We've heard a lot from different groups and candidates about wanting to move our cars away from gasoline powered to some other form. With fuel prices dropping this may seem less of a serious issue, but it is something to think about as it will come up again.
My question is this, has anyone talked about how we are going to transition to these other forms?
The reason I ask is because if you look at the people that hurt the most by rising fuel costs, people in the lower income brackets, these are the same people that are driving older, less efficient cars because they can not afford to drive new ones.
I have actually heard it suggested that some groups actually were happy with the run away cost of gasoline because they believed it would have forced a changed in behavior. Yet, again, what about the people that can't afford to purchase the new automobiles?
Has anyone suggested a vehicle trade in program? Trade in an old inefficient car and get a small cheap new fuel efficient/alternative fuel car?
|
personally, i think the whole thing is funny. the "green" types drive around in their hybrids, when, if they were SERIOUS about being "green", they'd go buy an old civic (say, a 94 or so). recycle a whole car and get better mileage than half the hybrids they flaunt.
but then, most of them are about the "look at me" than really doing something, anyway...
|
The current cost estimate puts converting your Current Car to electric at $30,000 (The cost of a new Hybrid). You might as well do the mechanical work yourself.
An Australian Engineer converted his car from Petrol to Electric. He sourced the electric Motor from a US Company. not sure how much it cost though.
Frankly you should convert to Hydrogen and get your self a small Water to Hydrogen fuelcell plant and compressor.
|
If anything, I think the recent bout with extremely high gas prices will have served as a wake up call to the remainder of America that, yes, we must do something about our oil-based economy. That being said, the best way to do it is to let the change come at the market's pace, with a little bit of encouragement here and there by the gov't (possibly in the form of tax incentives). The more they try ot force the change, the more folks will resist. Let it come gradually.
personally, i think the whole thing is funny. the "green" types drive around in their hybrids, when, if they were SERIOUS about being "green", they'd go buy an old civic (say, a 94 or so). recycle a whole car and get better mileage than half the hybrids they flaunt.
but then, most of them are about the "look at me" than really doing something, anyway...
That's a really cynical point of view houstonderek. That may be the case in Houston, but I can tell you from the people I know driving hybrids in Massachusetts, it's about saving the environment, being more energy conscious.
This one guy I know even competes with himself to see how fuel efficient he can be everywhere he drives. Yes it's annoying that he drives 50 mph on the highway, but that's the length he goes to to save gas.
Also, I have seen very few hybrid SUVs or trucks on the road. Almost all of the people driving hybrids in Massachusetts drive one of the following:
Honda Civic Hybrid
Honda Accord Hybrid
Toyota Prius
My question is this, has anyone talked about how we are going to transition to these other forms?
Honda's been thinking a lot about it. They're currently testing a fuel-cell vehicle in Southern California. You have to get approved to get a lease on it because you have to limit your driving range so that you stay close to the hydrogen stations they've set up.
It's called the FCX.
|
personally, i think the whole thing is funny. the "green" types drive around in their hybrids, when, if they were SERIOUS about being "green", they'd go buy an old civic (say, a 94 or so). recycle a whole car and get better mileage than half the hybrids they flaunt.
but then, most of them are about the "look at me" than really doing something, anyway...
That's a really cynical point of view houstonderek. That may be the case in Houston, but I can tell you from the people I know driving hybrids in Massachusetts, it's about saving the environment, being more energy conscious.
He may be cynical, but he's right. And it wasn't just Houston; it was the same here in Detroit and the same in Florida where my folks are. These are the same people who are supposedly so "concerned about the poor" who were rubbing their hands with glee that the price of gas was over $4, who actually suggested we increase gas taxes to make it even HIGHER. Never once did these folks stop to consider the ramifications: that the lower income people they are so concerned with were the ones who would be harmed by this the most. They can't afford nice, shiny, new hybrids; they can't afford the gas itself; and most of all, they can't afford the huge increases in food costs because of rising transportation expenses (or the rise in corn prices as the crops are siphoned off to make biofuel by government mandate).
Sorry; not taking it out on you, but this is a sore point with me. I can't count the number of ... jerks who wrote into the papers here saying how we should be paying even more for gas.
Sorry; not taking it out on you, but this is a sore point with me. I can't count the number of ... jerks who wrote into the papers here saying how we should be paying even more for gas.
Well, I'm certainly not advocating raising gas taxes. That's just a ridiculous approach to solving a problem that needs to be solved by affecting how much demand there is, not limiting supply.
And I still believe that the more people buy ultra-fuel efficient cars (hybrids I don't feel are reliable long-term, I'd rather see fuel cell come of age) the more everyone will benefit because as demand decreases, the price must come down.
|
|
Sorry; not taking it out on you, but this is a sore point with me. I can't count the number of ... jerks who wrote into the papers here saying how we should be paying even more for gas.Well, I'm certainly not advocating raising gas taxes. That's just a ridiculous approach to solving a problem that needs to be solved by affecting how much demand there is, not limiting supply.
And I still believe that the more people buy ultra-fuel efficient cars (hybrids I don't feel are reliable long-term, I'd rather see fuel cell come of age) the more everyone will benefit because as demand decreases, the price must come down.
No, no ... didn't mean to imply that that was what you were advocating. I just quoted you because of the "cynical" part ... I was just ranting about what I perceive as some hypocrisy exibited by quite a few in the enviromental movements. And I have certainly seen a "smugness" (not to bring up South Park episodes) among those in my area who drive the hybrids. I.e., they're better than those of us who don't, which corresponds with what houstonderek had mentioned.
|
|
And I still believe that the more people buy ultra-fuel efficient cars (hybrids I don't feel are reliable long-term, I'd rather see fuel cell come of age) the more everyone will benefit because as demand decreases, the price must come down.
Absolutely. And it will be the same with all electric, or hydrogen fuel cells, or any new technology. As market forces take effect and spread the technology, the price will come down. It just takes time.
And I have certainly seen a "smugness" (not to bring up South Park episodes) among those in my area who drive the hybrids. I.e., they're better than those of us who don't, which corresponds with what houstonderek had mentioned.
Well, I think this goes to one of those arguments where someone with money doesn't want someone else telling him how he should spend it.
For example, if I had $1 million, and I choose to set up a adult bookstore in a community, do I have that right over and above the feelings of the community?
Now, if I see someone commuting 60 miles a day in a Hummer, I'd say "Why are you wasting all that gas? Your demand for gas is driving up the price for me and causing more pollution."
They have the right to buy the car they want and spend their money on gas, but does it make it right when their behavior affects me? I'm inviting discussion, not trying to ridicule or insult anyone.
|
|
They have the right to buy the car they want and spend their money on gas, but does it make it right when their behavior affects me? I'm inviting discussion, not trying to ridicule or insult anyone.
That is an excellent point. Unfortunately, it can be said that this same point is what leads to things like the "food police" trying to get rid of trans fats, or "outlaw" McDonalds, etc. People with unhealthy diets have, in theory, more medical problems thatn most, causing gov't to spend more tax dollars on health issues. So then, their behavior affects you as well.
For me, this is a kind of slippery-slope issue leading to greater control over people's lives and a slowly creeping loss of the freedoms that make this country (in my mind) such a great place.
For me, this is a kind of slippery-slope issue leading to greater control over people's lives and a slowly creeping loss of the freedoms that make this country (in my mind) such a great place.
So would you be in favor of trying to convince people to come around to a particular point of view, rather than trying to control them?
|
And I have certainly seen a "smugness" (not to bring up South Park episodes) among those in my area who drive the hybrids. I.e., they're better than those of us who don't, which corresponds with what houstonderek had mentioned.Well, I think this goes to one of those arguments where someone with money doesn't want someone else telling him how he should spend it.
For example, if I had $1 million, and I choose to set up a adult bookstore in a community, do I have that right over and above the feelings of the community?
Now, if I see someone commuting 60 miles a day in a Hummer, I'd say "Why are you wasting all that gas? Your demand for gas is driving up the price for me and causing more pollution."
They have the right to buy the car they want and spend their money on gas, but does it make it right when their behavior affects me? I'm inviting discussion, not trying to ridicule or insult anyone.
Hey, I'm one of those people who can't afford a new car, hates the high cost of gas, and wants to put a brick through the windshield of every jackass I see driving a hummer :). If I could I would have that new hybrid that can go 40 miles before switching to using gas, I live 20 miles from work and could plug it in at work so that I never needed gas, but unfortunately, I can't afford a car payment. I think government sponsering an exchange for fuel efficient hybrids (i.e not SUVs god the drivers of hybrid SUVs are as much douche's as the drivers of hummers) is one of the few government programs I could get behind and quell my libertarian tnedency to think anything the government gets their hands on they'll F-up. That said I'd want it done as your pure gas vehicle gives you $x to the purchase of a hybrid, just enough to make it cost effective payment (say $100 a month) for people like me. Not just a gimme, where you bring in some clunker you bought for $500 yesterday and get a new Civic hybrid.
|
|
For me, this is a kind of slippery-slope issue leading to greater control over people's lives and a slowly creeping loss of the freedoms that make this country (in my mind) such a great place.So would you be in favor of trying to convince people to come around to a particular point of view, rather than trying to control them?
Absolutely. That is my stance on many controversial issues, including things like abortion (which I am personally against), and the war on drugs (which I see as a colossal waste of money, time, and resources).
|
|
And I have certainly seen a "smugness" (not to bring up South Park episodes) among those in my area who drive the hybrids. I.e., they're better than those of us who don't, which corresponds with what houstonderek had mentioned.Well, I think this goes to one of those arguments where someone with money doesn't want someone else telling him how he should spend it.
For example, if I had $1 million, and I choose to set up a adult bookstore in a community, do I have that right over and above the feelings of the community?
Now, if I see someone commuting 60 miles a day in a Hummer, I'd say "Why are you wasting all that gas? Your demand for gas is driving up the price for me and causing more pollution."
They have the right to buy the car they want and spend their money on gas, but does it make it right when their behavior affects me? I'm inviting discussion, not trying to ridicule or insult anyone.
Well, "right" is a very strong word that gets tossed around so much it starts to lose meaning. Technically, the only "rights" we have are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and those explicitly stated in the Constitution. But that's another issue.
Part of the problem is that SUVs are being completely demonized; from some of the other posts, you would think they had zero redeeming features at all. Do they use more gas, and in the long run drive up demand? Sure. But they are also much safer than small cars, leading to a reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries and therefore healthcare costs. Do these costs even out? I have no idea. But to imply they are universally the vehicle choice of Satan himself is unfair, IMO. And there are many other, more minor positive and negative things we could probably think of, given time.
I also wouldn't be so quick to judge in regards to a 60 mile commute in a Hummer ... since I don't know what that person does for a living, whether or not it's a "waste" is unknown to me. I suppose they could choose to live closer, buy a smaller car, etc., but if their net effect on society is a positive one (e.g. by what they do, produce, etc.), who am I to criticize? And the simple act of purchasing said vehicle, house, etc certainly isn't disliked by those who build them.
Another "food for thought" item - trucks and SUVs are much more profitable for automotive companies than small cars and hybrids. One of reasons the automakers are in the shape they are currently in is the lower sales on the high-profit vehicles. Now, suppose those sales of trucks and SUVs had not dropped like a rock, but remained steady. Would we be paying more for gas? Most likely yes. But would there have been far fewer layoffs? Also most likely yes. So, as a society, which is the preferred situation? Being here in Detroit, I can guess what quite a few people might choose here ...
Personally, I agree with the "slippery slope" idea. I believe that a truly free market (which we do not have) will right itself in the long run. Forcing people to buy something (or worse, forcing a company to make something whether the populace wants it or not) is not the way to go. People drive SUVs, which drives up the cost of gas, which increases demand for fuel-efficient smaller cars, which causes the car companies to make them affordable and reliable (and safer), which drives down the price of gas, etc, etc. Problem is, that takes time, and many people today have zero patience for that.
Well, this isn't particular to Hummers or SUVs. If you rewind to the 1970s (station wagon era) when more fuel efficient cars started hitting the road due to the rise in gas prices and lack of supply, that was a great time to turn the country in a different direction economically, politically, and environmentally.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. As soon as gas prices came down, people went back to less fuel efficient cars. I do believe this is a national security issue because we're out there in the world trying to secure rights to a resource we don't have at home.
