Hillary Clinton Proposes 55 MPG by 2030 Through Flex-Fuel Plug-in Hybrids

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusGirlNJ @ Nov 8 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]536712[/snapback]</div>

I'll have to buy more gas cans.

But I can see a lucerative income in selling my extra gas on the secondary market.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fwellers @ Nov 8 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]536735[/snapback]</div>

It isn't senseless and it is fast enough.

55 mph saves gas. Period.

I want the freedom to go in a jewelry store and take whatever I like.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Nov 7 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]536227[/snapback]</div>

But has she cleared them with Rep Dingell, the representative from GM. Ain't gonna happen. Well, not without massive subsidies to Merican car companies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 9 2007, 12:47 AM) [snapback]537125[/snapback]</div>

and fat people. Its senseless to be fat. Being skinny saves gas and will reduce the cost of our coming national health care system.

and skiers. Its senseless to waste gas going up mountains just to break a leg and raise the cost of health for all of us.

and...and...oh, nevermind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Nov 8 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]536879[/snapback]</div>

That will NEVER happen. Oil will simply not disappear within a short period of time. It may gradually fade from its prominence it enjoys now but that will be many decades, perhaps centuries into the future.

The world will ALWAYS have oil much as the people of the world will always mine diamonds and gold. The question is how much oil will be extracted and how much people are willing to pay for it. If oil does become increasingly more difficult or more expensive to extract from the earth (and despite the "end of the world" peak oil alarmists there is no shortage presently despite world record consumption) then the price will rise accordingly. If the price reaches a point where it is economically feasible to use other energy sources then they will be utilized.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 8 2007, 09:47 PM) [snapback]537125[/snapback]</div>

No need to bother with gas cans. You can sell your ration coupons. The point is that the total amount of gas sold will be limited.

Jimmy Carter came up with 55 mph because that's the speed at which most conventional gasoline cars are most efficient in terms of miles per gallon.

Of course, slower saves lives, but 55 was a compromise between safer highways and the convenience of driving faster. I thought it was a pretty good compromise. Most Americans did not. They preferred (and still do) to murder each other with their cars at a rate orders of magnitude over what any terrorist could ever hope for, all in the name of hurry hurry hurry.

However, gas rationing would induce people to drive slower (to save what little gas they had) as well as stimulate the market for more efficient cars, electric and PHEV cars, and alternative transportation. And stimulating the market would stimulate development of such technologies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 9 2007, 07:06 AM) [snapback]537232[/snapback]</div>

What will happen is that the rising price (due to peak production combined with exponentially-increasing demand from newly-developing countries, especially China and India) will gradually cripple our economy, unless we develop alternatives. EVs and PHEVs are among those alternatives. There will not be a single all-encompassing solution. We have to start getting creative. But it will take energy to develop alternatives, so if we wait until oil is $1,000 a barrel before we begin, the solutions may be so expensive to implement that our economy falls into chaos.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 9 2007, 11:06 AM) [snapback]537232[/snapback]</div>

"If"?

Oil is already more difficult and expensive to extract.

The oil find announced today by Petrobras off the coast of Brazil is in 7,000 feet of water!

The Tupi field lies under 2,140 meters (7,060 feet) of water, more than 3,000 meters (almost 10,000 feet) of sand and rocks, and then another 2,000-meter (6,600-foot) thick layer of salt. The company drilled test wells that lie under 2,166 meters (7,100 feet) of water, 286 kilometers (177 miles) south of Rio de Janeiro.

Getting that oil out of the Earth's crust is a formidable challenge, but most of Brazil's oil lies off its Atlantic coast, and Petrobras has become a global leader in ultradeep offshore oil extraction.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/...l.ap/index.html

"Peak Oil alarmists?" I'd call them Peak Oil realists. Peak Oil is here, in fact, it is behind us. There is a shortage presently, due to decreasing production and increasing consumption. The price has risen accordingly, and is close to $100/barrel.

Harry

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 8 2007, 10:11 PM) [snapback]537118[/snapback]</div>

Actually we do. The maximum vehicle length in most states is 40 feet. I suppose you could get a permit to do it with appropriate pilot vehicles though.


Anybody who ways flex-fuel and 55mpg in the same sentence clearly doesn't understand energy and you should question their credentials as a candidate.

I'd rather see a candidate come up with a decent energy policy. One that gets us off of petroleum and coal. Lets encourage wind/solar/geothermal. Better tax cuts for this. The more installations we have, the cheaper the technology gets. Encourage more nuclear plants.

 

55, 65,70,80,90 & 100 mph.....

Anyone remember the 1903 Model A?



What was the top speed of the Model A ?




Most people remember the 1927 - 1931 model A.

Anyone have the stats / mpg's on the model A?

Then we could use them as a example of our progression to today... B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2007, 07:56 AM) [snapback]537252[/snapback]</div>

The 55 MPH national speed limit was enacted during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon. Jimmy Carter wore a cardigan sweater in the White House to save energy.

Statement on Signing the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act

Timeline: Jimmy Carter

 

[Of course, slower saves lives, but 55 was a compromise between safer highways and the convenience of driving faster. I thought it was a pretty good compromise. Most Americans did not. They preferred (and still do) to murder each other with their cars at a rate orders of magnitude over what any terrorist could ever hope for, all in the name of hurry hurry hurry.
[/quote]



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home, most likely around intersections where the speed limit is well below 55mph.

But nobody ever accused the govt of being smart now did they. Why not punish everyone for the mistakes of a few. That's the way the lemmings love to be goverened. Never mind about all the millions of miles of road where 55 isn't even realistic. Let's just make it simple for big brother to control us and keep everyone below 55.

I sure hope nobody here is advocating that it is illegal for me to be in a hurry, or somehow that it's morally wrong enough to warrant punishing me with restrictive laws that don't make sense.



Don't get me started, I'm already highly pissed that I have to pay a sin tax because I smoke.

 

I don't trust that Hillary will do anything she says she will do. Just like most of the current politicians in office.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Nov 9 2007, 08:57 AM) [snapback]537283[/snapback]</div>

I stand corrected on the size of motor home one can drive to the grocery store.

The point is that it is legal in the U.S. to squander critical national and world resources. Several posters here (like the majority of Americans) believe it is their god-given right to burn the last drop of oil, and let the next generation worry about how they're going to get food from the farm to the grocery store. Of course, oil is not the only critical resource, but it is emblematic. Water is another.

On another thread, some posters are arguing in favor of a presidential candidate who believes that government should put no limits on personal freedom.

This is how civilizations collapse: by depleting their resources; but who cares, as long as someone else pays the price?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fwellers @ Nov 9 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]537441[/snapback]</div>

So you feel that the taxpayers should bear the burden of smoking-induced diseases? I suppose you also feel that you have a right to force everyone around you (including your children) to inhale your second-hand smoke and suffer the health consequences? Or perhaps you deny the health effects of smoking? The fact that tobacco remains legal at all is a national disgrace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]537450[/snapback]</div>

How would you efficiently enforce the use of resources? I would propose that the market does a good job of it. As the supply decreases, the price of that resource increases. As gas prices increased, we saw many people change their habits. They bought more efficient cars, carpooled, or rode bikes. Prices will continue to get higher, reducing the cost of newer technologies and encouraging R&D into new energy storage.

In the book 'Collapse', the author explained how the depletion of natural resources would lead to the demise of a civilization. I would say that it doesn't matter if we use up the last drop of petroleum, because we have other means of producing energy and new technologies keep popping up. In Collapse, he explains how Easter Island's people disappeared because they cut down all the trees, which had a domino effect that lead to food shortages and everybody dying or leaving. In our case, petroleum is not like trees (in fact, our environment could be better off without it).

I don't think smoking related diseases is a good analogy for using up petroleum. My using an excessive amount of petroleum is not going to have a statistically significant impact on my kids like second hand smoke would.

Now let me say that I am all for ending our addiction to petroleum ASAP. I feel that our oil dollars enable a bunch of crackpots like Chavez and the idiots in the middle east. I grew up in LA, so I have seen firsthand byproducts of auto pollution. I just disagree that we have to enforce efficient use of petroleum at the person level.

 

China who used little Oil, is expected to surpass the US usage (we consume more than anyone) soon. ( 2 years).

Other countries that did not use much, are heavy users.

Don't kid yourself. This is not a renewable resource, and folks are using more everyday, not less.

 

waaay too little, waaaay too late

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fwellers @ Nov 9 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]537441[/snapback]</div>

Consider it insurance you pay into so when you are dying of a smoking induced sickness the rest of society is paying less than they normally would for your stupidity.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Nov 9 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]537476[/snapback]</div>

When the market is subsidiesed in the wrong manner this screws up the market. The endangered species trade is another example of a market gone bad even without perverse subsidies.

Are you assuming that the oil used somehow disspears? Who is the environment "better off without it"? Oil does not magically dissapear, it simply changes form and in this new form it has other effects on biological health and geographic systems.

Again, look up the effects of fossil fuel combustion and where those chemicals go and whatsystems they affect. There are statistics showing the connection with burning fossil fuels and childrens health in nearly every large city in the developed world. Think athsma or the LA study that found 1 out of 4 children in LA had lung lessions. This doesn't even account of the environmental effects that will have an impact on your child's life.

Didn't you just say that "My using an excessive amount of petroleum is not going to have a statistically significant impact on my kids like second hand smoke would"? This sounds contradictory given the last part of your reply above.

I appologize for picking apart your post in particular but there were items I deem incorrect and wanted to add input.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2007, 09:56 AM) [snapback]537252[/snapback]</div>

Back then cars were more efficient at that speed. Today though they are more efficient at higher speeds. Cars now have highly advanced fuel management systems where the fuel/air ratio is constantly kept at the proper 17:1 ratio. Transmissions have far exceeded what was available in the 70's with higher gear ratios and overdrives. Engines are turning over at lower rpms to maintain higher speeds. Cars are also more aerodynamic than they were back then, they no longer are bricks pushing against the wind. My 2001 crown Vic gets 25 MPg at 65, and only 21 at 55. So lowering the speed limit will REDUCE the miles per gallon I get. Dont compare the Prius to a normal car when driving on the highway, they are not as efficient at high speeds as they are in city driving. In fact they are like the only car that has higher city driving numbers than highway numbers. As another poster pointed out, time is money, lowering speeds will increase time, and time is money when it comes to the trucking industry, which has a trickle down effect, the end user winds up paying for it.


As for the OP, Gasoline engines have reached their limit as far as efficiency. As I mentioned above, 17:1 is the exact fuel to air ratio required for a clean burn, which gives the most power efficiently. You try to change that and you either lose power, or you produce dirty emissions. Toyota had years back played with lean burn technology by using ceramics for the valves and pistons to combat the high heat generated by running lean, but could not get the emissions to meet the standards back then, and they are much stricter now. They were able to obtain 50 MPG, impressive, but very dirty. Carburated engines were able to get much higher MPG ratings, but they were not able to meet todays emissions standards. If you look at the cars sold today, you rarely see a car that shows better than 35 MPG, and that is about all you will get out of the current engine design, the only exceptions are those that are very small and under powered. Hybrids are the current gap filler until a more efficient power plant can be built economically that can use existing resources without having to build an entirely new infrastructure. The Chevy Volt seems like a nice concept, it still uses fuel though because current technology still has its limits as far as range. I am a bit surprised it doesn't use regenerative braking though.

Does anyone remember the electric cars from the 70's? They looked like golf carts with doors.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Nov 29 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]545687[/snapback]</div>

so what is your point?? keep being stupid?? forget progress??

ignore new technology?? continue to waste resources because it worked 6 years ago??

you need to recheck your figures

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 7 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]536284[/snapback]</div>

So let me get this straight, Ron Paul's environmental policy relies on me winning a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil... I like my EPA and want so see them more powerful and more independent of political appointees.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(siouxnami @ Nov 29 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]545708[/snapback]</div>

The EPA is a government agency... Good luck with that.