backtop


Print 125 comment(s) - last by boeush.. on Mar 25 at 12:24 AM


  (Source: American Dream Report)
Don't worry, the cars won't be required to fly as well

According to a recent report by the The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NAS NRC), America has a petroleum problem. Petroleum consumption by light vehicles accounts for 17 percent of the nation's annual greenhouse gas emissions, and sends $300M USD overseas to oft-hostile foreign nations.

I. 100 MPG, More Taxes, Please

NAS NRC has released recommendations for reducing America's oil dependence, some of which will likely be welcomed; others of which will be extremely controversial.  The most head turning demand is a call for President Barack to support an initiative to demand a 100 mpg CAFE standard by 2050.

No, that estimate doesn't include zero-emissions (electric) vehicles; it's based on a sub-standard of 95 mpg for cars and 125 mpg for hybrids.

Currently, President Obama has rolled out a target of 54.5 mpg by 2025.  The proposal also calls on both private insurers to charge a flat fee per mile driven, and calls on Congress to implement a Western European style tax on miles driven.  Comments the report, "Policies that increase the marginal cost of driving should be considered."

Some have called for similar proposals raising tax on gas.

Without aggressive counter-incentives, NAS NRC predicts Americans will drive 5 trillion miles by 2050, 85 percent more than they did in 2010.  NAS NRC also suggests that Congress and the President could create a special tax that kicks in whenever the price of gas gets "too low", in order to artificially inflate its price above alternative fuels.

II. Study Also Suggest Gov't Play Venture Capitalist

The report admits that shoveling more taxes on citizens and stricter rules on automakers will be painful, remarking, "The costs and benefits of large reductions in petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will both be substantial."

Another controversial proposal is for the government to play venture capitalist -- something the Obama administration has been wary of ever since Solyndra LLC went undertaking $553M USD in federal loans with it.  

But the NAS NRC is convinced that government venture capitalism will pay off, writing, "The government must be able to assess candidate activities, select only those with a high chance of success, accept some risk because is not guaranteed in every case, and be robust enough to survive when approaches initially chosen fail."

Obama bribery wide
The NAS NCR wants the federal government to play venture capitalist more often.
[Image Source: Politically Incorrect]

The NAS NCR does comment, "[The government should set targets] that are truly technology-neutral tend to be attractive because they allow industry rather than the government to select the most promising means to meet the requirement."

The organization backs tech-neutrality in terms of fuel efficiency technologies -- as long as that technology isn't petroleum.

Sources: NAP, The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hmm i would love to drive less
By Ammohunt on 3/19/2013 5:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
If it weren't for the fact that Barney Frank and his Democrat buddies completely destroyed the housing market so i that i am so far upside down on my mortgage that i couldn't sell my house and move closer to my place of work if i wanted to. They need to worry about bringing back prosperity before inane cafe standards.




RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By thesavvymage on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By KillerNoodle on 3/19/2013 6:01:29 PM , Rating: 3
It does not say that he can not afford the current house, but that he would be selling for a loss and not be able to buy a different and closer house.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By thesavvymage on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 7:07:19 PM , Rating: 1
You might have to explain this further but how does him not being able to sell his home have to do with him being able to afford to live in it? Being upside down just means you bought when the market was high, nothing to do with affordability.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By 91TTZ on 3/19/2013 7:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
thesavvymage is explaining a basic myth of the housing market. People seem to think that their house needs to increase in value in order to sell it and get another house.

Scenario 1: 5 years ago you bought a house for $300k. The market tanks and it's worth $250k now. You want to move into an identical house in a different town that's also currently $250k. You'll break even on the transaction (minus closing costs)

Scenario 2: 5 years ago you bought a house for $300k. The market booms and it's worth $350k now. You want to move into an identical house in a different town that's also currently $350k. You'll break even on the transaction (minus closing costs).

The point is that you don't really profit off a house when you sell it and move into another one, since the price of both houses is connected to market fluctuations. You either sell low/buy low, or you sell high/buy high.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By ebakke on 3/19/2013 9:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
Scenario 1: 5 years ago you bought a house for $300k and got great deal of a 5% interest rate in 2008. You put 20% down, and had a loan principle of $240k. Today the loan balance is ~$220k. You sell for $250k, and buy an identical house in a different town that's also currently $250k. You need a down payment for your new house. 20% of $250k is $50k. But you only have $30k left after paying the principal on your original loan. So in order to move, you need to come up with $20k (plus closing costs).

So again, as the OP and the others have stated: It's one thing to be able to afford to live in the house you're in. It's another thing all together to be able to afford to move.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By ebakke on 3/19/2013 9:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and that assumes you sold the house without any realtor fees. If you needed to hire a realtor, you could be looking for another $10-20k, depending on your market.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 10:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks everyone.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By RufusM on 3/20/2013 8:59:04 AM , Rating: 3
Or it could be a different scenario:

Bought House A for $300K with 20% down, now it's worth $200K but you still owe 220K.

Buying House B for $200K (the price you can sell House A for) would cost $60K. $40K (20%) for the down payment on House B and $20K to pay off House A in full.

Granted there are other ways to buy without a full 20% down, but you end up paying PMI, which puts you further behind in trying to pay it down to 20% equity.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By boeush on 3/19/2013 5:38:11 PM , Rating: 4
Destroyed, eh?

The classical valuation formula for residential single-family real estate is that median home price should never exceed 3.5x median household income in the area.

Yet in CA, for instance (one of the hardest-hit markets), in 2011 median household income was $57,708. At the same time, median home price was $297,060. Doing the math, 297,060 / 57,708 = 5.15 (!!!) [These are state-wide figures; never mind even more overblown markets, such as LA or the SF Bay Area]

Note that this is AFTER the so-called housing market implosion.

In point of fact, we are all still in the midst of a huge housing bubble. It should have popped back in 2007/2008, but massive deficit spending by the Feds and ZIRP policies by the Fed have propped up the prices and prevented the bubble from deflating. Believe it or not, homes on average need to drop another 50% from today's level, before they even begin to be affordable!

The fact that you're underwater is not the fault of Obama or the Democrats. It's your own damn fault. You stupidly overpaid for your house, and now you're whining about the fact that your own fiscal foolishness has come back to haunt you.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By ryttingm on 3/19/2013 5:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
The OP isn't complaining that he can't afford his current mortgage. He is complaining that due to a reduction in the value of his home he can't afford to sell it in order to move closer to work. If there really were a proposal to have insurers charge based on mileage effectively taxing your driving distance between work and home he would have very little recourse to sell his house because of how much he would owe due to devaluation.

In general I am opposed to artificial mechanics to drive behavior in the market place. If and when fossil fuel supplies do indeed start to drastically shrink, we'll see the move to other forms of energy for transportation happen naturally without the government "picking" winners and losers.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By thesavvymage on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By robbase29a on 3/19/2013 7:18:43 PM , Rating: 3
savvymage... you're only right if he paid for his house 100% with cash.. being upside down means that he owes more to the bank than what he can get for it if he sells... I'm not sure why you're not understanding that.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By tng on 3/20/2013 11:01:59 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe he lives in an apartment and has really never had to deal with this personally.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By kypd275 on 3/21/2013 7:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
shhhh, logic and basic math does not belong here!


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 7:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its irrelevant when deciding if he should move or not.
The cost of his current home totally relevant when making a DECISION on whether or not to move into a new one. Especially when considering that, like most Americans, a mortgage was taken out on his home that prevents him from selling it unless he has enough cash to make up the difference, or he does a short sell, or rents it out, or lets it go into foreclosure. For a lot of people, most of those are not acceptable choices.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By boeush on 3/19/2013 7:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
My point wasn't about affordability per se, but about overpaying for the house in the first place. Rather than buying an overpriced home, he should've been smart and either bought a short-sale or foreclosure, or rented instead of buying -- at any rate, never paid more than 3.5x median income in the area. Not that I'm particularly singling him out: half the nation or more were (and still are!) equally as stupid, so he merely followed along with the rest of the lemmings.

But what really ticked me off, is his attempt to blame it all on Obama or the Democrats -- which, while utterly corrupt and in the pocket of the financial plutocracy, really aren't to blame in this particular instance. If anything, they've been running up enormous national debts while trying to maintain the distortion in the market, rather than allowing the market to return to fair price (and letting all the home buyers and big banks that made foolish bets, go bankrupt in the process.)


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By half_duplex on 3/19/2013 8:45:10 PM , Rating: 1
You are making the assumption that he bought his house during the bubble, this may not be the case. It's entirely possible he paid a favorable price for his property, but that amount is still above what the property would bring in the current market.

As far as partisan politics and Obama goes, I'll keep my opinions to myself, but you cannot deny that Frank and Dodd played crucial roles in paving the way for the predatory lending that led to the bubble. As I said, many people with conventional mortgages from prior to the bubble are upside down as well in many areas. In my area, we're at 1988 prices.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 11:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
So in order to be intelligent, home shoppers should ONLY buy when housing prices are low?? Affordability never comes into play? Or desire? I'm one of those lemming idiots if you can't tell. We bought our present home right before it peaked out (sold our previous home at peak). In 2005 when we bought our hose, CA median income was ~$54,000 with statewide median home prices in the $400,000 range at the time. Our house was $410k. Our income at the time was double the median (we make more than triple that now) plus we had 20% for the down so I don't consider it a bad buy.

Some here are using the words overblown or overpriced. In the car collector market, a car is only worth what someone will pay for it. Same for homes, if people are willing to shell out 1/2 million or more for a house, that's what they're worth. The market dictates the price. Even if the government decided to cap housing prices to an artificial low, do you really think you'd be able to buy a house over someone that made twice what you made and wanted the same house? There are a TON of places in the US with cheap, nice homes. They may not be where you want to live but they're out there.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By boeush on 3/21/2013 12:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in order to be intelligent, home shoppers should ONLY buy when housing prices are low?
If they expect not to be ripped off, absolutely. If they fully intend to throw money to the wind, including winding up underwater when the market eventually and INEVITABLY corrects, then more power to them. But what they shouldn't do is buy overpriced assets and then whine and complain when the market snaps back to historical norms. And they especially shouldn't try to blame anyone else for their egregious financial errors.
quote:
In 2005 when we bought our hose, CA median income was ~$54,000 with statewide median home prices in the $400,000 range at the time.
Right, and this didn't scream 'BUBBLE!!!' at you? Like I said before, historical price norms are 3.5x median household income for a median house in the area. Of course, that does assume more normative interest rates as well -- not under 4% but more like 9-10%. Which, by the way, is coming as well, INEVITABLY -- this ZIRP nonsense the Fed is trying to pull is utterly unsustainable. So when, not if, interest rates revert back up to a level that a non-manipulated market is willing to support (incorporating reasonable returns on investment and compensation for investment risk) -- guess what's going to happen to today's STILL hyper-inflated home prices?
quote:
if people are willing to shell out 1/2 million or more for a house, that's what they're worth.
Yet by the same argument, if people are willing to shell out 2000x earnings for a .COM stock, that's what it's worth? Yeah, maybe for a few days or months or even years, but then INEVITABLY something like the year 2000 happens. That's how bubbles work. Markets are completely irrational on short scales. They only assume a semblance of rationality when averaged out over long time spans.
quote:
The market dictates the price.
Not even close, especially not with houses. The Fed dictates the price, through artificially low interest rates. Fanny/Freddy dictate the price, through artificially low downpayment requirements and artificially easy loans. Banks dictate the price, by sitting on foreclosed properties or allowing chronically delinquent borrowers to live there "for free" instead of foreclosing, rather than putting those properties on the market. FDIC and the Justice Department dictate the price, by choosing to either enforce solvency and transparency of financial institutions and transactions, or turning a blind eye. The multi-Trillion $ derivatives "market" that is completely opaque -- does it even qualify as a "market"? -- sets the price by allowing banks to play games and downright cheat on their balance sheets. And so on. The entire system is so utterly rigged, dysfunctional, and bankrupt, it's a wonder that it still hasn't blown up. But there is no doubt in my mind, at all, that one day soon it finally will -- with the force of an impacting asteroid.

And then everyone will blame Obama, or whatever other Wall Street sock puppet happens to be running the circus show at the moment. Whereas in reality, you and I and everyone else is guilty of selling our country down the river and turning a blind eye, for decades -- ever since the 1980's -- to rampant criminality and corruption and fake "economic growth" simulated through unsustainable expansion of debt and escalating engineering of markets.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By JPForums on 3/20/2013 9:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there really were a proposal to have insurers charge based on mileage effectively taxing your driving distance between work and home he would have very little recourse to sell his house because of how much he would owe due to devaluation.
This is the red flag. There is absolutely no point in taxing your mileage. If their goal really is the stated goal of trying to reduce CO2 emissions and encourage alternate fuels, then a fuel tax achieves it much better than any drive distance tax.

Every gallon of fuel contains the same amount of carbon whether used in a 20mpg vehicle or a 50mpg vehicle. A tax on fuel directly correlates with the amount of carbon emitted. Putting aside the massive differences between vehicles, the fuel economy of the same vehicle changes over time. How much it changes greatly depends on the maintenance put into the vehicle as well. The best a distance tax can hope for is a rough approximation of CO2 levels. Further, if they are trying to encourage cleaner alternate fuels, taxing every fuel in proportion to its carbon content would make more sense. If the goal is simply anti-fossil fuels, a direct tax only on fossil fuels will achieve the goal better.

So, to summarize, a distance tax requires vehicles to be retrofitted with tacking devices (which cost money). It requires more a more complicated tax system and more administration (which cost money). Finally, it doesn't even achieve its stated goal as well as the current simple and already implemented fuel tax. I must conclude, that the point of this is not CO2 emissions or alternate fuels, but rather to get tracking devices in vehicles.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By JPForums on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By tng on 3/20/2013 11:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...a fuel tax achieves it much better than any drive distance tax.
Taxing miles driven is not really a viable option. You would have to put in place a reporting mechanism and then more government employees to manage it. A mileage tax could also be used as a control mechanism for the population at large to restrict movement.

Yes I am paranoid...


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Ammohunt on 3/19/2013 9:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
Its called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac establish in 1992 in an effort to subsidize housing for those that couldn't normally afford to own a home I suggest you research the topic. For the record I bought my place in the late 90ies it almost doubled in value at the height of the market then promptly fell to $30k below what I have into it in loans. Why didn't I sell it when it doubled in value? it was my home...For those that have trouble understanding what responsibility is I never have missed a payment on my mortages nor will I fuck over the bank with a short sale or a foreclosure as long as I am employeed. Because I am of the type that honors my debts works hard and pays my fucking bills and I also get to pay for your foreclosure as well thanks to bad government subsidized mortgages i.e. an entitlement program thought up by Democrats.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By mjv.theory on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Nfarce on 3/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By anactoraaron on 3/19/13, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 3/19/2013 8:37:46 PM , Rating: 1
Shut the fuck up, we all know what he was saying. It was a glowing endorsement of Government over the private sector.

No American President who believes in the individual, in industry, would have uttered those words so condescendingly. It was offensive.

To believe he was simply informing us about "infrastructure" is comical. You saw no deeper meaning, honestly?


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Nfarce on 3/19/2013 9:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
Right here, jackhole. We know EXACTLY what he said. You liberal socialist "progressives" HATE it that he let the cat out of the bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYAsrb5uwf8


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By 91TTZ on 3/19/2013 9:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone knows what he meant. He was regurgitating that socialist mantra that you're only what society allows you to be, and any success that you find is only due to the social infrastructure in place to help you.

It's all nonsense by the way. Socialists cannot take personal credit for human development. Human progress spreads globally, and good ideas in one area spread to others whether there are social programs in place or not. Most of that advancement was due to capitalist ideas such as taking risk in exchange for a future reward and the legalization of usury which gave incentive to lenders to lend money to people willing to build things that they feel will be profitable, removing the need to already have the money up front.

Socialism is flawed at the most fundamental level because it takes money from successful people and redistributes it to unsuccessful people. As a result, successful people would be better off living in a capitalist system while the greater number of unsuccessful people will enjoy the socialist system and keep voting it in place. Eventually the wealthy and successful people leave the socialist system and move to a capitalist system (brain drain), keeping more money for themselves. The socialist system is left with nobody to subsidize the poor. Call it brain drain, call it white flight, call it anything you want. The end result is that the disadvantaged are largely left to fend for themselves regardless of whether you have a socialist or a capitalist system. It's just that any prosperity is going to happen in a more capitalist system.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Nfarce on 3/19/2013 11:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. What you are seeing here are comments from young impressionable minds in government schools that teach (indoctrinate, more like it) that progressive/socialist policies are really what makes a nation and society great and strong, not freedom of opportunity, devotion, hard work, and people/entities staying the hell out of the way of all of them.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 11:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
What's most interesting is that when these same people start getting some money, they change their tune. What I do not understand is why the progressives promote living off the gov teat when they know it is unsustainable without a source of income. They should be pushing their students to become wealthy so there's more money in the system to fund their socialist agendas. And a lot of these people are wealthy or even rich themselves. Why the hypocrisy? I can be rich but you can't? WTF is that?


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By tng on 3/20/2013 11:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can be rich but you can't? WTF is that?
That is a mindset that many wealthy people have. Somehow having more money makes them (by default) smarter than people with less wealth. In other words, you are not smart enough to be wealthy...


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By 91TTZ on 3/19/2013 9:22:54 PM , Rating: 1
You sound absolutely clueless. You're wrong on so many accounts that I won't even bother addressing all your mistakes. Nobody would see it even if I correct you because they modded your nonsense down.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By tayb on 3/19/2013 6:27:18 PM , Rating: 3
Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency a majority of the time from January 1995 to December 2007.

In fact, look at the 6-8 years prior to every single economic downturn in the last century and tell me who held a majority of power. I already know the answer but you can keep on blaming Democrats if it makes you feel better.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Solandri on 3/19/2013 7:02:49 PM , Rating: 4
You got me curious so I looked up who controlled the government just prior to each recession.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets...

Looking at 8 years prior to the recession:
1974-1975: D House, D Senate, R President
1980 recession: D House, D Senate, D President
1982 recession: 3D/1R House, D Senate, D/R President (50/50)
1991 recession: D House, 3D/1R Senate, R President
2009 recession: D/R House, D/R Senate, R President
Total: 4.25D .75R, 4.25D .75R, 1.5D 3.5R

I thought 2000 was a recession too (1D/3R House, 1D/3R Senate, D President), but apparently GDP never dipped below zero that year.

Looking at just the 2 years prior to the recession doesn't really change things:
1974-1975 recession: D House, D Senate, R President
1980 recession: D House, D Senate, D President
1982 recession: D House, R Senate, R President
1991 recession: D House, D Senate, R President
2009 recession: D House, D Senate, R President
Total: 5D, 4D 1R, 1D 4R

Even if you add that though, the vast majority of the time the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, and a slightly smaller majority of the time the Republicans controlled the Presidency. There's plenty of blame for everyone.


By TerranMagistrate on 3/19/2013 7:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
We shouldn't let facts get in the way of partisan politics.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 7:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
Impressive work!! Nice!


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By Solandri on 3/19/2013 11:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Small correction in the 8 years prior list:

1980 recession: D House, D Senate, D President

should be

1980 recession: D House, D Senate, D/R President (4 years Carter, 4 years Nixon/Ford)

I thought I'd fixed that but apparently I mixed it up with the 1982 line.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By 91TTZ on 3/19/2013 9:58:20 PM , Rating: 3
It makes me sad to see that some people are so stupid. They actually buy into the partisan fingerpointing that occurs in US politics. It's like watching pro wrestling where the two fictional sides are always calling each other out. In reality the two sides work for the same employer and they're putting on a show.

During this global recession I saw people in countries all over the world blaming their own politicians for the downturn. People in France blamed the French politicians. People in the US blamed the US politicians. People in Spain blamed Spanish politicians. And in each case people actually believed that if the rival political party was in place this all would have been avoided. The issue was larger than any individual country and nobody seemed opposed to the components that created the problem.

And to make it worse, they set a horrible precedent by not allowing these failed businesses to go under. They bailed them out so these conditions can continue. They proclaimed that certain companies are too big to fail, yet they're not too big to exist. Apparently there's a certain size you can become where you can profit from taking risk without having to worry about the risk part of it. If you fail the government will prop you up. To make things even better, you also become immune to prosecution. HSBC was clearly guilty of money laundering and everyone pretty much admitted as much. But they said that prosecuting such a large company would have disastrous affects on the financial system so they'll only fine them.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By piroroadkill on 3/20/2013 6:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute, wasn't it Reagan that caused all this by deregulation of the banks? Ultimately, there's the finger to point.


RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By 91TTZ on 3/21/2013 10:26:16 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Hmm i would love to drive less
By maxxcool on 3/20/2013 12:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
*you bought the house with a questionable loan strategy* and or bought outside your income... guess what. your fault and you deserve it.


What the?!?
By dgingerich on 3/19/2013 5:37:53 PM , Rating: 3
In order to get to 100mpg, we would have to invent some sort of coating for vehicles that would reduce the drag coefficient of cars to about 0.00001 (where cars today have a range from 0.57 for a Hummer H2 to 0.39 of a Porche 918) and extra strong plastics and metal alloys that would reduce the weight of cars to around 300lbs. In addition, we'd have to come up with some engine design that would convert gasoline to kinetic energy with over 99% efficiency.

It's science fiction to ever get to 100mpg. It's just not going to happen. Gasoline just doesn't contain enough energy to push an average car of 2000-4000lbs to decent speeds at that many miles per gallon.

These guys are supposedly smart guys. I guess they want us to all travel at 10mph, which is about the only other way to get to 100mpg. I, for one, am not willing to waste 4-6 hours of my day on my commute.




RE: What the?!?
By thesavvymage on 3/19/2013 5:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Its not impossible. By most testing standards, only about 20% of the true power of gasoline is used to power the car. the rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the engine. Assuming even 60% efficiency can be reached in the next 40 years, that would essentially triple the mileage cars get today. Thats holding all else equal. They'll get there some day


RE: What the?!?
By JZavala on 3/19/2013 5:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
correct. guess the op didnt do any research at all in to how efficient the ICE is. and how much energy is lost in heat. the ICE is horribly inefficient. so much so that it desperately needs to be replaced with something more efficient with the same convenience as just filling up a tank again(hydrogen fuel cells) or increase the range of electric vehicles to the extent anyone is really willing to drive in terms of hours(say, 18-20) before having to pull over and rest and recharge.


RE: What the?!?
By Solandri on 3/19/2013 6:40:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
only about 20% of the true power of gasoline is used to power the car. the rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the engine. Assuming even 60% efficiency can be reached in the next 40 years, that would essentially triple the mileage cars get today

Er no, because Thermodynamics puts a hard limit of about 73% efficiency on burning gasoline for propulsion. Add in friction and other losses and it'll be considerably less. So no you cannot achieve 100 MPG simply by improving engine efficiency. Pretty much the best/only way to achieve it is by reducing vehicle weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency#Ca...

100 MPG is stupid. It seems like I or someone else has to point it out every time these articles come up -- MPG is not a measure of your fuel consumption, it's the inverse. Consequently, the bigger the MPG number, the smaller your fuel savings for improving it. If you drive 15,000 miles in a year:

A 10 MPG Suburban will burn 1500 gallons
A 15 MPG SUV will burn 1000 gallons.
A 25 MPG sedan will burn 600 gallons.
A 50 MPG hybrid will burn 300 gallons.
A 100 MPG vehicle will burn 150 gallons.

So if you break down the fuel savings of a switch from a Suburban to a 100 MPG vehicle:

37% of the fuel savings comes from 10 MPG -> 15 MPG (+5 MPG)
30% of the fuel savings comes from 15 MPG -> 25 MPG (+10 MPG)
22% of the fuel savings comes from 25 MPG -> 50 MPG (+25 MPG)
11% of the fuel savings comes from 50 MPG -> 100 MPG (+50 MPG)

Why waste effort trying to invent 100 MPG vehicles which don't currently exist, when for the same amount of effort you can obtain much bigger fuel savings by simply encouraging people to switch from to other vehicles which already exist?


RE: What the?!?
By dgingerich on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: What the?!?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/19/2013 6:59:41 PM , Rating: 3
So you drove all over the place in something that got far worst MPG than today's "behemoth" trucks? If there was a moral to that story, you failed lol.

quote:
People today sure have no need for them, either.


Says you, the boss of everyone?


RE: What the?!?
By JZavala on 3/19/2013 7:02:16 PM , Rating: 1
fat parents with their fat kids and all the larger accessories to carry them around. along with the additional food they need to shove in their fat faces. thats why vehicles have been getting larger. there's no other reason. other than the assumed increase in safety because they're sitting higher up than most others.


RE: What the?!?
By Spuke on 3/19/2013 7:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
Vehicles are indeed getting larger and heavier due to increased safety and emissions standards. This CAN be accomplished without increasing weight so much but costs go up dramatically. And considering that people here complain about any car that cost more than $20k, your 100 mpg will always be unaffordable.


RE: What the?!?
By 91TTZ on 3/19/2013 9:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am so sick of these totally unneeded pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans many people use to transport 2-3 kids.


We need to get rid of people who feel the need to micromanage other people's lives. If someone wants a Ford Excursion and wants to pay the $500 for gas every month, let them. It's their personal choice. Any excuse that these busybodies give to try to justify them controlling other people is just BS.

The underlying cause is that they're not content only controlling themselves- they want to control other people.


RE: What the?!?
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 12:20:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If someone wants a Ford Excursion and wants to pay the $500 for gas every month, let them.
This is another WTF moment. These people want to raise gas taxes on everyone. Excursion drivers, and the like, ARE paying higher gas taxes than most of us. Yet you want to take their trucks away, make them driver smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles which REDUCES the gas taxes they pay. LOL!

Let's put this in perspective. I own a motorhome, it would cost $300 to fill from empty (it's never empty but bear with me). Of that amount, $27 goes to the state gov. If some of these people had their way, I would not be able to own a motorhome which would remove that $27 from the state governments coffers. I do not understand this.


RE: What the?!?
By MadMan007 on 3/20/2013 1:00:54 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with this line of thinking is when people think there are no effects on anyone else...
quote:
It's their personal choice.

...as if it begins and ends there.

No one is an island living in isolation. Just because someone can afford it, that doesn't mean it has no effect on anyone else (not to mention 'because I can' on its own is a dumb reason on an individual level). It's pretty simple in this case: the more fuel used per mile, the higher the demand, and the higher the prices for everyone. One person driving a gas guzzler versus a fuel efficient vehicle doesn't have much effect, but in aggregate when millions of people do it does have an effect.


RE: What the?!?
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 12:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one is an island living in isolation.
I often see this in response when personal freedom is mentioned. What do you think personal freedom is about? Freedom of choice doesn't only apply when good things come of it. The bad comes too, that's the trade off. We accept the negative aspects because the good one's FAR outweigh those. I would rather have a little dirtier air, live not quite as long, use a little more fuel and be FREE to choose my own destiny than to have even a LITTLE oppression. Sure, not everyone feels that way and some would rather have the opposite. Like minded people do congregate (human nature) and there are areas in the US that accommodate varies ways of living. I'd suggest living in those areas and if that's still not enough, vote accordingly, maybe others will vote the same and you'll get your way. Otherwise, you just have to live with the choices we (royal we) make.


RE: What the?!?
By MadMan007 on 3/20/2013 10:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Pure personal freedom ends when an action affects other people. That's a very succinct and non-nuanced summary for the basis of the entire US legal system.


RE: What the?!?
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 11:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pure personal freedom ends when an action affects other people. That's a very succinct and non-nuanced summary for the basis of the entire US legal system.
I agree with this. When committing a criminal act, yes, personal freedom ends (duh). But we aren't talking about criminal acts. How about you address my post or do you have nothing to say about that?


RE: What the?!?
By MadMan007 on 3/21/2013 12:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
Your post kind of rambles and gets all Braveheart-y, I'm not sure what I'm 'supposed to' address any further. (Plus the stupid comment system on DT only shows the previous post not the whole thread)

You don't have to commit a criminal act to negatively affect other people, a person can negatively affect other people just by being selfish, basically. Society becomes dysfunctional when all people are worried about is just legal requirements and not what's right beyond their own selfish outlook. It's why Randianism fails in a complex society - the best net outcome may not be the best outcome individually.

Also, it seems childish in a rebellious teenage sort of way to play the freedom card in every situation 'just because'. It's like a kid yelling 'You can't tell me what to do!' even when it's in their, and society's, best interest. There's no rational thought or evaluation of the underlying situation behind that kind of reasoning that starts from a conclusion and works backwards, and doing something just to spite other people or 'the man' is both passive aggressive and childish.


RE: What the?!?
By superflex on 3/21/2013 8:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Your Eyefinity monitors, SLI graphics cards, overclocked CPU, overvolted RAM, etc. affects me negatively, by using more power than the average computer user.
Shall we limit the amount of power your computer can draw?


RE: What the?!?
By 91TTZ on 3/21/2013 10:21:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, it seems childish in a rebellious teenage sort of way to play the freedom card in every situation 'just because'. It's like a kid yelling 'You can't tell me what to do!' even when it's in their, and society's, best interest.


Your post reeks of nanny-state socialism. Not only that, you're arguing from a position with absolutely no traction. You're stating your ideas as if they're actually the law when in reality they're not. Example: You defend these new taxes when they're not even in place and no bill has even been proposed to put them in place. You defend the idea of the government telling consumers that they can't drive SUVs when no law has ever been proposed to do that. These are just dreams shared by a tiny minority of people. These are not the law.

Your ideas are also very reckless because they'd scrap the personal freedom that our country is built on. Basically you seem to be in favor of a centrally-managed socialist utopia.