Therefore, I believe we should mandate that Americans become less dependent on that resource by raising fuel efficiency requirements.
|
|
Therefore, I believe we should mandate that Americans become less dependent on that resource by raising fuel efficiency requirements.
I like the Pickens Plan.
|
|
Well, this isn't particular to Hummers or SUVs. If you rewind to the 1970s (station wagon era) when more fuel efficient cars started hitting the road due to the rise in gas prices and lack of supply, that was a great time to turn the country in a different direction economically, politically, and environmentally.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. As soon as gas prices came down, people went back to less fuel efficient cars. I do believe this is a national security issue because we're out there in the world trying to secure rights to a resource we don't have at home.
Therefore, I believe we should mandate that Americans become less dependent on that resource by raising fuel efficiency requirements.
Which would force automakers to not only increase production of small-margin vehicles (that may or may not sell), but also increase the use of technology that currently increases a vehicle's price from $3-5K. This would, in all likelyhood, reduce auotmotive sales even further, resulting in yet more layoffs and people out of work. Government mandates in indutries that politicians know almost nothing about seldom work out well.
CAFE and similar fuel efficiency legislation are back-door ways of forcing people to buy what they don't want. As less of one type of vehicle is made (usually a high-profit one) in order to meet federal law, the general public is forced to buy what is available. Count me among those who'd rather let the market work.
CAFE and similar fuel efficiency legislation are back-door ways of forcing people to buy what they don't want. As less of one type of vehicle is made (usually a high-profit one) in order to meet federal law, the general public is forced to buy what is available. Count me among those who'd rather let the market work.
But that's what I'm saying. It's not about affecting the market. It's about affecting something to change our risk vis a vis national security.
|
|
Do they use more gas, and in the long run drive up demand? Sure. But they are also much safer than small cars, leading to a reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries and therefore healthcare costs.
Can you back that up with a link, because from what I've heard and read, the safest cars on the road are those well built smaller cars you say are less safe. And if a person wants a safe, bigger vehicle, get a mini-van, they're proven safer than SUV, have just as much cargo room, and are more fuel efficient. So yes people can keep demonizing SUVs because there is a better alternative, but people don't want to be driving a mini-van cause they don't like the "old" image they think it imparts.
I'm not mad at the companies for making them, they were just following market demand, I'm mad at people for being foolish and careless and buying them for the image instead of what they actually offer. As for trucks, there are people who need trucks. Those people I have nothing against, and there are people who buy F-350s who never use the bed of the truck and never tow a thing or drive on an unpaved road and those people I am also upset with. Believe me I know some such people.
|
|
Therefore, I believe we should mandate that Americans become less dependent on that resource by raising fuel efficiency requirements.I like the Pickens Plan.
Yeah me too, but there's a group of people out there opposed to any drilling on our shores whatsoever. Part of his plan to begin with is to increase drilling in our country, granted it's a small part. but it's still a part.
As Mr. Pickens himself says, "Drill, drill, drill."
Hey, I'm one of those people who can't afford a new car, hates the high cost of gas, and wants to put a brick through the windshield of every jackass I see driving a hummer :). If I could I would have that new hybrid that can go 40 miles before switching to using gas, I live 20 miles from work and could plug it in at work so that I never needed gas, but unfortunately, I can't afford a car payment. I think government sponsering an exchange for fuel efficient hybrids (i.e not SUVs god the drivers of hybrid SUVs are as much douche's as the drivers of hummers) is one of the few government programs I could get behind and quell my libertarian tnedency to think anything the government gets their hands on they'll F-up. That said I'd want it done as your pure gas vehicle gives you $x to the purchase of a hybrid, just enough to make it cost effective payment (say $100 a month) for people like me. Not just a gimme, where you bring in some clunker you bought for $500 yesterday and get a new Civic hybrid.
