Obama found a way to lower oil

[Blackshirts007]

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.

 

why would you put a new idea out there when you can maximize profits with what you have? lots of the products that are "new" or "just released" have already been designed and produced years ago, there is a delay in technology. im sure electric cars were already being produced years ago before the first one came out. we have the ability to have every car be ran on electricy or another substance. Im sure there are cars out there that can be designed to run on alternatives (not just ethanol, im talking water, wind etc) if we dropped gas powered vehiciles there would be BILLIONS of dollars lost. you buy an electric vehile (or hybrid) and you either dont need to buy gas, or rarely fuel up. And i dont literally mean f this country, but there are a lot of things they hide from us (some can argue for the better) and i feel they abuse there powers at times. i think we would all be shocked if we really knew everything going on in this country, and have seen some of its secrets (im just guessing because i have no idea either what they are hiding from us) And ive been to Europe and there system is similar to ours, 3rd world countries are a lot worse and i know that. im not old enough but does anyone remember the Roswell incident in New Mexico, a ufo had crashed and had been spotted by numerous witnesses. pictures were taken and it was in the news, until the military and special tasks force came in and pulled it from every news station and paper corperation. They later said it was just a weather balloon and banned any public talk about it. i wonder how the people on the ranch who witnessed it live and found it first had to think about that? and i got a B+ in the class for those wondering.

[TheW0rld]

Contemporary safety and crash standards are a huge issue in relation to fuel economy. Contemporary cars are much heavier because of them in comparison to 15 to 20 years ago. 40 MPG used to be no big deal with an old Honda Civic because it was small and light. Mass needs energy to move it down the road. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[ZRod]

Ok.. So I'll just stick to the oil and car thing and maybe touch on government lies.

 

The electric car has been around almost as long as the automobile itself. But it just wasn't capable of the range of internal combustion engines, and like many good ideas ahead of their time it was shelved. When they did start making a come back in the 90's they were killed off by oil special interest groups, not the government. Because of that today's alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) are fighting an uphill battle with 20 years of knowledge unfounded.

 

The biggest hurdle for AFVs isn't the oil companies or the government but the consumer and extrinsically the economic state of the auto industry. The Chevrolet Volt is a prime example, interior styling aside, the car is exactly what people are clamoring for and it meets your standards with 93mpg. But last month production has was suspended because supply had far exceeded demand for the car. Most likely because of a $41,000 price tag on a car the size of a 4 door Honda Civic. Which leads into the economic side of it. These things aren't cheap to make and with the shape the companies are in do you think they would rather produce a sure fire seller like Impalas, Camaros, and trucks or throw all their eggs into a much riskier basket that cost more to produce than they are selling it for i.e. the Volt?

 

Personally I think the oil companies are about done meddling in the auto industry because they are seeing the writing on the wall and a President who doesn't have ties to big oil is a part of that. If you use the Kubler-Ross ( 5 stages of grief) model I would say they are somewhere between anger and bargaining right now. They are trying to change their image and invest in "alternatives" like natural gas, coal, and things like that. But I could be wrong...

[Muck]

....does anyone remember the Roswell incident in New Mexico, a ufo had crashed and had been spotted by numerous witnesses. pictures were taken and it was in the news, until the military and special tasks force came in and pulled it from every news station and paper corperation. They later said it was just a weather balloon and banned any public talk about it. i wonder how the people on the ranch who witnessed it live and found it first had to think about that? and i got a B+ in the class for those wondering....

 

Ahh I see, you're just a conspiracy nut in general.

 

Carry on.

 

Contemporary safety and crash standards are a huge issue in relation to fuel economy. Contemporary cars are much heavier because of them in comparison to 15 to 20 years ago. 40 MPG used to be no big deal with an old Honda Civic because it was small and light. Mass needs energy to move it down the road. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Remember that those early 90's Civics were using a different efficiency standard than the one in use today. The new measurements would drop them down 5-10 mpg (even with that they would still return better mileage than their modern contemporaries).

 

There are cars in the world that can meet the goal. The Tata Nano for example but much of that efficiency is due to light weight and as TheW0rld touched upon there is no way it would pass American safety standards.

 

When they did start making a come back in the 90's they were killed off by oil special interest groups, not the government.

They died off because the technology was not ready for mainstream use and the infrastructure was not in place to support them. GM (and everyone else) was losing money on the EVs, they were money pits that were not yet economically feasible to manufacture.

 

The Chevrolet Volt is a prime example, interior styling aside, the car is exactly what people are clamoring for and it meets your standards with 93mpg.

For less than 40 miles (on a warm day) after that it gets 30-35 mpg.

[Enhance]

We just need to find some awesome energy source like the one in Tony Stark's chest .

 

As it stands right now, a lot of issues exist with the more "greener" cars. Take the Prius, for example. Although the car is economical in terms of fuel consumption, look at the production process. The battery used to power the Prius is made from nickel, mined in Canada at a refinery so devastating to the environment that much of the area surrounding the plant is a wasteland. The refinery puts out copious amounts of pollution into the air. The production process then carries it to some factory in Europe, and then another place in China, before it's finally sent to Japan and assembled into the car as a battery. Then, it's shipped to various dealers around the world. That's a lot of travel (and pollution).

[Muck]

We just need to find some awesome energy source like the one in Tony Stark's chest .

Cocaine?

 

As it stands right now, a lot of issues exist with the more "greener" cars.

 

Exactly. People tend to forget that the rise of gasoline powered engines was due to them being more efficient than anything else on the table.

 

That will change as alternate energy technologies mature but it's not going to happen overnight.

[knapplc]

Exactly. People tend to forget that the rise of gasoline powered engines was due to them being more efficient than anything else on the table.

 

Those bastards never gave steam a real chance.

[ZRod]

Exactly. People tend to forget that the rise of gasoline powered engines was due to them being more efficient than anything else on the table.

Efficient is the way, WAY wrong word to use. Gasoline Internal combustion engines are some of the most inefficient engines there are. I think they are on average something like 30% efficient where a diesel is about 40% and a turbo diesels can be 50%. The efficiency of an electric motor is dependent on a few things like the make up of the motor itself and the load it is acting on, but it's safe to say they are much more efficient than ICEs. Don't hold me to it but if I remember a little of what I learned in college I believe they are anywhere from 70-90% efficient, some even approaching upper 90's.

 

I think the best descriptor for gasoline engines is they're cheap!

 

 

 

When they did start making a come back in the 90's they were killed off by oil special interest groups, not the government.

They died off because the technology was not ready for mainstream use and the infrastructure was not in place to support them. GM (and everyone else) was losing money on the EVs, they were money pits that were not yet economically feasible to manufacture.

I won't argue there is probably some truth to that, but if you look deeper there was some shady stuff going on there, like Chevron buying the controlling interest in the maker of the batteries.

 

For less than 40 miles (on a warm day) after that it gets 30-35 mpg.

But that doesn't factor in how far they have driven on electricity, and the farther you drive the worse the mileage becomes till it reaches that mark. For most people they will be driving primarily on electricity unless they travel more than 30-40 miles.

[Muck]

Efficient is the way, WAY wrong word to use.

 

Remember we are talking about the entire system here. Gasoline is a far more efficient method of energy storage than anything else that has been available.

 

I won't argue there is probably some truth to that, but if you look deeper there was some shady stuff going on there, like Chevron buying the controlling interest in the maker of the batteries.

 

Sure but there's no real indication (outside of the claims of Stanford Ovshinsky) that they did so to bury the technology rather than as an attempt to corner the market (which the lawsuit against Panasonic suggests).

 

But that doesn't factor in how far they have driven on electricity, and the farther you drive the worse the mileage becomes till it reaches that mark. For most people they will be driving primarily on electricity unless they travel more than 30-40 miles.

 

You're right and I agree. I'm really just pointing out that it is difficult to compare 'mileage' of hybrids to standards petrol fueled vehicles.

[ZRod]

Efficient is the way, WAY wrong word to use.

 

Remember we are talking about the entire system here. Gasoline is a far more efficient method of energy storage than anything else that has been available.

Right, but the engine used to extract that energy is horrible and not very dynamic. It pains me to say things like this because I love modern cars and their sounds and smells, but the gasoline engine is long over due to go the way of the horse. The market is there and the infrastructure could be created in the next few years. Whether that be diesel, electricity, or what have you. It will just take a major commitment from a company or the government

[JJ Husker]

We just need to find some awesome energy source like the one in Tony Stark's chest .

 

As it stands right now, a lot of issues exist with the more "greener" cars. Take the Prius, for example. Although the car is economical in terms of fuel consumption, look at the production process. The battery used to power the Prius is made from nickel, mined in Canada at a refinery so devastating to the environment that much of the area surrounding the plant is a wasteland. The refinery puts out copious amounts of pollution into the air. The production process then carries it to some factory in Europe, and then another place in China, before it's finally sent to Japan and assembled into the car as a battery. Then, it's shipped to various dealers around the world. That's a lot of travel (and pollution).

And you didn't even mention what will happen when all those batteries need to be disposed of.

 

We have a ways to go until these alternate fuel vehicles make environmental, economic, and consumer sense. I looked over a Volt just the other day. The guy that was test driving it said sticker was about $42K but he would be eligible for a tax credit of $13.5K so, in essence, the real cost to him about $28.5K. Not too bad for somebody that can really take advantage of that but it might still be a struggle for some people making monthly payments on a $42K vehicle. $13,500 per vehicle is a lot of uncollected tax money for the govt to be giving away to encourage use of vehicles that apparently cannot stand on their own merits. It sure does sound good to say you're encouraging "green" energy but at whose expense does it really come? It sure isn't at the expense of the government handing out those credits or the auto manufacturer who is selling vehicles for $13,500 more than makes economic sense to the consumer. I think anyone with a brain can figure out why there has been little effort or attention expended by the current administration in helping to ease the escalation of pump prices over the last few years. Higher gas prices make all these not ready for prime time alternates a whole lot more attractive.

 

Another thing that gets me is that a lot of people act like electricity (as far as cars are concerned) just falls out of the sky with no cost or environmental impact. It may be a better option than purchasing more oil from the mideast but that electricity still needs to be generated to plug in your Prius or Volt. Last time I checked, my electric rates were still climbing rather rapidly. I wonder what the bill would look like if I had to charge 2 or 3 vehicles daily.

[ZRod]

At some point the government has to step in and provide an incentive. Car companies are some of the most conservative companies in the world and for good reason, they have billions of dollars that teeter on a knife edge that is essential someone's taste in design. No car company is going to make a drastic change unless they can be assured the others are going to have to do it as well. If the government never stepped in we would still have cars that average 12mpg, no seat belts, no airbags, the list goes on and on.

 

And you didn't even mention what will happen when all those batteries need to be disposed of.

What happens to all those cordless drill batteries, camera batteries, flash light batteries, cell phone batteries? They are the exact same thing, nobody complains about those.

 

This isn't directed at you JJ but someone brought the issue about how the batteries are made and pointed out that it isn't very eco friendly. I used too agree until I thought about where all that steel, copper, aluminum, fiberglass/carbon fiber, OIL comes from.

 

Another thing that gets me is that a lot of people act like electricity (as far as cars are concerned) just falls out of the sky with no cost or environmental impact. It may be a better option than purchasing more oil from the mideast but that electricity still needs to be generated to plug in your Prius or Volt. Last time I checked, my electric rates were still climbing rather rapidly. I wonder what the bill would look like if I had to charge 2 or 3 vehicles daily.

