johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Just keep the economy weak and the oil will naturally come down. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57427806/oil-prices-drop-as-traders-eye-u.s-jobs-data/ Link to comment
Blackshirts007 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country I understand your first part of your post. WOW!!! to the bolded part. Link to comment
Muck Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country lol You might be better served taking an actual history class. 2 Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country IDK about 80-90, but there is absolutely no reason that every vehicle (even pickups) doesn't get at least 30 mpg. The EPA and their regulations is ridiculous and stupid. Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country WOW, really, so what is stopping others outside the country from doing it? VW is probably the most advanced car company in the world and they cannot make a viable production car to that level. Also designed obsolescence is a good thing if applied properly. If a car wears out you will buy a newer more efficient one (in theory), and if the cars has components that can be recycled (something that is more and more common), the over all impact is minimized. Furthermore, in the current "green" environment, if someone COULD roll out a car that had that high of MPG, for a reasonable price, there would be people lined up to buy one. As for your last comment please spend some time outside of this country, in the third world, Middle East, eastern Europe, Russia, India, Greece, parts of South America, then tell the US to F off.... Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country Did you pass it? 1 Link to comment
Enhance Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 There's the Honda Clarity which is in SoCal right now, mainly. Completely hydrogen based, only has water emissions, has around 170 horsepower (which is right around the same as your average four door saloon), and gets about 250 miles to the tank on average, IIRC. Problem is, Honda apparently said in '08 that it could take around 10 years to mass produce them. The technology is out there. One of the largest issues is making the fuel, but according to some of the things I've read, it's really no more demanding than what we go through to produce gasoline (including the drilling for oil). Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 There's the Honda Clarity which is in SoCal right now, mainly. Completely hydrogen based, only has water emissions, has around 170 horsepower (which is right around the same as your average four door saloon), and gets about 250 mpg on average, IIRC. Problem is, Honda apparently said in '08 that it could take around 10 years to mass produce them. The technology is out there. One of the largest issues is making the fuel, but according to some of the things I've read, it's really no more demanding than what we go through to produce gasoline (including the drilling for oil). On their website, it actually says 61 mpg. Still not amazing, but it is better. The problem is, they put all of these gadgets on the vehicles to get this mileage, and the vehicles end up with a base price of $40,000. Link to comment
ZRod Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country Ok so I'm not questioning your new found knowledge... ok yes I am. If we have the technology then why hasn't some no name person come out and developed it for themselves like people do with biodiesel, electric/solar cars, cold air intakes, pulse jet engines (non car related but still pretty technical) the list goes on and on. I think planned obsolescence has more to do with why many cars take a dump before 100,000 miles and why you can put a few grand into a car in a couple years just to keep it running. but back to the fuel economy thing... There's more to fuel economy than just creating an efficient internal combustion engine, which is an oxymoron because they are only about 30% efficient, or slapping and electric motor or fuel cell onto the car. The thing you have to remember is that every choice made when creating a car affects another aspect of the car creating trade offs. For example if you want the safest car on the road your probably going to have one of the heaviest too, because you will need a rigid passenger compartment and dozens of airbags which can add hundreds of pounds. Another trade off is styling vs aerodynamics. Styling today seems to be about big bold front ends and that's in contrast to what you see from hybrids and electrics like the prius, insight, leaf, and volt. Don't forget that these companies still have to turn a profit so even if you have the most aerodynamic car it means nothing if the majority of people don't like the look of it and won't buy it. Which is another big problem PEOPLE. People are just plain dumb sometimes if it weren't for people we wouldn't need government regulations for manufacturer fleet efficiencies. But we the consumer insist on buying big heavy vehicles with some horse power and unless the market for that changes car companies have no reason to build lighter more efficient vehicles. I think we may have the technology to get 80mpg but it's a little more complicated than "planned obsolescence". Here's a good question though, if it were possible to achieve these numbers don't you think some racing team on a major circuit would have a break through right now Formula 1 and NASCAR don't average over 5mpg. Link to comment
krill Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I've seen a few rants from people who have been to Europe and had an enlightenment on how much more efficient a diesel econobox is over there compared to our small cars. One thing that is often overlooked though right off the top is that an imperial gallon, which you would see MPG listed as in the UK, is equal to 1.2 US gallons. There are other reasons why small diesels are virtually non-existent in the US as well beyond the EPA's stricter NOx regulations. The tax regime here for both the fuel and vehicles favors petrol engines, because the real cost of production is higher for a diesel engine and diesel fuel, which is offset in Europe by higher taxes on petrol and petrol vehicles. We have a culture of preference towards powerful V6 and V8 engines in everything, and most people don't seem to drive these machines with fuel economy in mind. Diesel is much less available outside trucking routes. There's also an interesting conundrum with less fuel consumption and how we finance roads in this country. 1 Link to comment
Enhance Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 There's the Honda Clarity which is in SoCal right now, mainly. Completely hydrogen based, only has water emissions, has around 170 horsepower (which is right around the same as your average four door saloon), and gets about 250 mpg on average, IIRC. Problem is, Honda apparently said in '08 that it could take around 10 years to mass produce them. The technology is out there. One of the largest issues is making the fuel, but according to some of the things I've read, it's really no more demanding than what we go through to produce gasoline (including the drilling for oil). On their website, it actually says 61 mpg. Still not amazing, but it is better. The problem is, they put all of these gadgets on the vehicles to get this mileage, and the vehicles end up with a base price of $40,000. I meant about 250 miles to the tank, not mpg lol. My mistake. But, I didn't check their website - I got my information from a (mostly) unbiased television show. After checking their website, a Q&A session revealed their car can go about 240 miles on one tank. Pretty close. Regardless, it costs $600 to lease (which is a lot) but it is the first car of it's kind that's being sold to every day people. With time, the price really has nowhere to go but down. Furthermore, for it only releasing water emissions, you can't get much better than that. A fair price to pay, imho, for one of the greenest (if not the greenest) car in the world. Link to comment
ZRod Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Regardless, it costs $600 to lease (which is a lot) but it is the first car of it's kind that's being sold to every day people. With time, the price really has nowhere to go but down. Furthermore, for it only releasing water emissions, you can't get much better than that. A fair price to pay, imho, for one of the greenest (if not the greenest) car in the world. Just for arguments sake, you do know what the most abundant greenhouse gas is don't you? Link to comment
Enhance Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Regardless, it costs $600 to lease (which is a lot) but it is the first car of it's kind that's being sold to every day people. With time, the price really has nowhere to go but down. Furthermore, for it only releasing water emissions, you can't get much better than that. A fair price to pay, imho, for one of the greenest (if not the greenest) car in the world. Just for arguments sake, you do know what the most abundant greenhouse gas is don't you? The danger is only prevalent because of increased levels of carbon-dioxide having a heating effect on the water vapor. Warming brought on by carbon dioxide allows much more water vapor enter the atmosphere, at least according to one Texas A&M study. Link to comment
ZRod Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Regardless, it costs $600 to lease (which is a lot) but it is the first car of it's kind that's being sold to every day people. With time, the price really has nowhere to go but down. Furthermore, for it only releasing water emissions, you can't get much better than that. A fair price to pay, imho, for one of the greenest (if not the greenest) car in the world. Just for arguments sake, you do know what the most abundant greenhouse gas is don't you? The danger is only prevalent because of increased levels of carbon-dioxide having a heating effect on the water vapor. Warming brought on by carbon dioxide allows much more water vapor enter the atmosphere, at least according to one Texas A&M study. I realize that I just felt like being difficult. Plus it would be pretty easy to harvest the water and reuse it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts