Eliminate dependence on foreign oil with this

Post #182,963 by tuberculosis 11/4/04 10:46:37 PM Reply	Eliminate dependence on foreign oil with this [link\|http://www.fiberforge.com/\|http://www.fiberforge.com/] A colorado company - they claim to have cracked the light weight composite labor problem such that they can compete with steel on strength and manufacturing cost at a fraction of the weight. Their proof of concept project? A 90+ mpg 5 passenger luxury car (on the drawing boards - no prototype - seems they are having issues raising development capital in that the US Venture Capitalists won't invest in manufacturing technologies). We can compete in manufacturing if we wanna. "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #182,971 by Another Scott 11/4/04 11:11:32 PM Reply	Another solution. Rich Ceppos in the 11/8/2004 AutoWeek (p.12): Dear Mr. President, whoever you are: [...] You see, Mr. President, automobilies have a huge impact in both domestic and foreign policy. It's that energy thing. We all agree tht America is far too dependent on foreign oil, particularly from countries that don't exactly want to go out with us after work for a couple of beers. And second, if you think that the world is sucking up crude at a prodigious rate now, just wait until China's car market gets up to speed. Which will be, oh, next week. An analysis of vehicle ownership quoted recently by BMW chairman Helmut Panke revealed the United States has about 900 vehicles for every 1000 citizens. In Europe, it's a little more than half that. But China has just 10 cars per 1000 people. And it's already the third-largest car market (by country) after the United States and Japan, and growing like stinkweed. Don't worry, sir, I've got it figured. First, we become less dependent on foreign oil by tapping the vast reserves in the Alaskan wilderness. Some will tar me -- excuse the pun -- as being an anti-environmentalist, oil-company-loving Republican. Whatever. But I've driven the Al-Can highway through the Yukon and Alaska, which follows the Alaska pipeline for 1500 miles. Environmental impact? Imagine the entire continental United States, empty and sparsely populated, like before Columbus arrived. Now string an eight-foot-wide pipe coast-to-coast. That's what it's like in Alaska. When you're there it's a nonissue. Second, we need a gas tax that increases a dime a year for over the next 30 years. Okay, now accuse me of being an anti-free-market, tax-and-spend Democrat who wants bigger government. Whatever. Get the price of gas up to that of Europe and Asia and people will drive corresponding economical vehicles. People are smart, Mr. President. They do what's best for them. When gas gets expensive, they buy stingier cars and keep the hammer down. [...] Forget raising CAFE requirements. That will only hurt the car manufacturers and their workers, who will be forced to build smaller vehicles than people want in a cheap-gas world. All we need is the right market incentive: higher gas prices. Just be sure to ratchet up that tax very slowly, to give car makers ample time to change their vehicle mix and stay in business. That's what the 30-year horizon is all about. Start on this now and stay the course; you will be known as the president who gave America its first energy policy. [...] I like the gas tax idea. I think CAFE requirements should be raised to encorage more work on high-efficiency vehicles and less on 500 HP pickup trucks. I'm ambivalent on ANWAR drilling. Perhaps gas should be priced in the US in $/liter. On our trip to Banff, gas was C$0.85/liter. It didn't seem that expensive after a while, even though it was C$3.22/gal (about $2.67/gal). There may be psychological benefits to moving toward pricing gas in liters, but that'll probably not fly anytime soon. Cheers, Scott.
Post #182,979 by a6l6e6x 11/4/04 11:33:34 PM Reply	I've suggested the tax idea in the past. What I had suggested was a penny increase a week for 5 years. Perhaps that's to fast adapt to in both habits and products from manufacturers. But, it seems like 10 years aught to be plenty for everyone to adapt. I recall how after the second gas crunch (~1979, first crunch was in 1973) efficient cars were hard to find on dealer lots. The Japanese cars were at a premium. Detroit got serious in changing designs after that. Alex In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet (1772-1834)
Post #182,982 by Another Scott 11/4/04 11:47:00 PM Reply	Several things happened at once in the 1970s. I like your timeframe better. A 30 year timeframe seems very long to me (and we know that Congress would want to change the tax every year or so anyway). There were more stringent safety regulations (e.g. 5 mph bumpers, air bags), more stringent emissions regulations (e.g. catalytic converters became ubiquitous), and CAFE standards. It was good for the industry and for the economy because more sophisticated engines were required (e.g. 4 valve per cylinder heads), and more efficient, more sophisticated cars that the manufacturers could charge more for resulted. US manufacturers are being very short sighted by not pursuing efficiency. Honda and Toyota "get it". GM, Ford, and DC don't to anywhere near the same extent. They must see that very soon giant pickups, SUVs and minivans aren't going to sell well. If they don't get on the stick, the Japanese and Korean car companies are going to eat them up again. Hybrids are [link\|http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/hybrid8e_20041008.htm\|growing] and US companies are late to the party. I'm generally opposed to government trying to guide the market, in the abstract. But oil consumption isn't just a consumer-choice issue. It's a national security issue, it's a balance of trade issue, it's a technological competitiveness issue, and it's an environmental issue. The US needs to have government policies that recognize this, and I think that includes raising CAFE standards. Cheers, Scott. (Who remembers gas being over $1 a gallon when he was making ~$3.10 an hour.)
Post #183,035 by jb4 11/5/04 10:02:49 AM Reply	Re: pricing in liters Are you outcherfukinmind?!? We were this close [/me pinches fingers some 5 mm apart] to going completely metric in the 80's. Guess what? "We" elected a brain-dead xenophobic cowboy who couldn't understand the concept of a liter, a kilogram, or a kilometer. Compare and contrast that with today, where "we" have just elected a brain-dead xenophobic cowboy who can't understand the concept of a liter, a kilogram, or a kilometer. YKMV (Your Kilometerage May Vary) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #183,039 by drewk 11/5/04 10:13:37 AM Reply	On word usage We still talk about "dialing" phones, though most people under 21 have never seen a rotary phone. Does the rest of the english-speaking, metric-using world still use the term "milage" even though they no longer use miles? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #183,042 by jbrabeck 11/5/04 10:20:32 AM Reply	YKMV OT: While stationed in GY, I found that vehicles were not rated by mileage (how many miles per gallon) but by how many liters per 100 kilometers. Simple stated: US how far on per unit of fuel GY how much fuel for a specific distance. A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Post #183,055 by drewk 11/5/04 10:49:40 AM Reply	That's more directly useful If I know my drive to work is 50 km each way, I know without doing a conversion what that's going to cost me. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.

Welcome to IWETHEY!