Your rates are climbing because the current electric grid is A) outdated and B) run predominately on fossil fuels. Even so it would still be much cheaper than fueling up your car, plus you don't need to drive around to find a station anymore you can just plug it in at home. If you use the guy at the end of this link's example; traveling 100 miles on a charge cost $5.25 if you take that and triple it to $15.75 for 300 miles that's still under half of what you would pay to fuel the average car for that distance. http://www.edmunds.c...ectric-car.html

[ZRod]

Oh and as for electricity just falling from the sky, well if it wasn't for that damn Thomas Edison it could be happening already. Actually Edison probably isn't directly to blame, but Nikola Tesla envisioned wireless transfer and demonstrated it over a hundred years ago.

[JJ Husker]

At some point the government has to step in and provide an incentive. Car companies are some of the most conservative companies in the world and for good reason, they have billions of dollars that teeter on a knife edge that is essential someone's taste in design. No car company is going to make a drastic change unless they can be assured the others are going to have to do it as well. If the government never stepped in we would still have cars that average 12mpg, no seat belts, no airbags, the list goes on and on.

 

Another thing that gets me is that a lot of people act like electricity (as far as cars are concerned) just falls out of the sky with no cost or environmental impact. It may be a better option than purchasing more oil from the mideast but that electricity still needs to be generated to plug in your Prius or Volt. Last time I checked, my electric rates were still climbing rather rapidly. I wonder what the bill would look like if I had to charge 2 or 3 vehicles daily.

Your rates are climbing because the current electric grid is A) outdated and B) run predominately on fossil fuels. Even so it would still be much cheaper than fueling up your car, plus you don't need to drive around to find a station anymore you can just plug it in at home. If you use the guy at the end of this link's example; traveling 100 miles on a charge cost $5.25 if you take that and triple it to $15.75 for 300 miles that's still under half of what you would pay to fuel the average car for that distance. http://www.edmunds.c...ectric-car.html

I wasn't attempting to claim that that it wasn't cheaper. I was simply pointing out that there were still costs and environmental issues associated with it. And thank you for pointing out that the current electric grid (which is responsible for charging these vehicles) is outdated and run predominately on fossil fuels. I try to not let it bother me when those Prius drivers look condescendingly at me as I fly by them in my Yukon XL.

 

We'll have to disagree on the necessity of the federal government "stepping in" and meddling with an issue that could/shoud be handled strictly through supply, demand, and free markets. When the technology is fully feasible the economics of it will make sense to manufacturers and consumers alike. If it needs a helping hand (or in the case of one third the cost of the vehicle- both hands an arm and a leg) from the government (read taxpayer), that tells me it is not quite there yet. Exactly which taxpayers are supposed to help fund my neighbors purchase of a Volt? The middle class payer who covers everything now? The poor people who can't cover it? The rich taxpayers who have a rather large line forming in front of them as we speak? My answer is that nobody other than the person purchasing the vehicle needs to be paying for it. If Chevy can't sell a Volt for $42K without a large tax credit incentive, then maybe they shouldn't be producing and selling Volts yet. It's not that I don't appreciate the increased gas mileage or reduced emissions or lowered reliance on foreign oil. Those are great things. What I have a problem with is subsidizing somebody elses vehicle purchase. Ya know what, I'm fully subsidizing my own purchase both in car payments and at the pump, you're welcome.

[ZRod]

No I totally understand where you're coming from and I think it just depends on your view of what the government should do when it comes to research and public well being. I think it's hard for anybody right now to agree with the government paying for things like this when they can't pass a balanced budget, but if you keep an open mind it could pay off in the long run with the jobs it creates and the advancements in research. If this were the 90's I think it would be a little easier for people to swallow.

 

For the record I drive a Camaro so it's not like I have a foot in the prius/greenie camp. I just think that sitting around and being comfortable where we're at is what got us where we are today, stuck in granny low, if you will.