RE: What the?!?
By 91TTZ on 3/21/2013 10:08:33 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Pure personal freedom ends when an action affects other people. That's a very succinct and non-nuanced summary for the basis of the entire US legal system.


Wrong. The US legal system defends personal freedom and individuality. We do not live in a communist country with a centrally managed economy, we live in a capitalist democracy with a free-market economy.

Your personal freedom does NOT end when a non-criminal action affects other people. If you actually allowed that train of thought you'd get situations where I get to tell you what you can eat for dinner because that steak you want to eat can clog your arteries, raising all of our health insurance. Or I don't want you playing contact sports for the same reason. Or I don't want you taking any risk at all-stay in the safety of your house whenever possible.

Your example (SUVs drivers using more gas, therefore raising the cost of gas for everyone) is well understood as basic supply/demand. It's a fundamental of a free-market economy. You do not get to control other people just because they play a role in the supply/demand curve of a product. If we all started buying lettuce the price of it would rise, too. That doesn't mean that we need to set quotas on purchases of lettuce. It happens with all products.


RE: What the?!?
By FITCamaro on 3/20/2013 5:14:20 AM , Rating: 3
Some people need trucks jackass. But good to know you think your opinion should determine what everyone else should be able to buy.

I'm sure you 'need' a lot of the crap you have to live. No. You WANT it.


RE: What the?!?
By superflex on 3/21/2013 9:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right! Get rid of these stupid, behemoth graphics cards out of computers today and get some decent size graphics cards so I can actually fit one inside my computer case. I am so sick of these totally unneeded graphics cards, monitors, and overvolted RAM many people use to play games.


Fixed that for you Gandorf


RE: What the?!?
By TSS on 3/20/2013 3:01:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well that's easy, the more cars you have the more sense it makes to strive for the lower percentages as the flat number will be higher.

Which also proves the study to be completly bogus. How in the world are americans going to drive 85% (!) more miles per year when they already have 2-3 cars on downpayment with all this national, state, local, personal, consumer, student, creditcard and whatnot credit.

And that's miles driven. So wether more or less cars are sold, or the MPG's doesn't matter, they still claim that 85% increase regardless of what is done, as an excuse for this reccomendation.

Does anybody here see any way for americans to drive 85% more miles then they currently do, within the next 37 years? Anything goes, more cars more people more MPG, how in the world would they achieve it?


RE: What the?!?
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 12:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point. Last I checked Americans were driving less not more so I also fail to see how we're going to drive an crazy sounding 85% MORE miles than now. Where are we going to go that we're not already going now?


RE: What the?!?
By Hannibal80 on 3/20/2013 7:27:06 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry but I have to disagree.
Till last year I was driving a car that could achieve 25km/liters without any particular driving style. You only had to not be fool and not to drive as it was a kart. 25 km for a liter means 58.8 mpg.
Obviously it was not a suv and, perhaps, could be considered a small car for American average. Anyway it was made in 2001 and yes it's a European car. It was an audi a2 tdi to be precise.
It was able to bring me and my family up and down in my country and I can assure you it was not underpowered.

So, I think that doubling the mileage by 2050 it's really an affordable target.


RE: What the?!?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/20/2013 7:47:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wow that looks like the gayest piece of shit on the road.

How about this, you guys drive what you want, and we'll drive what we want. What's the problem with that exactly?

quote:
"The only weak point is refinement. Fire it up and the Audi emits an all-too-familiar diesel clatter which is always audible under acceleration. Our Sport model also came with firmer suspension and 17-inch alloys, meaning a hard ride to go with the intrusive engine noise. "


Shitty ride AND horrible engine noise. Well that's certainly something we Americans should want MORE of. And this is from a UK website, by the way.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-reviews/15694/aud...


RE: What the?!?
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 11:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! I'd MUCH rather drive a Prius than that thing. Yuck!


RE: What the?!?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/21/2013 12:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
Just amazing how peoples perception of things change when they've been forced to be acclimated to them. 95hp is "sporty" in Europe? And cars that looks like THAT are "sports cars"?

You know what, maybe it IS a good thing drugs aren't legal here...

Also what most Europeans don't understand is that car could never be sold here. Our air is WAY cleaner, this wouldn't even pass emissions standards. Diesels don't get a free ride here when it comes to pollution just because they are economical.


RE: What the?!?
By M'n'M on 3/20/2013 8:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can assure you it was not underpowered.

You and I have very different ideas as to what constitutes underpowered. A 0-60 time of 11-12 seconds screams underpowered to me. And I'm driving a Mini.


RE: What the?!?
By tanjali on 3/20/2013 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
Battery in EV's suck! Charge time, expensive, heavy.
You can achieve 100 MPG affordably by my calculation only with combo; Gasoline Electric generator, Ultra capacitor, electric motor (around 90% efficiency) so we can drop ICE which is around 20%.
Like a battery they hold a charge, but unlike a battery they can be juiced up almost instantaneously and suffer virtually no degradation through cycle after cycle. The big problem now is energy density, where batteries still have their capacitive competition beat, but hopefully that'll change soon.


RE: What the?!?
By tayb on 3/19/2013 6:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be a pure gasoline engine. The article said the 100mpg goal doesn't include zero-emissions vehicles but nothing about hybrids. We are nearly 75% there with hybrids with another 37 years to go.

The obvious issue is getting the corporate average up that high. A single hybrid? Psh, we'll see that within a decade easily.


RE: What the?!?
By tng on 3/20/2013 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
These guys are supposedly smart guys
You would think that, but the National Academy of Science quit being what it's name suggests a long time ago. Now they are just a mouthpiece for environmental movements


Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By maxxcool on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Translation
By TerranMagistrate on 3/19/2013 5:57:38 PM , Rating: 3
With consumer spending comprising approximately 70% of our GDP, such gas prices would be simply catastrophic for the U.S. economy, nay the global economy. By the way, the EU is coming apart at the seams; its disintegration is not a question of if but when. Yea, they're doing just fine besides that minor detail.

Your ignorance and shortsightedness is astonishing.


RE: Translation
By danjw1 on 3/19/2013 6:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, maybe you are thinking of a different Europe then I am. The one across the Atlantic ocean from the Eastern coast of the United States, isn't doing all that well. Maybe you don't pay much attention to financial news, but that Europe is still struggling with significant debt issues.

I don't think you are going to get the United States Congress to pass a law raising gas prices any where near as quickly as that. I don't care which party controls which house of Congress, it just isn't going to happen.


RE: Translation
By tayb on 3/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Translation
By Nfarce on 3/19/2013 8:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Europe is not America. Europe has more public transportation. Europeans do not have the long commutes Americans have. Europeans live in closer proximities to others and many don't even need a car to get around (that also works in New York City in America, but not so much in, say, Phoenix AZ or any other city/town that is spread out).

What works for Europe does not mean it would or could work for America. And that goes for a LOT of things, not the least of which is banking in Cyprus. So you can keep your "ignorant morons" comment to yourself.


RE: Translation
By Nfarce on 3/19/2013 8:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and one other thing: we Americans also enjoy our recreation: family vacation road trips, pickup trucks towing ski boats, or race car trailers, or motorcycle trailers, or campers just for starters. We LIKE driving. Fascists who want the government to take over and control everything of course do not understand that. And never will. Our Founding Fathers left England and other European nations over three centuries ago for a reason.


RE: Translation
By MadMan007 on 3/19/2013 8:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, are fascists or socialists the political boogeyman?


RE: Translation
By Nfarce on 3/19/2013 9:36:08 PM , Rating: 4
Fascism: government control/takeover of private industry.

