3/12 I know this is a liberal pipe-dream, but imagine that, instead of
spending $87B on Iraq every year, hundreds of billions on tax cuts,
and the prescription drug [company] benefit, we spent $300B a year
on a simple program: Hand in any car that gets less than 30 MPG and
you can go out and buy a 50+ MPG hybrid car for FREE. We could replace
15 million cars a year on this program, and oil imports would soon
drop like a rock ... This seems a lot simpler than invading country
after country, plus domestic car manufacturers would quickly start
cranking out competing models so it would help the car industry too.
People want to drive big SUVs, not hybrids but I'll bet plenty of
people would switch if you get a new car for FREE.
\_ Ok, great, and where does the power come from for these cars?
Hybrid cars dont make power from thin air. It's a hybrid of a gas
engine and a battery. The power for the battery comes from either
energy drained off the gas engine and thus reduces MPG and/or from
an electric socket. The power for that socket comes from...? Yep,
you guessed it, burning oil, coal, or nuclear. I won't even go
into the abuse your program will cause when we suddenly see the
price of broken ancient $150 gas guzzlers go up just so people can
turn them in, nor will I mention that oil is not the source of
Islamic terrorism. It isn't a liberal pipe-dream. It is just a
pipe-dream.
\_ I don't think the point of an electric or electric-hybrid car
is to get energy for free. It's to improve efficiency. Electric
cars (that plug into a socket) use energy generated from a
gas turbine power plant (or nuclear, solar, hydroelectric,etc.).
Gas turbine engines are far more fuel efficient than piston
engines. Hybrid cars work under the principle of using a low
power engine (which tend to be more efficient than a high
powered one) and using that to recharge a battery.
\_ plus the battery allows regenerative braking, and shutting off
the engine quickly when idle.
\_ Pretty much no hybrids on the market are built to recharge from
an outside electricity source -- you are thinking or pure EVs,
which are pretty much on hold. OP is referring to the reduction
in required petro due to increased fuel efficiency alone and he
is correct that the change would be dramatic. Hybrids can get
double the mileage of standard vehicles.
\_ Most of the milegage gain is from making the cars lighter.
\_ Must research before talking out of ass. Apples vs.
apples, hybrids are heavier.
http://www.hondacars.com/models/specifications.asp?ModelName=Civic+Hybrid
http://www.hondacars.com/models/specifications.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan
\_ Let's assume we replace around 20% of all cars (because not
everyone can or wants to trade-in). We'd cut automotive
petroleum use around 10%, and total petroleum use ~5%. We'd
probably replace ~30 million cars at a cost of ~$60 billion.
$60 billion seems a bit high for a 5% drop in oil use.
\_ To my mind that depends how much of a petro decrease would
be sufficient to no longer require massive military
operations every few years. The cost of the current Gulf
adventure is at about $105B.
\_ We're not there for the sweet,sweet oil. We're there to
battle Islamic terrorists who were operating freely
under a secular Stalinist dictatorship.
\_ Whoah. Somebody believes this?
\_ It's probably just sarcasm, but yes, some
people actually believe this.
\_ The 105 includes Afghanistan but anyway....
\_ No. Total appropriations in the two wars so far
have been about $150b.
\_ Oh, I thought you meant the current war plus
afghanistan, not gw1+gw2 and not afghanistan.
The numbers are similar.
\_ The 105B is for Iraq alone, but anyway...
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
\_ It's always fun to play with numbers. You do
understand that a lot of that money would have
been spent on people, weapon's maintenance and
training anyway, right? Probably not, but it's
cool to think you know what you're talking about.
Gives you that "I'm smarter than you" feeling of
superiority even if it's false.
\_ I like that idea, but I think there is a better way to spend the
money. How about instead of buying efficient cars for everyone, we
give everyone a lobotomy so they won't _like_ gas-guzzlers (and
while we are at it, we can make sure they won't discriminate based
on race, or want a handgun in their home). In fact, we might as
well make sure they will all agree abortions are ok. Sure, it will
be expensive, and there is a slight loss of free will, but think of
how much better off our society will be! -- ilyas
\_ that was an awesome ilyas style rant. it's quite easy
to poke fun at people truly concerned with how global
energy resources are being rapidly depleted without offering
anything remotely like a viable solution by somehow linking
this all to gun ownership, abortion, and paranoid extreme
libertarian sexual fantasies.
\_ (a) The op was a troll, not a concerned citizen. Buying
everyone a hybrid is a stupid idea for practical reasons
(as others pointed out), as well as moral reasons.
(b) I do have an alternative. Do nothing (at the government
level). Let's check back in 20 years to see who is right.
If I am wrong, I ll eat my words, like Mr. O'Reilly did.
Will you? You didn't even sign your name. -- ilyas
\_ [ non-sequitur deleted ]
\_ Did that deletion make you feel better, though?
\_ The non-sequitur wasn't really insulting, but it was
random. Patriot Act? wtf?
\_ Ah. So ilyas jumps from hybrids to lobotomies to
abortion, but my extending his statement about "loss
of free will" to the most recent source of govt
infringement of civil liberties is a non sequitur.
Just making sure I follow.
\_ You are barking up the wrong tree. I don't like
the Patriot Act. I also don't like grand schemes
for 'societal betterment' at taxpayer expense, which
was the point I was trying to make in that clumsy
way of mine. Also, I was under the impression the
main danger of the Patriot Act was the increase
in spying powers of the government, rather than
explicit prohibitions. The only possible relevance
explicit prohibitions. -- ilyas
of PA to op's post is that it is "a bad thing the
conservatives did" rather than "a bad thing a
liberal is proposing we do." You can always make
another thread to laugh at conservative stupidity,
there is plenty to go around. -- ilyas
\_ Invading Iraq is a pretty grand scheme and it
has cost a fortune. So far the big results are:
Saddam Hussein in jail so he can no longer
\_ Your reaction is very interesting, ilyas, especially all the
extensions you make. Did somebody maybe press a button?
which use Li, not Pb.
threaten us with non-existant WMD, Iraq going
from oil exporter to oil importer, everyone in
the world even MORE pissed off at us, and 500+
soldiers dead. My point was, if we are going
to spend billions and billions of dollars, why
not just spend directly on stuff that we know
will actually make a difference as opposed to
stuff that might fix problems.
\_ I thought I was the only conservative
isolationist on the motd. Did you vote for
Pat, too?
\_ Hybrids are a ruse. They make people feel better about wasting
resources--it's like residential recycling programs, which make
practically no impact on resource usage. If we really wanted
50 MPG cars, we could do that with or without making them hybrid,
and hybrids have additional toxic waste problems. -tom
\_ By toxic waste, surely you're not refering to the batteries,
which use Li, not Pb.
\_ Yes, some smaller cars are already close to 50mpg but it would
mean making them even smaller and lighter which seems unsafe.
\_ bigger, heavier cars are more dangerous than smaller, lighter
cars.
\_ no.
\_ do you not understand the concept of kinetic energy? |
http://csua.com/feed/