oil. This suggests that the era of 'easy oil' is either over or soon will be.

As a professional researcher, I'm sure that you understand statistics and the normal distribution. Once we've passed the middle part of the curve, oil production could fall rather quickly, especially if demand continues to increase. I think the fall will be softened by new technologies such that the distribution will be skewed to the right but my point remains.

Mike


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2007 5:30:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "oil production has not peaked because of increasingly aggressive means of extracting oil. This suggests that the era of 'easy oil' is either over or soon will be..."

The fact that oil has not peaked does not support the belief that it will soon do so. Increasingly aggressive oil exploitation has been ongoing for a century; that in itself is no reason to sound the alarm. As a matter of fact, the era of "easy oil" for most of the world ended decades ago...there is nothing easy about deepsea drilling, gas injection techniques, ultra-sophisticated seismic exploration, or any other modern technique in the industry.

And yet, oil production still continues to rise.


RE: By 2017
By joex444 on 4/5/2007 10:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
CANADA.

Believe it or not, Canada is the answer once our Mideast oil runs out (geological or political reasons). Now, in Canada, if you want oil you don't stick a pipe in the ground and just watch oil flow. Instead, you find these shales that are in the soil, and with some refining you can get usable oil from this. Of course, this adds money to the whole process, so if we needed to use this we should be expecting a $150-$300 barrel, in today's dollars.


RE: By 2017
By arazok on 4/5/2007 10:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to tell you, but you're using it now. Canada is the US's #1 supplier of Oil.

It costs $20-30 a barel to refine, not $300.


RE: By 2017
By arazok on 4/5/2007 10:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
And I should add, there is enough oil in the tar sands to supply the USA for 100 years.


RE: By 2017
By UNCjigga on 4/6/2007 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 3
So when do we invade Canada and accuse them of harboring weapons of mass destruction?? That tank looks dangerous man (and don't get me started on their boat..err..warship!)


RE: By 2017
By Martin Blank on 4/6/2007 12:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
The refining costs are below $20 per barrel now, though the extraction is still a messy affair.

Still, there's estimated to be more than 2 trillion BOE recoverable in Canada alone, which is actually enough for nearly 300 years of US use at current usage (~20 million barrels per day * 365 days per year = 7.3 billion barrels per year, and 2 trillion barrels / 7.3 billion barrels per year = ~274 years).


RE: By 2017
By Manfred on 4/15/2007 6:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
Theres a really good article about it in Popular Mechanics a couple months back. It's expensive to produce but not prohibitively.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 4
We have approximately 50 years of proven reserves. However, its important to note that, 50 years ago, we had only 30 years of reserves. Since 1965, we've found 5 new barrels of oil for every 3 we've burnt. It's also interesting to note that president Calvin Coolidge established an emergency oil conservation board in the 1920s...due to widespread claims that the world oil supply would be exhausted in little more than a decade.


RE: By 2017
By Kuroyama on 4/5/2007 4:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is that 50 years of proven reserves at today's worldwide consumption rate? If so then it's pretty meaningless as India and China are rapidly using more and more resources, and with their combined 2 billion people discovering the wonders of cars and air conditioners this will lead to a huge surge in consumption in coming years.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 4
Oil consumption has steadily increased over the past cenutry; this is nothing new. The 50-year reserve figure is indeed meaningless...primarily because reserves are now so large, than many companies have stopped or slowed down exploration efforts. Its just not economic when you have such a vast supply on tap. And proven reserves are also based on economic factors...oil thats too expensive to extract at todays prices suddenly becomes viable when the price goes up.

Yes, petroleum will eventually run out...natural petroleum, at least. But it won't be in 50 years. I'd lay money it won't be in 150 years either.


RE: By 2017
By caqde on 4/5/2007 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah at least we know how to make it... Go Garbage Fuel!!!!

http://itotd.com/articles/205/oil-from-garbage/

(one of many articles on Garbage based oil :) )


RE: By 2017
By TwistyKat on 4/5/2007 4:27:21 PM , Rating: 1
Running out won't be the problem. You need to read up on the concept of "Peak Oil" and what it means when supply can't meet demand.

That is coming first. When this happens it is not clear, but when it does it will get pretty ugly around here.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 4:34:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "You need to read up on the concept of "Peak Oil""

I first read about Peak Oil in the early 1980s. After its first predictions failed utterly, this peseudotheory fell out of favor for a while. Then it came back in style, with the prediction that world oil would "peak" sometime around the year 1998. When that failed, the new prediction was made for 2006-2012. That one isn't going to arrive either.

Seriously, the entire idea of peak oil is flawed to the core. Yes, oil production will eventually "peak". But not for the reasons it states...and when production does decline, it will be because the arrival of more economic alternatives have reduced demand, not vice versa.


RE: By 2017
By Ringold on 4/5/2007 4:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
'Peak Oil' is accurate in one regard, and thats this: one year, probably within a decade, global production will peak and begin a downward drift. Doomsayers say a violent drop, but thats based on the false idea that engineers wont be able to engineer past some arbitrary date and production will collapse. Mhmm, right.

But all that won't have much effect. Oil will get more expensive as supply gets tighter, and the rational world will build coal and nuclear plants, and the irrational world will strangle themselves trying to make due with more renewable than would be logical before saving themselves from disaster and finally building more coal and nuclear themselves. People that watch markets will notice it, and prosper, but the average man won't be affected in liberal/liquid market-based economies. Life will go on, and Peak Oil will go down in the history books as a theory that made a bunch of investors a small mountain of cash and an academic fact in the study of the history of the oil industry.

But I'm a voice of moderation, and that interpretation of how markets typically work won't make headlines on CNN (unless someone like me agrees to go on opposite a peak oil/green energy fanatic with the promise of lots of cheap insults), so you won't hear it much.


RE: By 2017
By novacthall on 4/6/2007 8:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doomsayers say a violent drop, but thats based on the false idea that engineers wont be able to engineer past some arbitrary date and production will collapse. Mhmm, right.

Bingo. Why is it that every prediction, every doomsday scenario, and every "end of the world" alarm fails to take into account advancing technology, better techniques, and new engineering methods? Every single one. I'm not going to lie to you: as an engineer, myself, that hurts.

That's just what engineers do. Problems come up, we fix them. We're forever the kid holding the mallet on the Whack-a-Mole game. And when or if whatever it is everyone's chirping about truly does become a problem, the profession will work to fix it.

After all: engineers built the world, they could likely take it apart, too (though it's worth pointing out that after they put it back together after having taken it apart, there would probably be a few screws left over).


RE: By 2017
By mjcutri on 4/7/2007 11:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
as a fellow engineer: AMEN Brother!
(especially to the few screws left over part)


RE: By 2017
By Ringold on 4/5/2007 4:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'd lay money on never running out. Ever.

The entire debate over years left of reserves is off the point. Long before remaining reserves are even close to depletion, the market will price up the cost of oil, and other technologies will slowly, over decades, seamlessly slip in to replace it. We didn't run out of stones in the stone age, after all.

And that is, it could be a smooth transition over decades to alternatives as the market works efficiently, or it could be all at once with massive expense with technology unproven and with mountains of deadweight loss throughout the economy. Not that politicians care. They'd rather say we've got 'x' years of reserves left, and, omg, better switch now! That sounds better, wins votes, and plays on the fact that people (the masses) can't comprehend vast financial and commodity markets.

But yeah. It'll be a worthless commodity eventually, and we'll just stop pumping the stuff before it runs out. Such is the natural progression of things.


RE: By 2017
By Snagor on 4/5/2007 4:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree, oil will never run out, but economically affordable oil will. What has saved us in the past, is that technology and efficiency have kept the cost of cheap supply in line with demand. As the price of oil goes up, other methods of extracting oil that were once considered cost-prohibitive become viable alternatives and increase the supply. However this takes many years lead time to occur. The big problem would be if oil prices increase drastically before our infrastructure (ie cars, trucks, refineries) can be changed to use other alternatives, or bring more expensive supplies online. Figure 5 to 10 years for significant changes in extracting or demand use.