Socialists: those who believe that the money of others goes to the "greater good".

You tell me, sport.


RE: Translation
By 91TTZ on 3/19/2013 9:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why should be gas be $10 a gallon when the natural market price isn't that high? You're suggesting that the market should be artificially manipulated by the government.

If history is any indication, once you allow the government to impose taxes on you those taxes never go away. They just develop a bad case of revenue addiction and the money is lost from your pocket.


RE: Translation
By boeush on 3/19/2013 5:43:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Marxist think tank.


[sarcasm]Yeah, that's exactly what I think when I see mention of the National Academy of Sciences.[/sarcasm]

P.S. You really ought to read up on what Marxism actually refers to (throwing around terminology without any clue as to its meaning, doesn't paint you as anyone very intelligent...) But maybe a village idiot image is what you're deliberately after, in which case right on, brother.


RE: Translation
By amanojaku on 3/19/2013 6:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
I rarely visit this site anymore, and some things have changed over the years, but others haven't. Reclaimer has his biases, which he wears on his sleeve, and he loves to stoke flame posts. He may or may not believe the NAS is full of Marxists - this is the same guy who once said American slavery wasn't all that bad! - but he DEFINITELY loves to bait people.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 3/19/2013 6:51:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
this is the same guy who once said American slavery wasn't all that bad!


Umm yeah, no. Kinda offended on this one. I'm quite sure I have never made such a statement. American slavery is a stain on this great nation, obviously. However I DO take pause when people then use that to justify insulting America for modern-day issues. When some people talk about America on here, you would think it's still 200 years ago. Ironically many of these people come from nations who also engaged in slavery, although much much longer ago (so I guess it doesn't count??).

quote:
He may or may not believe the NAS is full of Marxists


In the literal sense? No. But they're a bunch of morons who are actively lobbying an extremely Liberal President to go further in destroying our economy. Destroy consumer choice. Force economic choices that should be left up to the market.

Basically I'm against every single thing these people stand for. Their position is not only morally wrong, but it's indefensible. So yeah, I threw an insult their way. Although it's probably closer to the mark than some are comfortable with.

quote:
but he DEFINITELY loves to bait people.


XD you say baiting I just say promoting aggressive dialog lol


RE: Translation
By boeush on 3/19/2013 8:07:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Force economic choices that should be left up to the market.
Markets fail utterly when it comes to pricing externalities. Take a sniff at Beijing air quality for a great contemporary example of unregulated market "efficiencies" at work.
quote:
Their position is not only morally wrong, but it's indefensible.
Except they very well know all about the enormous (and as yet largely unrealized) costs -- both economic and in terms of human lives -- of what we're doing to the planet. You do not. In speaking from ignorance, you're the one who's utterly wrong. Morally and in every other way.
quote:
Although it's probably closer to the mark than some are comfortable with.
Nah, it just makes you sound like an ignorant idiot with an overblown ego.


RE: Translation
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 12:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nah, it just makes you sound like an ignorant idiot with an overblown ego.
I would tag you with that line before I would tag Rec with it honestly. And Rec and I don't always see eye to eye either.


RE: Translation
By 91TTZ on 3/21/2013 10:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Markets fail utterly when it comes to pricing externalities. Take a sniff at Beijing air quality for a great contemporary example of unregulated market "efficiencies" at work.


Did you really just use Communist China as an example of unbridled capitalism?

Liberal people usually argue in favor of the greater good and how it takes precedence over individuality. They point to socialist countries as an example of how a centrally-managed economy can work, since those overlooking the greater good will keep individual greed in check. Well, China is an example of that. It's the Chinese government itself that allows that air pollution. They feel that the increased business investment is for the greater good, and the increased pollution is just an unfortunate side effect of that. The feel that tightening up pollution laws will actually harm the country in the long run since their factories won't be as competitive.


RE: Translation
By boeush on 3/21/2013 4:22:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Did you really just use Communist China as an example of unbridled capitalism?
A bit of a hint... when a given social order prioritizes industrial and mega-wealth interests above all else, the term you are looking for is definitely not "Communist": in fact the situation is pretty much the diametric opposite of Communism, and the first letter of the term you're looking for is, "F". In a related vein, what people do matters a lot more than what they say.
quote:
socialist countries as an example of how a centrally-managed economy can work
Socialism has no relationship to management of the economy, central or otherwise.

It focuses on balancing the overall distribution of wealth and power (through tax policies and regulation of political activities, including operation of a responsive and representative government, setting up systemic checks and balances, enforcing accountability, law and order, control of political financing and lobbying, political and economic anti-corruption and anti-collusion measures and systems, etc.), making opportunity for social and economic advancement equally available to all regardless of family or economic background, common infrastructure, core standards, fundamental research investments, social safety nets, and delineation between private property vs. the commons and management thereof (including natural resource and species conservation, pollution management, and determination of where private property ends and the commons begin.)

In other words, it deals with all the things that Markets are inherently incapable of addressing, while leaving the Markets to do their thing where they work best. That is, Socialism is merely a modern update on the original Enlightenment movement that gave us the U.S. Constitution, and is perfectly compatible with market-oriented economic systems. Canada, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, France (to name but a few fairly successful countries) are currently and have been for a while pretty Socialist in their policies, for instance -- and all without exception are Market-based and quite Capitalist in many aspects. Yeah, there are certainly others (Greece, for instance) that are disaster zones -- and merely demonstrate that accountability, transparency, law and order are all critical ingredients of any social system (whether Socialist or otherwise) lest it become terminally corrupt (as is certainly happening to U.S. right now.)
quote:
It's the Chinese government itself that allows that air pollution.
In other words, they have failed to regulate it. And why would that be?
quote:
They feel that the increased business investment is for the greater good, and the increased pollution is just an unfortunate side effect of that.
Ah, that would be why. Not very Communist of them, is it.
quote:
The feel that tightening up pollution laws will actually harm the country in the long run since their factories won't be as competitive.
Indeed, very Capitalist of them.

And that's where and why Markets utterly fail. By sheer bad luck, some of the most polluting technologies just happen to be the most cost-effective. And that is in no small part because there are no direct costs attached to the pollution they spew. And that is because there is no natural Market-based mechanism for establishing or imposing the costs for such externalized side-effects of doing business.

And that is why unregulated "Markets utterly fail when it comes to pricing externalities". And why in cases such as that, government-imposed regulation is the only real solution.


RE: Translation
By 91TTZ on 3/22/2013 10:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
Liberal people seem to pick and choose what "socialist" or "communist" means to them. If a country is socialist but they personally don't agree with that country's policies, they'll say it's not "real socialism". Basically, the only time they'll agree that it's real socialism if they agree with the decisions being made.

quote:
A bit of a hint... when a given social order prioritizes industrial and mega-wealth interests above all else, the term you are looking for is definitely not "Communist": in fact the situation is pretty much the diametric opposite of Communism, and the first letter of the term you're looking for is, "F". In a related vein, what people do matters a lot more than what they say.


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

"The politics of the People's Republic of China take place in a framework of a single-party socialist republic. The leadership of the Communist Party is stated in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. State power within the People's Republic of China (PRC) is exercised through the Communist Party of China, the Central People's Government and their provincial and local counterparts."

quote:
And that is why unregulated "Markets utterly fail when it comes to pricing externalities". And why in cases such as that, government-imposed regulation is the only real solution.


Here is what always happens in real life: People say they want socialism or communism and they hand power over to the government so that they can centrally regulate things. The government eventually makes decisions the people don't like but it's too late- the people no longer hold the power, the government does. And they're making decisions in its best interest, not yours.