Sorry, when I suggesting a trade in option, I wasn't meaning getting a top of the line car in return. I was thinking more along the lines of a government produced, stripped down "USgo" (see the Yugo). No radio, no power windows, no AC (maybe, might be health issues there), one color (black?), Airbags(?, again a possible safety issue), two door hatch back. Still it might be worth more than the $500 dollar clunker, but just think of all those other indirect "costs" with having the clunker on the road. It might be worth it to take a "loss" with the trade in for the government.
Also a $100 per month payment might be doable for you, but for alot of people it might not be ($1200 per year extra spending) and it might actually be economically stupid. If you are not going to spend an extra hundred dollars a month on gas by driving the clunker than by driving some hybrid, it is better to stick with clunker (pay an extra $80 dollars would mean for example a savings of $20 than having $100 per month payment). Which is exactly what a lot of economists were saying when the price started to shoot up and people were thinking, "I need to sell my truck and get a small car." Only if the savings on gas is going to offset the additional payments for a new car. If it is not, then it is better to stick with the gas-hog.
The Air CarPersonally, I'm rooting for this invention, for cities and suburbs at least. At this point you can build a car any way you like. I wouldn't mind seeing air powered SUVs.
This is pure awesome!
|
|
The Air CarPersonally, I'm rooting for this invention, for cities and suburbs at least. At this point you can build a car any way you like. I wouldn't mind seeing air powered SUVs.
Dude I'll so get one.
|
|
Do they use more gas, and in the long run drive up demand? Sure. But they are also much safer than small cars, leading to a reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries and therefore healthcare costs.Can you back that up with a link, because from what I've heard and read, the safest cars on the road are those well built smaller cars you say are less safe. And if a person wants a safe, bigger vehicle, get a mini-van, they're proven safer than SUV, have just as much cargo room, and are more fuel efficient. So yes people can keep demonizing SUVs because there is a better alternative, but people don't want to be driving a mini-van cause they don't like the "old" image they think it imparts.
I read it earlier this year (here). And it actually said that large cars are the best, but both were superior to the small cars. But to concede your point, there are a significant number of studies out there; some say SUVs are better, some say cars are, some say no difference. I suppose you really can make statistics say what you want. I'll also admit that I generally lump minivans into that nebulous "SUV" category, simply because most of the people I've discussed this with who criticize the "big vehicles" generally do the same. Techinically, they are not, I know. Interesting side point - I have a minivan and a jeep, and the two get about the same mpg; around 22-23.
But to your point regarding demonizing SUVs because "there is a better alternative." You're defining "better" as "better gas mileage". Funny thing is, people buy cars for a host of reasons, mpg is just one of many (appearance, comfort, roominess, price, safety, quality, past history, and many more all play a huge part in it). The "smugness" I have such a problem with is folks who call other people, who they do not know, "jerks" or worse simply because of what they drive. They don't know what reasons the person had for getting the vehicle they did, and it reeks of stereotyping and superiority to me. It implies "I'm better than you because I care about the environment and you obviously only care about showing off." I'm sure there are folks like that; we've all met them. But to assume it just because you see them drive by in an Escalade ... sorry, but that's just as bad, IMO.
|
|
If anything, I think the recent bout with extremely high gas prices will have served as a wake up call to the remainder of America that, yes, we must do something about our oil-based economy. That being said, the best way to do it is to let the change come at the market's pace, with a little bit of encouragement here and there by the gov't (possibly in the form of tax incentives). The more they try ot force the change, the more folks will resist. Let it come gradually.
- Tax the manufacturers of Petrol power vehicles at twice the current rate.
- Local Government should charge a thousand dollar Rates on commercial petrol powered vehicles registered in its area.
If anything, I think the recent bout with extremely high gas prices will have served as a wake up call to the remainder of America that, yes, we must do something about our oil-based economy. That being said, the best way to do it is to let the change come at the market's pace, with a little bit of encouragement here and there by the gov't (possibly in the form of tax incentives). The more they try ot force the change, the more folks will resist. Let it come gradually.
- Tax the manufacturers of Petrol power vehicles at twice the current rate.
- Local Government should charge a thousand dollar Rates on commercial petrol powered vehicles registered in its area.
And this helps whom?
|
|
Interesting side point - I have a minivan and a jeep, and the two get about the same mpg; around 22-23.
Just out of total curiosity which on is newer? Cause from what I'm aware of most new mini-vans are getting around 35 mpg now (comparable to a small hybrid SUV).
Well I am aware there are a lot of factors when buying a vehicle, and yes I base better off of MPG because when buying vehicles I really honestly don't give a crap what it looks like. I'm always for getting the vehicle with the most for my money, not taking in account looks. When you compare a mini-van to an SUV they are both equally roomy (i'd argue that a minivan is usually more roomy because of the fact that usually speaking the fold down seats and such aren't in most SUV's) they tend (see I switched to tend because of your real life experience) to have better gas mileage. They as a whole have better safety ratings (that's comparing every minivan available to every SUV availabe, not comparing specific ones because then you can always find a safer vehicle if your paying more) so if the price is equal a mini-van tends to give you more bang for the buck, but SUV's sell better because people like how they look better and SUV's don't have the same stigma a mini-van has attached to it.
But there is no reason to buy a Hummer. Sorry for the same price you can get a vehicle with better utility, safety, and gas mileage, and roominess. Hummers are a luxury purchase and if a person owns a Hummer they weren't considering anything but liking the looks of the Hummer when they purchased it.
But there is no reason to buy a Hummer. Sorry for the same price you can get a vehicle with better utility, safety, and gas mileage, and roominess. Hummers are a luxury purchase and if a person owns a Hummer they weren't considering anything but liking the looks of the Hummer when they purchased it.
The Hummer gets alot of bad press, mainly for what it looks like as well. Its gas mileage is not that unreasonable compared to other similar vehicles.
|
|
Interesting side point - I have a minivan and a jeep, and the two get about the same mpg; around 22-23.
Just out of total curiosity which on is newer? Cause from what I'm aware of most new mini-vans are getting around 35 mpg now (comparable to a small hybrid SUV).
Well, the minivan is a 2007 and the jeep is a 2008. I work for one of the Big 3, and to be honest, I'm not aware of any full-size minivan getting 35 mpg. Here's a comparison of the top 5 minivans in mpg for 2007 models. Tops is about 26. Our '08s and '09s are about the same; and I don't think the other auto companies have changed much, either.
|
|
But there is no reason to buy a Hummer. Sorry for the same price you can get a vehicle with better utility, safety, and gas mileage, and roominess. Hummers are a luxury purchase and if a person owns a Hummer they weren't considering anything but liking the looks of the Hummer when they purchased it.The Hummer gets alot of bad press, mainly for what it looks like as well. Its gas mileage is not that unreasonable compared to other similar vehicles.
Oh I guess I should have mentioned that I hate the ford explorer too, but we weren't talking about it at the time so I hadn't thought of it lol.
For the record if you see me on the road, it's on my 80mpg 250cc scooter :) Which also might explain some of my hatred of SUVs because a lot of my experience with them is, "I have the bigger vehicle so I have the right of way, it doesn't matter what the law says, my vehicle would crush yours so you have to make a point of avoiding me, not vice versa" which I never have had that problem with mini-van drivers (it's possible because there are just fewer on the road but when I think of the driving style of people I know who own mini-vans they do tend to be less agressive drivers) so take what a say with a little grain of salt. (yes I have almost been run over by a hummer before who then honked at me and flicked me off as if it had been my fault, yeah. Me driving down the slow lane of the interstate and you merging in without looking, I'm clearly at fault here. and another time one almost T-boned me.)
|
|
Well, the minivan is a 2007 and the jeep is a 2008. I work for one of the Big 3, and to be honest, I'm not aware of any full-size minivan getting 35 mpg. Here's a comparison of the top 5 minivans in mpg for 2007 models. Tops is about 26. Our '08s and '09s are about the same; and I don't think the other auto companies have changed much, either.Interesting side point - I have a minivan and a jeep, and the two get about the same mpg; around 22-23.
Just out of total curiosity which on is newer? Cause from what I'm aware of most new mini-vans are getting around 35 mpg now (comparable to a small hybrid SUV).
Hmm thanks for that link, it appears I was misinformed. never trust salespeople.
For the record if you see me on the road, it's on my 80mpg 250cc scooter :) Me driving down the slow lane of the interstate and you merging in without looking, I'm clearly at fault here. and another time one almost T-boned me.)
You can drive a scooter on the interstate? I think that is illegal in my state.
|
|
For the record if you see me on the road, it's on my 80mpg 250cc scooter :) Me driving down the slow lane of the interstate and you merging in without looking, I'm clearly at fault here. and another time one almost T-boned me.)You can drive a scooter on the interstate? I think that is illegal in my state.
You can, it depends on the min speed and the brake type. As long as you can maintain a speed higher than the minimum speed limit, Which a 250 can get 70 if well made, and you have the proper brakes then you are fine. You're probably imagining the little 50cc scooters that are only capable of going 45-50, mine you need a motorcycle liscence to drive.
personally, i think the whole thing is funny. the "green" types drive around in their hybrids, when, if they were SERIOUS about being "green", they'd go buy an old civic (say, a 94 or so). recycle a whole car and get better mileage than half the hybrids they flaunt.
but then, most of them are about the "look at me" than really doing something, anyway...
I drive a 2004 civic hybrid. It's not a 'look at me' car, because it looks like a regular civic. My Darwin fish is as big as the 'hybrid' label.
In either case, I didn't buy it to look cool. I bought it because my old car was totaled, so I was buying another car anyway. My old car was '97 Accord that got 23 mpg. Now I get about twice that on the highway.
Saying that people who want to be 'green' should go drive a Geo Metro because it gets great mileage is similar to saying 'Well, if you really wanted to be green you'd give up a car entirely and just bike everywhere.' Lots of people want a new car to drive, and given the choice between a new Taurus and a new Prius, the Prius is the 'green' choice. Recycling a car might be yet better, but it's a non-option to a lot of people.
Hey Ross have you seen this thread?
I have now!
|
|
And this helps whom?If anything, I think the recent bout with extremely high gas prices will have served as a wake up call to the remainder of America that, yes, we must do something about our oil-based economy. That being said, the best way to do it is to let the change come at the market's pace, with a little bit of encouragement here and there by the gov't (possibly in the form of tax incentives). The more they try ot force the change, the more folks will resist. Let it come gradually.
- Tax the manufacturers of Petrol power vehicles at twice the current rate.
- Local Government should charge a thousand dollar Rates on commercial petrol powered vehicles registered in its area.
It encourages the private sector to shift over to Hydrogen and Electric. Domino's delivery vechiles will want to be electric within a year or be subject to financial incentives...
|
|
It encourages the private sector to shift over to Hydrogen and Electric. Domino's delivery vechiles will want to be electric within a year or be subject to financial incentives...And this helps whom?If anything, I think the recent bout with extremely high gas prices will have served as a wake up call to the remainder of America that, yes, we must do something about our oil-based economy. That being said, the best way to do it is to let the change come at the market's pace, with a little bit of encouragement here and there by the gov't (possibly in the form of tax incentives). The more they try ot force the change, the more folks will resist. Let it come gradually.
- Tax the manufacturers of Petrol power vehicles at twice the current rate.
- Local Government should charge a thousand dollar Rates on commercial petrol powered vehicles registered in its area.
And with the American auto companies currently on the verge of bankruptcy, it would likely force one or more into it. You think the US economy's bad now ...
|
|
...Me driving down the slow lane of the interstate and you merging in without looking, I'm clearly at fault here. and another time one almost T-boned me...
were you in the car or the scooter? just asking, because i think it's illegal to ride a scooter on the freeway in texas, i don't know about florida, as i didn't have a license when i lived there...
...but it's a non-option to a lot of people.yeah, a "non-option". because being seen in a 97 civic is lame ;)
Yeah, pretty much. I was just saying to pick your battles.
And with the American auto companies currently on the verge of bankruptcy, it would likely force one or more into it. You think the US economy's bad now ...
On this point, I agree with Bryan. Behavior has to be changed on the consumer side, not on the producer side. The more people buy more fuel efficient cars, the more cars of that kind you will see being offered. If this is done with tax credits or other incentives to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars, the market will shift.
Taxing gas hurts everyone.
|
|
...Me driving down the slow lane of the interstate and you merging in without looking, I'm clearly at fault here. and another time one almost T-boned me...were you in the car or the scooter? just asking, because i think it's illegal to ride a scooter on the freeway in texas, i don't know about florida, as i didn't have a license when i lived there...
I was on the scooter, and like I said, it's perfectly legal, at least in FL.
I think you are still thinking of my scooter as a 50cc scooter, Not a 250cc, If motorcycles are allowed on your highways, then a 250 scooter is, remember the only difference between a 250cc scooter and a honda rebel motorcycle (also 250cc) is that you don't shift on the scooter.
Most highways have laws for min speed and break size. If your scooter (and there are even 450cc scooters) is capable of going the minimum speed and has the right breaks (which anything over 50cc and even some of the better made 50cc are) you can go, but double check your laws, maybe houston has a stupid city ordinance or something that is lame and discriminatory.
|
|
It encourages the private sector to shift over to Hydrogen and Electric. Domino's delivery vechiles will want to be electric within a year or be subject to financial incentives...And this helps whom?If anything, I think the recent bout with extremely high gas prices will have served as a wake up call to the remainder of America that, yes, we must do something about our oil-based economy. That being said, the best way to do it is to let the change come at the market's pace, with a little bit of encouragement here and there by the gov't (possibly in the form of tax incentives). The more they try ot force the change, the more folks will resist. Let it come gradually.
- Tax the manufacturers of Petrol power vehicles at twice the current rate.
- Local Government should charge a thousand dollar Rates on commercial petrol powered vehicles registered in its area.
No, it more than likely doesn't. One of the big problems with both electric and hydrogen vehicle tech is that there are not many charging stations, nor are there are as many mechanics familiar with working on such vehicles, thus the cost of repair is higher. Throw in the higher cost of the vehicles (especially with hydrogen) and you stick the consumer between a rock and a hard place. It would force them to choose between continuing to drive their current vehicles, and be taxed for it, or switch to expensive vehicles for which their is no viable infrastructure in place.
This is why the change has to be gradual, with incentives in place to encourage the slow expansion of the technology, and give us enough time to build the infrastructure necessary to support the new tech.
nor are there are as many mechanics familiar with working on such vehicles, thus the cost of repair is higher. Throw in the higher cost of the vehicles (especially with hydrogen)
Electric cars have lower maintanence costs than internal compusion vehicles. They have fewer moving parts and don't need to pass outside materials (fuel, air, and oil) through their system on a continuous basis. They break down less often.
Hydrogen cars, on the other hand, are a nightmare. They are a bad diea, and only have support because 'hydrogen' sounds futuristic and keeps getting listed alongside other alternative fuels, despite the fact that 'hydrogen' is not an energy source (unless we start mining the sun or Jupiter.)
nor are there are as many mechanics familiar with working on such vehicles, thus the cost of repair is higher. Throw in the higher cost of the vehicles (especially with hydrogen)Electric cars have lower maintanence costs than internal compusion vehicles. They have fewer moving parts and don't need to pass outside materials (fuel, air, and oil) through their system on a continuous basis. They break down less often.
Hydrogen cars, on the other hand, are a nightmare. They are a bad diea, and only have support because 'hydrogen' sounds futuristic and keeps getting listed alongside other alternative fuels, despite the fact that 'hydrogen' is not an energy source (unless we start mining the sun or Jupiter.)
Electric cars are poor design plans. If I can't jump in the car and drive to the East Coast from the mid-West in a 24 hour period, then the design is deeply flawed. The problem is refueling. Fix the refueling problem and electric cars will be a much more viable solution.
Electric cars are poor design plans. If I can't jump in the car and drive to the East Coast from the mid-West in a 24 hour period, then the design is deeply flawed. The problem is refueling. Fix the refueling problem and electric cars will be a much more viable solution.
Most people don't need to drive from Ohio to New York on a regular basis. Those who do shouldn't use electric cars, because it doesn't serve their needs.
On the other hand, most people live within an electric car's range of their job, and go no further than that on most days. An electric car serves these people's needs quite well. If they need to go further, infrequently, for a special occasion, say, then I'd assume that a rental car service would be adequate.