RE: By 2017
By Ringold on 4/5/2007 5:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
The only way we would get a shock to the markets that couldn't be compensated for before it caused lasting economic harm would be some sort of attack on lots of key infrastructure.. like multiple key refineries, key ports, etc. That would be a problem no matter how much oil was gushing from beneath the ground. I say "multiple", though, because many states have slack production, and a single disruption (like if Iran was totally taken off the market) could for a short time be covered by a united effort by other states to boost production and reap the profits. But take the whole Middle East off the oil grid? That'd... be bad.

But "economically affordable" oil is too vague. Each individual has a different value to oil based on their wants and would glady pay huge sums, while others already think it's too much and take public transportation. The most likely scenario is the price, in real terms, will rise to some level a bit higher than it is now, and stay more or less pegged right there even as the amount supplied dwindles; that'll be some equilibrium price range where other technologies slowly enter the market and take over demand. Ethanol production is booming. People are finally aware again that nuclear power is good power. Companies are starting to come up with wild ideas like covering the moon in solar panels or some such thing, idea's that eventually make it to market (in possibly no form representing the original). The process I described is already happening, we need only let it continue.


RE: By 2017
By mindless1 on 4/5/2007 8:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
The big problem is we casually assume technology will always asave us, that there will be alternative after alternative. More like burning bridges one at a time.

Does it matter if it takes 50 years or 200 for oil to run out? Not necessarily, the motivation to change will come from the lack of sustainability of our present fuels, but ultimately behaviors only change as required, the world may be too polluted to live on in 800 years or 1000 but does 200 years make a difference in the grand scheme of things?


RE: By 2017
By TomZ on 4/5/2007 9:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if we run out of oil? It just means that we'll slowly switch over to other energy sources. Big deal. The only reason we use so much oil for energy is because the infrastructure is in place and it is cheap. Our economies and investments will slowly adapt to other energy sources as oil becomes gradully more scarce and more expensive. And during that time, other alternatives will become relatively less expensive.

I fail to see how "running out of oil" is something we're supposed to be afraid of.


RE: By 2017
By Hoser McMoose on 4/5/2007 5:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, another reason why those 50 years of proven reserves figure is meaningless is because a good chunk of the "proven" reserves are not proven, particularly in the OPEC countries. It's pretty well known that the OPEC figures are inaccurate, but what is not known is just HOW inaccurate they might be. Some figure that they're within only a few percent, others suggest that some could have overestimated by as much as 200%. Considering that OPEC controls about 66% of the proven reserves, even a small discrepancies in their numbers add up to a VERY LARGE amount.

The basic result is the same, nobody really knows how much oil is out there.


RE: By 2017
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 5:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
We also have over 2.6 trillion barrels of shale oil in the world...much of it in Canada. Most of it isn't economical to extract right now, when oil is cheaper than milk from the local cow. But when prices rise, it will be. That's nearly an extra 100 years right there.


RE: By 2017
By Moishe on 4/6/2007 8:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
makes no sense why this is modded down... it's not a troll or even some ridiculous personal opinion.


RE: By 2017
By sieistganzfett on 4/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: By 2017
By Hoser McMoose on 4/5/2007 4:40:08 PM , Rating: 4
We aren't going to flat out "run out" of fossil fuels for a good 300+ years, if ever (especially if you're actually talking about fossil fuels, which includes coal, and not just oil). Of course, by that time our entire oil-based economy will have LONG since collapsed, making "running out" kind of a moot point.

One of the keys is peak production and production cost. Oil is getting harder and harder to find and we're producing less and less of it from easy sources. All sources of oil have a peak production point, a time in the life cycle of that source where production is as high as it can possibly be. From then on the production decreases. Eventually we are going to hit a point where the total production of the entire world has peaked and starts to decrease. This is the point where new oil production coming in is just not able to keep pace with the decrease or flat out stopping of old oil sources.

Given that the rate of oil use is MUCH higher then the rate at which oil is generated, at some point in time we MUST hit that peak, it's just a question of when. Pessimists say we likely peaked in about 2004 or 2005. Optimists say that it's about 80-100 years off. Others feel that we'll never hit a peak because costs will rise so much that it will force use down, indefinitely pushing out the point of peak production.

Regardless of what scenario you follow it seems likely that oil will probably rise faster than inflation into the foreseeable future.


RE: By 2017
By Moishe on 4/6/2007 8:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
maybe... assuming fuels are no longer being made somewhere under the earth beneath us. I've heard people say times shorter and times much longer. The reality is that anything you hear is just a guess (maybe educated guess)


RE: By 2017
By mtnmanak on 4/6/2007 4:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
Google "deep earth oil"


hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By Saist on 4/5/2007 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 1
Number 1 : Liberal democrats in congress have made it illegal to drill for oil inside of Alaska or off the coast of Washington State.

Number 2 : Liberal democrats have successfully implemented unnecessary fees, taxes, and licenses on Gulf Oil Diggers making oil drilling unprofitable and unreasonable for Oil Companies existing in Texas and Louisiana, as well as discouraging oil exploration off of Flordia in US owened waters.

Number 3 : Liberal democrats have successfully implemented taxes, fees, and licenses on Oil Refineries forcing hundreds to close down.

Number 4 : Liberal democrats have successfully implemented legislation making it illegal to sell Oil refined for New York to be sold in Georgia. When these oil restrictions were removed during the after math of Hurricane Katrina, the cost of transporting oil to where it was needed dropped drastically. Basically, if there is a Gas Shortage in, say, California, Gas stations have to wait for Gas refined for California to be delivered, rather than say, just diverting fuel refined for say, Nevada.

Number 5 : A liberal democrat in California blocked an Oil Company from drilling in order for a Multi-year wildlife study to be completed.

Does anybody else see a pattern here? Who exactly is Anti-Energy? Who exactly is causing your dollars to fly out at the pump while being dependent on nations that we are at WAR with to supply our fuel?

Liberal. Democrats.

So, the next time a poll comes up and you have a choice of who goes into office, keep in mind who is directly responsible for the dependency we have on foriegn oil. We have plenty of oil in our own backyard. We have plenty of refineries to get that oil converted to Gasoline. The amount of oil estimated to be left in the areas mentioned above would last us over 300 years if our current Fuel Consumption rate DOUBLED! At our current Consumption rate, there is enough oil to last over 600 years.

So, if you did vote democrat this past election... you might want to look in the mirror than punch yourself in the jaw, as you would be directly responsible for the price of gas.

Oh... and for those promoting Hybrids... you might want to watch a pokey motoring show in Dear Old Britain, on that normal waste of my tax Money, the BBC. It's called Top Gear. Care to guess what Mr. Clarkson found when driving a VW Golf Diesel through London?

Oh... yes... it was a 73 mile to the gallon car.

So, stick that in your tail pipe Toyota. Want fuel efficiency? Get a diesel.




By BMFPitt on 4/5/2007 4:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you want to save our local capacity for after the oil wars begin? Seems like a waste to use it up now.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By Spinne on 4/5/2007 4:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
I won't question the accuracy of your statements, but all that I do want to point out is that MOST of the trucks and SUVs I see being driven around are usually empty. Now you might point out that the beauty of a capitalist democracy is that if I should choose to drive my big truck empty, it's my choice. I agree. However, the sad reality is that we live in the presence of others annd so must come up with mutually agreed up standards of conduct. That is precisely why murdering and looting are considered socially unacceptable behaviours that are punishable by law. So the point is that if enough people like chipmunks to have SUVs and trucks banned from being driven around empty by making it prohibitively expensive, you just have to suck it up. About the best that you can do if you're really fanatical is yell at your daughter when she starts becomming a vegan.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 5:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "we...must come up with mutually agreed up standards of conduct. That is precisely why murdering and looting are considered socially unacceptable behaviours that are punishable by law..."

No. The US government is based on majority rule true...but also the principle of minority rights. Murder isn't just "socially unacceptable"; its a violation of personal liberty. Your personal choice of vehicle doesn't fall into that category.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By smitty3268 on 4/5/2007 6:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
However, you have a "right" to live. You don't have a right to drive anything, let alone choose a type of vehicle. So while you make the rather obvious point that murder and choosing a gas hog aren't comparable, the original point that the government could ban them for the "socially unacceptable behavior" reason still stands.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By TomZ on 4/5/2007 10:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what the heck you're talking about. The government has no right to restrict what I can and cannot drive except if it has a compelling reason do to so. Just because a particular vehicle consumes marginally more resources than another is not a compelling reason. There is nothing inherently bad or harmful in that.

And before you say there is, let me give you this example. Suppose I have an SUV that gets 22mpg, and I live 10 miles from work, and thus put on about 7500 miles/year. Compare that to someone else that gets 35mpg, but lives 40 miles from work, and thus drives about 15,000 miles per year. Who is doing more environmental harm?

I don't personally care for SUVs, however, I do enjoy my right to decide what kind of vehicle is best for my family, based on what I can afford. That's how it should be.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By theapparition on 4/7/2007 11:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
TomZ,
Based on your example, you'd be putting only 5K/year vs. the other guy putting on 20K/year (based on roundtrip/5day/50week). Your inefficient monstrous SUV only used 333 gallons (22mpg is unrealistic for typical big SUV, so I substituted 15mpg). The efficient car consumed 571 gallons. That disgusting SUV used 58% less gas than the eco friendly car. This only goes to further strengthen your post.

No, the psedo-eco-terrorists would then claim that if the government "forced" everyone to drive min 35mpg cars, your 10mile trip to work would now only use 143gal. As for the guy who lives too far, the government should "force" him to move closer. Personal rights should take a back seat towards their agenda, despite the fact that this country was founded on the very premise of personal liberty. Forget about having a boat, or towing a trailer to go camping with the family, that's not efficient enough. Forget about doing any home improvements, since no 35mpg vehicule can fit a 4x8sheet of drywall/plywood. The problem is, your trying to rationalize with the irrational.

Despite everyone's insistance that we must "take action", the market will correct itself. With the recent surge in gas prices (which are incredibly low, adjusted for inflation), fuel economy has jumped to the forefront of many consumers minds, and they are now factoring it on their vehicule purchase decisions. If I chose to pay more, that's up to me, not for the government to mandate.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2007 5:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "Your [SUV] only used 333 gallons...The efficient car consumed 571 gallons..."

Therefore, in this scenario, the driver of the efficient car produced more CO2 and air pollution than the driver of the SUV. TomZ's point is proven.


By theapparition on 4/8/2007 9:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Therefore, in this scenario, the driver of the efficient car produced more CO2 and air pollution than the driver of the SUV. TomZ's point is proven.

I hope you didn't take it that I disagreed with TomZ's original assertation. I completely agree. My numbers only went to confirm his posting. I was only trying to interject a little satire along with my reply by calling SUV's "monsterous" and "disgusting".


By joex444 on 4/5/2007 10:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, one time I saw a woman in a Hummer pulling out of her driveway. Think of it, a Hummer occupied by 1 person?

I literally rolled my window down just to give her the finger.


By Scabies on 4/5/2007 5:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
before you get modded into oblivion by those whom you lambast... I appreciate the points you raised. Whether or not there are counterpoints, they do shed interesting light on the subject


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By smitty3268 on 4/5/2007 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure this rant is really worth responding to, but I guess I will anyway.

quote:
Number 3 : Liberal democrats have successfully implemented taxes, fees, and licenses on Oil Refineries forcing hundreds to close down.

The oil companies are making billions of dollars a month and a few taxes forced them to close down? The truth is that during the nineties gas was extremely cheap because there were so many refineries, and the oil companies decided to close a lot of them down so they could raise their profit margins. Democrats didn't shut down these refineries, the free market did.

quote:
Number 1 : Liberal democrats in congress have made it illegal to drill for oil inside of Alaska or off the coast of Washington State.

You make it sound like all drilling has stopped. I look at that oil as being part of the Strategic Reserve anyway. Better we still have some in the ground after everyone else has run out.

quote:
as well as discouraging oil exploration off of Flordia in US owened waters.

I could be wrong here, but wasn't it Jeb Bush (Republican, and brother to the President) who made drilling off of Florida's coast illegal? He's not exactly a "liberal democrat."

quote:
Who exactly is causing your dollars to fly out at the pump while being dependent on nations that we are at WAR with to supply our fuel?

It's a common misconception that we get most of our fuel from the middle east. Actually, most comes from the US, Canada, and Mexico. Although Saudi Arabia does send a lot as well.

quote:
So, if you did vote democrat this past election... you might want to look in the mirror than punch yourself in the jaw, as you would be directly responsible for the price of gas.

The free market is responsible for the price of gas, plus all the taxes that are added on top. These are nothing new and have been around forever, and endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 6:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "The oil companies are making billions of dollars a month and a few taxes forced them to close down? "

It doesn't matter how much money you make drilling in other areas...when a law legally bars you from drilling in the US, or raises the price to where you lose money on each barrel, then you're shut down.

> "and the oil companies decided to close a lot of refineries down"....

There hasn't been a single new refinery built in the US since the late 1970s. Why? Because between EPA and local regulations, there are over 600 different permits required. Quite often they're simply rejected out of hand, by local politicos who don't want a refinery nearby. Plenty of companies have tried...but so far, none have suceeded.

> "It's a common misconception that we get most of our fuel from the middle east."

OPEC controls the world's oil supply, even though they pump less than a mjority. Why? Because not only are they a unified cartel, but they control nearly all the excess capacity. When demand rises, OPEC must fill it...no one else really can. This is a simple fact.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By smitty3268 on 4/5/2007 6:58:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
OPEC controls the world's oil supply, even though they pump less than a mjority. Why? Because not only are they a unified cartel, but they control nearly all the excess capacity. When demand rises, OPEC must fill it...no one else really can. This is a simple fact.

Except they haven't been united for decades, and most people doubt that is even possible any more. There will always be one or two who cheat to get the extra money. Russia has also started supplying a lot more energy (although you could argue that's no better).

quote:
There hasn't been a single new refinery built in the US since the late 1970s. Why? Because between EPA and local regulations, there are over 600 different permits required. Quite often they're simply rejected out of hand, by local politicos who don't want a refinery nearby. Plenty of companies have tried...but so far, none have suceeded.

You're talking about permits, not taxes like the original poster. Anyway, blaming "liberal democrats" for blocking nearby refineries is wrong - nobody wants them next door, liberal or conservative.

My point stands - the main reason gas is expensive today is that so many refineries have been shut down. The reason they were shut down is the oil companies thought they had too much excess capacity, and by running them at higher loads they could be more efficient. Not caring that the lowering of supply and rising demand also raised prices for consumers. A textbook case of the free market.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 7:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "You're talking about permits, not taxes like the original poster"

I'm talking about both. The permits are a huge part of the problem, but the other issue is the nonlevel playing field. Existing refineries are, while still heavily regulated, grandfathered in at a higher emissions rate (under the Clean Air Act) than new plants would be required to meet. So, even assuming a new plant ever gets approved, its going to be less profitable than an existing one. That explains why so few refineries were even attempted until the late 1990s...at the price of gasoline before that, it just wouldn't have been economical.

My point still stands. The reason gasoline is expensive is because the regulatory environment in the US prevents capacity from expanding. So prices must rise to force demand down, lest the pumps run dry.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By smitty3268 on 4/5/2007 7:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I agree with most of that. Your post is quite different than the one I originally replied too, though. I'm almost certain a lot of refineries were closed in the late nineties, which is why supply is so tight right now, but you're correct that some of those might have been reopened if they didn't have to upgrade the environmental protections in them. In the end the oil companies are so obscenely profitable that they could force through some new refineries if they really wanted to. But the current status of the market rewards them for not doing so.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 1:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
> "the current status of the market rewards them for not doing so. "

The current state of ANY markets rewards a company who lacks sufficient competition. Prices eventually rise...and that extra profit attracts competitors.

The problem is that, for oil refining, we've broken that system. Since we don't allow new refineries to be built, new competitors aren't showing up...and our production capacity isn't rising with demand. It's a sad situation I agree-- but we did it to ourselves.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By Lord 666 on 4/5/2007 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I will agree with one point about diesel being an immediate increase to fuel efficiency. Perfect examples are the Honda CRV petrol achieves 21mpg while a CRV Diesel gets around 44mpg. UK Accord (US TSX) diesel achieves 52mpg combined while the petrol is around 27mpg.

It will not cost GM 40 billion dollars to achieve these numbers using existing technology. If GM made products people actually wanted to buy (myself included) then they would not be having this problem. Sell an Saturn Aura diesel that gets 40mpg+ and that is reliable and people will be flocking to their dealerships.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By TomZ on 4/5/07, Rating: 0
By Lord 666 on 4/5/2007 9:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
I live in NJ and the regular petrol and diesel prices are the same.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By ApostolicFire on 4/5/2007 10:48:17 PM , Rating: 4
I don't get it. He gives examples of MPG improvements of around 100% and you're whining about a 20% increase in the cost of fuel? Please don't tell me I need to do the math for you...


By TomZ on 4/5/2007 11:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
You're right - my bad.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 11:53:40 PM , Rating: 1
> "Sell an Saturn Aura diesel that gets 40mpg+..."

Diesels aren't a magic bullet. They are more efficient...but that efficiency has a price. Even the most ultraclean diesel pollutes more than a good gas engine. It may win in CO2 emisssions, but it loses in particulates.

And yes, I know modern diesels are far cleaner than the ones of 20 years ago. They still are a step behind gas.


RE: hybird... yeah. right. Diesel is better.
By rtrski on 4/6/2007 2:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention I believe you only get a bit under half as much diesel as gas from refining a barrel of crude. So if you go all the way back to the original resource, and your concern is 'supply' (or at least pumping and refining throughput, ignoring the whole "we're running out" debate), increasing diesel usage will have an impact on diesel prices very quickly, narrowing the economic advantage while increasing that particulate count.

Think gas prices fluctuate fast? Just watch how fast diesel prices do if you start increasing demand in the personal-vehicle sector by large percentage points....


By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2007 5:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "I believe you only get a bit under half as much diesel as gas from refining a barrel of crude."

Its not so simple. You can crack diesel into gasoline, or akylate gas into diesel...so, with a little extra effort, you can divide up the fractions how you wish. In fact today, a substantial amount of what would normally be diesel is cracked into gasoline during the refining process.


By Kuroyama on 4/8/2007 10:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hope you realize that an Imperial gallon is 1.2 US gallon, so the 73mpg in UK is a still impressive 60mpg in US gallons.


we don't need 300hp
By jmunjr on 4/5/2007 5:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe someone already made this point but nearly all cars today, even the crappy ones, have more horsepower than an above average car in the 80s, heck even 90s. Your average sedan has over 200hp now, with MANY topping 300hp!

Does it not make sense that the automakers can increase fuel economy by scaling back the power of the engines in favor of fuel economy, and can't some of this currently be done in software(via the ECU)?




RE: we don't need 300hp
By FITCamaro on 4/5/2007 6:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
Lower horsepower does not equal better mileage. Yes less aggressive camshaft profiles can provide some increased mpg. But lowering horsepower will not improve mileage by much if at all. In fact if you look at Chevy's V8s, you'll see that, for the engine size, they get excellent mileage and power. 400 horsepower and 18-20 in the city and 29-30 on the highway? Some people are getting 35 highway. Why? High compression and good tuning. Lowering horsepower will not affect mileage in any meaningful way. If you look at most cars that offer two V6 engines, one lower horsepower than the other, you'll see that the mileage difference between them is 1-2mpg if anything at all. The only thing higher horsepower impacts is cost.

And yes, bio-diesel would be an excellent way to cut fuel usage. However diesel's are more expensive and the sad fact is that the majority of Americans want things as cheap as possible. Look at how shitty cars like Hyundai's and Kia's are doing. Or crappy computers like Emachines.

And the top post of this article couldn't be more wrong. The only reason why imports have better mileage as a company is because they have fewer large vehicles. If you compare most engines per size, mpg, and horsepower, American and imports are pretty much the same. And as the engines go larger, the difference becomes smaller. When you get to the V8s, American V8s get better mileage. Nissan's 5.7L V8 trucks get worse mileage compared to Chevy's.


RE: we don't need 300hp
By joex444 on 4/5/2007 10:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Screw it, take my car for example. It has a 3.8L V6, and it gets 12mpg (all city). The "fun"? 110hp, there is no fun.


RE: we don't need 300hp
By herm0016 on 4/5/2007 11:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
if your 3.8 is getting 12mpg then you need a tune up!! my 3.8 in a rather large car gets 29 to 32 on the hwy and around 22 in the city.


RE: we don't need 300hp
By ralith on 4/6/2007 9:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
Although I have to agree with you on compression ratio being a good general indicator of engine efficiency it is by no means THE measurement. Gearing, for instance, can make a big difference in mileage. Changing displacement will change fuel consumtion rates for the engine at equivalent rpm so a bored or stoked engine WILL require more fuel per mile unless you change your rear diff or tranny. Generally, it takes a bit of engineering to insure you've hit an acceptable point on the torque and power curves with your new tranny or rear diff, which is why most people don't bother with it.

I second that about the Titan. My old chevy got 16ish in the city. My Titan about 13ish. I will say the Titan has WAY more torque. Darn thing breaks the tires lose if you just look at the accelerator pedal funny.


RE: we don't need 300hp
By theapparition on 4/7/2007 11:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Changing displacement will change fuel consumtion rates for the engine at equivalent rpm so a bored or stoked engine WILL require more fuel per mile unless you change your rear diff or tranny.

Changing displacement will require more, but most competing low displacement engines require higher RPMs to achieve the same result. Net effect, zero.
Rear end changes don't signifigantly effect fuel economy for all except high speed driving. Most imports, while rather high on economy, have very high final drive ratios.......3.5-4.1, because engines are so underpowered and performance would be so pathetic, that no american consumer would touch them.


RE: we don't need 300hp
By Slaimus on 4/5/2007 6:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
The auto makers do scale back the power, mainly by offering you a choice of engines. Almost all SUVs have 6 cylinder options and almost all crossovers have 4 cylinder options.

You can buy your Chrysler 300 with a 2.7L V6 instead of the 5.7L hemi.


RE: we don't need 300hp
By hobbes7869 on 4/5/2007 7:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
We do need horspower, more is better, in my opinion, and many others like myself. Just like some people like fancy horses, or fancy linens, I like horspower. Who are you to say we dont need it? It really bugs me when folks say, why do you need this? If you don't understand, don't ask. Though I can sum it up in just a few short words..."For FUN!!" Why do you need your expensive vacations,nice clothes..etc? You get the picture


RE: we don't need 300hp
By jmunjr on 4/7/2007 3:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
I never said anything about "need". It really bugs me when reading comprehension skills are worse than the fuel economy of a Hummer H1.

You also completely missed the point of the post. WTF?


RE: we don't need 300hp
By jmunjr on 4/7/2007 3:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
oh yeah except in the title... At least I caught it first..


RE: we don't need 300hp
By jmunjr on 4/7/2007 3:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and also I love horsepower and have had a few high performance cars and even plan to restore an old 350 Camaro, but we still don't NEED all that power. Sure, many of us WANT it, but we don't need it.


My 4 cents
By psychmike123 on 4/5/2007 4:34:51 PM , Rating: 1
Oil will not run out on a set date. As oil reserves are consumed, it will become increasingly expensive and difficult to extract further supplies. Like most things in the universe, available oil likely follows a bell distribution. Most experts think we've either passed or will soon pass the mean which means that things get harder and harder from here.

Stated reserves mean next to nothing. OPEC companies are allowed to pump a certain percentage of their reserves. One way to make more money is to simply lie about their reserves so that they can produce more in the short term.

Canadians do consume more energy per capita but at least part of it is because of weather. To my shame (I'm Canadian), we seem as obsessed with large and powerful cars and could certainly do better on almost every front.

I agree with the poster that said that efficiency is not the problem. Look at things that we're REALLY efficient with, like food production. What do we do? We waste more. When they developed high efficiency glass, they just made bigger windows.

In my mind, we simply live in too complicated and artificial an environment. We have supernormal stimuli that are healthy in small amounts but unhealthy in large amounts, like sugar and meat. The problem is we can produce whatever we want to satiate these desires. We also have the dilema of the commons. Why should I cut down on water consumption when my neighbour will just use more? How do I consider the common good when I don't believe others will adhere to the same norms?

In my mind, the best way to deal with problems is to tax undesirable behaviour and to create financial incentives for desired behaviour. Put a tax on big SUVs and give rebates on hybrids. Tax energ