RE: Translation
By boeush on 3/25/2013 12:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liberal people seem to pick and choose what "socialist" or "communist" means to them.
I suppose you don't count yourself among those people. So then, you must be one of that other type of people: the type that believes a usurping dictator-for-life is actually a democratically elected President of a Republic because he declared himself as such, having held such elections (where 110% of the electorate voted for him, but who cares...) It means nothing to me what titles China's ruling party wishes to arrogate to itself. What people actually do always trumps whatever they might say.

In case the hint I dropped before didn't take, let me make my assessment explicit: regardless of what it might call itself or what it might have aspired to be in the past, China today is quite clearly a Fascist regime.
quote:
The government eventually makes decisions the people don't like but it's too late- the people no longer hold the power, the government does.
And there you are mistaken. The people never hand over power; they only delegate it. It's on loan, and if the government should abuse this power, the people take it back. That is, at least, what happens in a free nation with adequately checked-and-balanced, adversarial-by-design government structures that are not dwarfed by a cancerously bloated military-industrial complex...


Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By maxxcool on 3/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By Totally on 3/19/2013 5:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
So $15 for a gallon of milk sounds good to also. The price of gas directly affects the price of a lot of goods.


RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By boeush on 3/19/2013 7:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
Just because cheap gas encouraged a nation-wide switch-over from railroads to trucks for long-haul transportation, doesn't mean a switch in the other direction is impossible or implausible. If trucks are used only for the last-mile delivery while rail is used for long hauls, then impact of extra fuel costs on retail price of goods would be largely eliminated (and, the added benefit of drastically lower emissions from trains compared to trucks, almost goes without saying...) There must be a reason why Warren Buffet went long railroads a few years back (that man thinks strategically, and has very long investment horizons...)


By Spuke on 3/20/2013 12:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
Warren Buffet isn't a zealot. Strategy involves consideration of all options, not just the one's you believe in. Also, the previous poster advocates switching to $10 gas now not 20 years from now. Switching now would destroy the economy and likely put that person and others in favor of such extremities out of a job. Some people say they understand that one thing affects the other in one breath than display ignorance of that in the next.


RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By 91TTZ on 3/21/2013 10:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If trucks are used only for the last-mile delivery while rail is used for long hauls, then impact of extra fuel costs on retail price of goods would be largely eliminated (and, the added benefit of drastically lower emissions from trains compared to trucks, almost goes without saying...)


They already do that. Do you really think that companies willingly pay more to ship their product via truck when they can get it shipped cheaper by train? My friend is a trucker and fuel costs are one of the main costs in that business. It's not like trucks just suck up diesel fuel and nobody pays for it- that cost is already passed to the customer.


RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By boeush on 3/21/2013 4:46:20 PM , Rating: 3
Back in the mid-20th century, our nation (that is, U.S.A.) switched its federal transportation investments from rail to interstate highways (for what at the time were legitimate National Security reasons, and based at least in part on observations of Nazi Germany's autobahn system.)

As a result, rail transport has been shrinking ever since, and availability/proximity of rail to various population centers has been deteriorating. Consequently, rail transport companies have been suffering, rail technology has been stagnating, rail's transportation market share has been shrinking, and long-haul transportation by trucks became the new normal. It still is, today.

So, the current status quo results among other things in higher embedded costs within the economy (aside from fuel, equipment maintenance, and personnel overhead, highways are also relatively more expensive to maintain than rail, and heavy trucks do by far the most damage to the road surfaces); it significantly contributes to traffic congestion (thereby wasting even more of everyone's time -- which indirectly equates to money -- as well as directly money on gasoline, equipment, and road wear/tear due to idling engines and start-stop slow-mo commutes); and it significantly contributes to air and water pollution (due respectively to exhaust and wind-borne roadway/tire particulate dust and stray oil/coolant/fuel run-off both from the transportation load itself and all the traffic congestion it facilitates.)

Of course, if you look at Europe today, you'll see a very heavy reliance on ubiquitous rail. Their rail tech is flourishing, and their economies are reaping the benefits -- for instance, many of them such as Germany and France doing just fine despite relatively sky-high gasoline prices.

We copied Europe once before, with the highway system. Perhaps it's time to copy it one more time, with the rail system. That's really all I'm saying, and I'm far from the only one...


RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By 91TTZ on 3/22/2013 10:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your ideas follow the typical socialist lines but they ignore reality.

The fact is that people in the US wanted their own cars, they didn't want to rely on public transportation. You happen to not like the decisions people made and would prefer that they used rail transportation.

Rail works in Europe because they have dense population centers and not nearly as much sprawl as the US. The population of the US is much more spread out than it is in Europe. The people prefer this. That's why they're leaving cities and moving out to the suburbs. Rail wouldn't be as effective in the US.

Also, rail in Europe operates at a net loss. There's a common misconception in the US that rail is workable and profitable over in Europe. It's not. In fact, there are only 2 routes in the world where high speed rail is profitable: Paris>Lyon and Tokyo>Osaka. All the rest lose money and need to be subsidized by taxpayers.

You seem to be a fan of socialist policies and you want other people to foot the bill for your pipe dreams. I like rail, too, but I'm just a logical thinker and know it would lose money.


By boeush on 3/25/2013 12:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rail works in Europe because they have dense population centers and not nearly as much sprawl as the US.
And you just take this status quo for granted, I wager. You never ask yourself what might have led to this state of affairs in the first place. In other words, you never ponder how the ubiquitous networks of government-funded and government-maintained freeways and highways might have conspired with artificially low fuel prices (in reality purchased at enormous cost in both treasure and blood) to enable and facilitate this pattern of sprawl in the first place...
quote:
The people prefer this.
Either that, or they merely take the path of least resistance. Why are cities so much more expensive to live in, if they are supposedly so undesirable? If you were right, real estate in cities would be far cheaper than out in the middle of nowhere. Yet somehow, the exact opposite is the case, and it's not even a close contest. In light of which here's a question: do you actually believe in the almighty Invisible Hand of the Market all the time, or only when it happens to be politically convenient?
quote:
Also, rail in Europe operates at a net loss. ... All the rest lose money and need to be subsidized by taxpayers.
No kidding.

So how much money has our national network of freeways and highways made last year?

When was the last time it wasn't massively subsidized by taxpayers?

And which is more efficient or cheaper to build, sustain, expand, or operate: highways or rail lines?

I'm assuming that, as a taxpayer, you'd want your money to be used in the most efficient manner possible? And you'd want your nation's land to be used in its best capacity? For instance, what sense is there in plastering suburban sprawl over what used to be agriculturally productive land? Or do you think we have magically unlimited supplies of the latter?
quote:
I'm just a logical thinker
That's a good start, but logic alone won't take you very far if you insist on ignoring inconvenient premises or failing to consider inconvenient corollaries.


RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By maxxcool on 3/20/2013 12:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Idoit... re-read my post.. *consumer* gas.


By maxxcool on 3/20/2013 12:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
YES! spelling errors ftw ... :)


By Totally on 3/20/2013 6:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
(1)You're an idiot for thinking that there is such a differentiation. Next time you visit a truck stop, pay attention and you'll see that everyone get fuel from the same regular/diesel pumps. Then you have businesses that have with a corporate fleet -- e.g. off-site u.s. government that operate in suburban areas.

(2) Your suggestion errs on the unconstitutional side.


RE: Do it, make gas 10$ a gallon NOW...
By maxxcool on 3/20/13, Rating: -1
By Totally on 3/20/2013 6:14:19 PM , Rating: 3
You're dumb dude.


Silly right-wing US beatup
By cactusdog on 3/20/2013 5:57:14 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, this right-wing craziness from the US never ceases to amuse me. Here is another story demonizing Obama and the threat of scary taxes by the evil governments!!. This is a recommendation by some INDEPENDANT third party organization calling for 100MPG by 2050. Nothing to do with Obama really.

That's 2050 lol, its 37 years away. We will be on electric long before then. There probably wont be combustion engines then. Heck we might be on plasma or something lol. Even if it was enacted it will be useless by 2050 and Obama wont sign up to something long after he is gone.

As an outsider(of the US) these kind of anti-government, paranoid right wing beatup stories are all so obvious. Americans think its normal because they are bombarded with this propaganda everyday on their favourite websites/news and they really think there is some conspiracy to screw people. Meanwhile, the corporations are in control of the government, they pay no tax, and the people are being screwed and ignored. Votes don't matter anymore Americans are slaves to corporations instead. The politicians are just puppets of the corporations.




RE: Silly right-wing US beatup
By cactusdog on 3/20/2013 6:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is, if it actually happened, people would be saving an enormous amount of money on fuel. In other countries, a idea like "100MPG cars would be looked at positively. Like, YES WE CAN DO IT!! It will help the environment AND save us a bunch of money on fuel, and we wont have to fight useless wars in the middle east!!Its a win win....but in the US?? OHHH Nooo!!! The evil governments is trying to tax us. It doesn't matter that it has nothing to do with tax. Car companies innovate, as they always do and charge the same or even less for a car and the people save a bunch of money on fuel.


RE: Silly right-wing US beatup
By Spuke on 3/20/2013 1:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Car companies innovate, as they always do and charge the same or even less for a car and the people save a bunch of money on fuel.
Another clueless person. Cars cost MORE than they ever have and prices keep on rising. The average cost for a new car is $30,000 in the US. It was less than $20,000 a bit more than 10 years ago and, no, that's NOT due to inflation (inflation has gone up very little in that time... 2.5%). No one is saying that 100 mpg cars are impossible (where you people read this is amazing), it's that the COST of such a car would be VERY high and unaffordable for most people. Look at the cost of a EV with a decent range. WAY more than most people can afford. What makes you think a gasoline of diesel vehicle would be any cheaper?


RE: Silly right-wing US beatup
By M'n'M on 3/20/2013 3:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
And it wouldn't be just the cost. Contrary to the average moron's opinion, the ICE can be efficient, not that much different from any of the competing technologies. It's how they're used that leads to the low overall efficiency. HP is needed for adequate acceleration with a load, not for cruising, even at highway speeds. The 100 MPG car will have to be a low HP car that utilizes it's ICE at WOT most of the time to achieve the desired efficiency. That means it'll be a slug. People don't want a car that does 0-60 in a quarter of a mile and 15 seconds. That won't go up a hill w/o slowing down. That seats 2 adults and 2 scrunched up kids and little else. Such cars might be fine for scooting about town or the city, or as a secondary car but as prime transport ... nope.

If a car could be built that runs like a modern Camry or Accord (not my choice) in every respect but also gets 100 MPG and costs the same ... they'd sell like ice cream in the summer. Automakers would jump at the idea. There are reasons they don't exist and they're not going to change much between now and 2050.

FWIW I very quickly read through the report and didn't see the 95 MPG ICE and 125 MPG hybrid recommendations. I did see recommendations for more $$ for research for hydrogen fuel cell and for batteries for hybrids.


RE: Silly right-wing US beatup
By boeush on 3/21/2013 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wish I could vote you up on that (this DailyTech policy of disallowing votes once you post, even in sub-threads having nothing to do with your posts, is IMO pretty stupid.)

All great points.


By Spuke on 3/20/2013 1:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
impact on the economy ? BS... more scare tactics by oil exec's and BS economists.
I guess you don't read much, do you? There is currently an effect on food and consumer goods prices because of fuel increases. It's not BS, it's reality. Do you think the truck and trains fuel costs has no bearing whatsoever on the goods they deliver? Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in?


By Spuke on 3/20/2013 1:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
And WTF is consumer gas? Trains and trucks use the same fuel that you and I use. Raise the fuel tax and theirs goes up too (along with everything else associated with it). You clowns always talk about how one thing affects the other but throw that out the window whenever it's convenient.


By maxxcool on 3/20/2013 2:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
sell consumers gas at 10$ a gallon...

sell shipping, transportation, governmental and retail gas cheaper.

we already have the example of puc gas and puc diesel.


What about the other 83%.
By JPForums on 3/20/2013 9:45:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Petroleum consumption by light vehicles accounts for 17 percent of the nation's annual greenhouse gas emissions
Seems to me that they are far to focus on the little picture. If they really want to make a difference, try addressing the other 83%. Surely there are bigger fish to fry.




By amanojaku on 3/19/2013 5:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but that's a government mandate I'd support!




$300M is not the same as $300B
By aspenland on 3/19/2013 6:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, would a competent reporter make a 1000-times mistake?




Many are asking Who is John Galt
By hiscross on 3/19/2013 7:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is John Galt Speaking. You asked for socialism and I am the man who gave it to you. Us capitalist are leaving and we are coming back. Build you own world, because we don't want to help yours anymore.




By Milliamp on 3/19/2013 9:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
It is a really simple concept, why are we making all these assumptions about all this extra cash our kids will be rolling in when they are in charge?

Our debt is spiraling out of control, everyone wants the government to cut spending but nobody wants them to cut any programs or funding for anything. Maybe if we raise taxes people will take a real hard look at how much of our government spending is really necessary.




fair?
By chromal on 3/20/2013 12:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think the whole thing is kind of quirky because nobody wants to talk about it as a CO2 tax, which as described, it absolutely is.

I wouldn't have a problem with paying a higher tax that has popular support as reasonable on gas and diesel by volume as a non-commercial driver, but man, I attach conditions to that: it _would_ have to be reasonable, and only for and enough for funding related to road infrastructure. I despair at the expected efficiency to the benefits of such funding.

Either way, I guess I can sit high and pretty if I keep driving; my cars are still all above average in MPGs, and I can always continue to carpool and telecommute sometimes, too. Oh, and by the way, since you ARE taxing CO2, you better tax jetliner fuel astronomically, too. The passenger CO2 per mile there is OUTRAGEOUS.




300 millions?
By Asetha on 3/20/2013 1:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure something is wrong with that figure. I'm thinking 300 billion might be closer.




2050 !?!
By sulu1977 on 3/20/2013 1:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
100 mpg CAFE standard by 2050?
LOL LOL LOL! Is this a joke?
By then I expect to travel by teleportation. Nothing less will do, and if I don't get it I'll stop paying all bills and taxes and move into the woods.




Revenue
By btc909 on 3/20/2013 1:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
States have been losing gas tax revenue for years due to more fuel efficient vehicles & i'm not just referring to hybrids. CA just jacked up it's gas tax per gallon again. Revenue generators are toll roads & charging you x amount of cents per mile driven. States can't deal with less revenue, only more & more. When the US switches to diesel & as battery technology improves the gas tax revenue will continue to dwindle.




More Taxes?
By mgilbert on 3/20/2013 8:30:01 AM , Rating: 1
The first thing that needs to happen is that the stock market needs to be taken out of the gas price equation. In fact, Wall Street should be shut down. Those people do nothing but move money around, in order to screw the poor. They don't provide a single product or service. They do nothing. Gas would cost far less in the U. S. if the gamblers on Wall Street didn't exist. People should invest directly, and all investments should be required to be long term. It's all a game, and it shouldn't be. When someone on Wall Street gambles and wins, working people lose.




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki