What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

stevedebi

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well of course you are entitled to that opinion. I'm just framing this for business people who are in a competitive environment that has to respond to Global Warming issues--- that the train is leaving the station, so hop on or be left behind.

I suspect that business is wasting their time and money, but as they say, time will tell. If they are interested in mitigating potential warming, that is another story - by all means, that is potentially money well spent.

ruking1

Enjoy it while it lasts !

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/pickens-oil-back-100-12-231500313.html

Here is an interesting prediction.

Pickens: Oil back to $100 in 12-18 months
CNBC Videos by CNBC Videos

What BO really needs is WADKA ?

Mr_Shiftright

I think that's probably inevitable. It's somewhat of a dangerous situation if the world economy somehow gets propped up solely by cheap oil. Why? Because that can change in the snap of the fingers, and economies don't like fast changes. People start to jump ship and it can escalate into panic. I'm sure we all remember that some years ago.

Anyway, if other EU countries take France's lead (or threat at this point) to stop subsidizing diesel by mitigating the taxes on it, now THAT could have some real effect on the diesel car industry in Europe.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

I think that's probably inevitable. It's somewhat of a dangerous situation if the world economy somehow gets propped up solely by cheap oil. Why? Because that can change in the snap of the fingers, and economies don't like fast changes. People start to jump ship and it can escalate into panic. I'm sure we all remember that some years ago.

Anyway, if other EU countries take France's lead (or threat at this point) to stop subsidizing diesel by mitigating the taxes on it, now THAT could have some real effect on the diesel car industry in Europe.

I'd guess not likely. If we look at what has happened to gas/hybrids since 2003 or 12 years. Keep I'm mind that places like France have the price of fuel much higher than ours. They are not likely going to drop the price of the alternate fuel (gas for example) enough to make it a screaming deal.

In fact for how much our government wanted gas/hybrid growth (less than 2.5%) has been a real disappointment from the goal of 10 to 15%. Car ownership and fuel are WAY cheaper in the US than France and Europe.

gagrice

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yep. As one Wall St. whiz put it to an interviewer: "Let's both invest $10,000 dollars in 2014. You bet against all 'green' technology and I'll bet everything on green tech. In 20 years I'll be rich and you'll be broke."

Yeah, why is that?--terrorists seem to prefer Toyotas and car thieves like Hondas.

Let's roll up our sleeves and encourage people to STEAL AMERICAN!

There was a time that Oldsmobile was the target for car theives. I guess GM fooled them.

ruking1

Local Indy prices

ULSD $ 3.55
RUG $ 2.95
MGUG $ 3.05
PUG $ 3.15

The prices move at literal GLACIAL speeds, BEFORE global warming aka ICE AGE, and EXTREME MALTHUSIAN shortages , aka 2.0 global CLIMATE change,

My hopes for $1.85 ULSD ( circa 2003) seem CRUSHED

gagrice

This has to be a record for VW.

The Touareg delivered 578 units, 319 of which were Clean Diesel TDI, amounting to 55.2 percent of sales of the model.

This looks to me like a supply not meeting demand problem at VW:

TDI Clean Diesel sales amounted to 17.2 percent of total November sales

Is VW really that interested in the US entry level market? They keep setting sales records with Audi.

Audi reported November U.S. sales increased 22.0% to 16,640 vehicles, marking the 47th consecutive month of record U.S. sales for the brand. Audi U.S. sales year-to-date increased 15.4% to 162,773 vehicles sold, setting a new annual sales record with 1 month to go in 2014.

• November sales mix for Audi TDI models: Audi A3 TDI at 7.4%; Audi A6 TDI at 8.1%; Audi A7 TDI at 12.6%; A8 TDI at 9.5%; Audi Q5 TDI at 14.3%, Audi Q7 TDI at 19.1%, with an overall mix of 12.2% on 1,394 total TDI sales for November.
• Audi holds the longest running monthly record sales streak in the premium car market according to a competitive sales report from MotorIntelligence.com.

ruking1

The VW Touareg TDI seems to be an exception, where it is up (to 55.2 %) from previous years, which have been lower. It probably goes without saying, the Touareg line is NOT the typical American VW, nor probably more importantly, does not appeal to the same demographic/s. It would seem to STRETCH it.

My .02 cent take: what an opportunity to experience a 3.0 L TDI !!! @ ZERO % ??? Given best deal and thrown in incentives? Walk out with no money down after signing ones name? NO BRAINER !!!

It would seem that VW/Audi TDI percentage % sales are down from previous years, where the percentages% have been up.

I think the drop in % TDI sales are probably due to what you have said in the pass: in selling TDI's @ market/s that will post greater % profit/s. However, it does appear the overall TDI unit sales are up and dramatically. In other words and longer story short,, the mix and results are designed to maximize profits and %'s

gagrice

Here is another plus for VW that I can agree with 100%.

VOLKSWAGEN CREDIT RANKS NO. 1 IN J.D. POWER 2014 U.S. CONSUMER FINANCING SATISFACTION STUDY

http://media.vw.com/release/891/

Mr_Shiftright

What exactly are the criteria for attaining satisfaction about financing?

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

What exactly are the criteria for attaining satisfaction about financing?

I would guess that JD Powers considers that proprietary information.

I just glossed over my experiences, but those are anecdotal.

17.5 M projected 2014 sales is a BROAD macro to the TDI's smaller place and contribution. Some have projected 5% of sales (ergo app 875,000 TDI units) .

houdini1

Mr_Shiftright said:

RE: France banning diesels --- not only France, but city of Rotterdam and the Netherlands may be jumping on this bandwagon.

Given that much of our best diesel technology comes out of Europe, this isn't good news for the future of diesel cars in America, seems to me. What do you think? An evil portent of the future, or just eccentricity within the EU?

RE: Corporate taxes---that is correct, the USA has a higher *statutory* RATE but in practice, due to a very generous depreciation schedule, US corporations actually pay far less than the statutory rate. Corporations do not have a sovereign allegiance, and especially not energy corporations. The actual pay rate is elusive, because it differs so much among the types of business. If you group certain coporations, you'd get about 19%, but if you cherry-pick other lists, you can show a 27% rate actually paid. So somewhere in there is the real number, and that puts it lower than much of the EU.

RE: Global Climate Change --- the pendulum seems to be swinging toward acceptance of anthropological climate change in 2014, as new data pours in month to month, so I think anyone in the business world had better get on the bandwagon ASAP, even if they are still somewhat skeptical, just as a good hedge bet. The "debate" is pretty much over, ( "debate": being defined as the use of actual evidence gathered in the field, within the scientific community, not opinion outside of science) although the particulars of the science evidence is still being worked out, as are the cost vs. benefit calculations. In other words, some proposed solutions may be too expensive to implement, while others are feasible. So I see the debate shifting from "is it true" to "what are sensible vs. wasteful solutions"

All new scientific discoveries are challenged very rigorously, which historically has been a good thing to do. Even great scientists were debating whether radioactivity was real, as late as 1930s.

I think just about all the automakers are on board with climate change challenges and solutions. Seems like they are taking it seriously.

RE: Where is the auto industry going with this? I'm seeing a trend toward plug-in hybrid as the immediate future response. I don't see why diesels technology can't be part of it

During a debate, whenever anyone says "The debate is over", you immediately know two things: One, the debate is not over, and two, whoever said the debate is over is losing the debate.

ruking1

Especially when things like record COLD grips the majority of the nation and tweaks deniers noses (not consistent with GLOBAL WARMING) . Winter conditions of course sees an increase in the use of carbon producing emissions, oh tsk tsk !

Even Warren Buffet says that damage from hurricanes and hurricanes are down dramatically (way less in paid out claims). Hard to label him an anti BO POTUS agenda Oracle.

stever

SENATE BANS ‘COAL ROLLING’

Different Senate. NJspotlight.com story.

Mr_Shiftright

I meant the scientific debate, not the political one. Sorry for the confusion.

I should have worded that differently, you're right!

What I meant is that American business (Fortune 500 et al) and scientists are teaming up and not waiting for Washington DC to catch up to the realities of Global Warming.

So you know, if science buys in, and business buys in, what have you got left but inevitably throwing in the towel or maintaining an outlier position? Momentum is not in favor of the denier at this point in time except in one area (see below)

Of course, you can still get elected as a Global Warmer denier---I'm not disputing that at all. In fact, it just happened!

The denier or opposing position still has legs, yes, and quite a bit of credibility among the non-scientific, non-business community. Point taken, and the contrary position is real enough in that respect.

houdini1 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

RE: France banning diesels --- not only France, but city of Rotterdam and the Netherlands may be jumping on this bandwagon.

Given that much of our best diesel technology comes out of Europe, this isn't good news for the future of diesel cars in America, seems to me. What do you think? An evil portent of the future, or just eccentricity within the EU?

RE: Corporate taxes---that is correct, the USA has a higher *statutory* RATE but in practice, due to a very generous depreciation schedule, US corporations actually pay far less than the statutory rate. Corporations do not have a sovereign allegiance, and especially not energy corporations. The actual pay rate is elusive, because it differs so much among the types of business. If you group certain coporations, you'd get about 19%, but if you cherry-pick other lists, you can show a 27% rate actually paid. So somewhere in there is the real number, and that puts it lower than much of the EU.

RE: Global Climate Change --- the pendulum seems to be swinging toward acceptance of anthropological climate change in 2014, as new data pours in month to month, so I think anyone in the business world had better get on the bandwagon ASAP, even if they are still somewhat skeptical, just as a good hedge bet. The "debate" is pretty much over, ( "debate": being defined as the use of actual evidence gathered in the field, within the scientific community, not opinion outside of science) although the particulars of the science evidence is still being worked out, as are the cost vs. benefit calculations. In other words, some proposed solutions may be too expensive to implement, while others are feasible. So I see the debate shifting from "is it true" to "what are sensible vs. wasteful solutions"

All new scientific discoveries are challenged very rigorously, which historically has been a good thing to do. Even great scientists were debating whether radioactivity was real, as late as 1930s.

I think just about all the automakers are on board with climate change challenges and solutions. Seems like they are taking it seriously.

RE: Where is the auto industry going with this? I'm seeing a trend toward plug-in hybrid as the immediate future response. I don't see why diesels technology can't be part of it

During a debate, whenever anyone says "The debate is over", you immediately know two things: One, the debate is not over, and two, whoever said the debate is over is losing the debate.

nyccarguy

All this talk about how Audi is increasing their sales and their TDI sales. Why no A3 TDI or A4 TDI with QUATTRO?

Mr_Shiftright

you mean in the US? I'd guess it would price the car out of the market.

nyccarguy

Yes in the US.

It appears the editors here at edmunds like their RAM 1500 ECO DIESEL

http://www.edmunds.com/ram/1500/2014/long-term-road-test/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-20000-miles-in-7-5-months.html

Mr_Shiftright

I would think the A4 Avant TDI would sell well in the US, what with the current CUV craze going on.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

I meant the scientific debate, not the political one. Sorry for the confusion.

What I meant was that no car company is now advertising: "Global Warming is a Hoax, Folks. Buy our cars and trucks instead!"

Nor is any scientist of any note advising any corporation producing diesel fuels at this moment to ignore Anthropomorphic Global Warming as an irrelevancy that they need not pay attention to in either PR or product development.

So you know, if science buys in, and business buys in, what have you got left but inevitably throwing in the towel? Momentum is not in favor of the denier at this point in time.

Of course, you can still get elected as a Global Warmer Denier---I'm not disputing that at all.

In that respect, the denier position still has legs, yes, and quite a bit of credibility among the non-scientific community. Point taken.

houdini1 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

RE: France banning diesels --- not only France, but city of Rotterdam and the Netherlands may be jumping on this bandwagon.

Given that much of our best diesel technology comes out of Europe, this isn't good news for the future of diesel cars in America, seems to me. What do you think? An evil portent of the future, or just eccentricity within the EU?

RE: Corporate taxes---that is correct, the USA has a higher *statutory* RATE but in practice, due to a very generous depreciation schedule, US corporations actually pay far less than the statutory rate. Corporations do not have a sovereign allegiance, and especially not energy corporations. The actual pay rate is elusive, because it differs so much among the types of business. If you group certain coporations, you'd get about 19%, but if you cherry-pick other lists, you can show a 27% rate actually paid. So somewhere in there is the real number, and that puts it lower than much of the EU.

RE: Global Climate Change --- the pendulum seems to be swinging toward acceptance of anthropological climate change in 2014, as new data pours in month to month, so I think anyone in the business world had better get on the bandwagon ASAP, even if they are still somewhat skeptical, just as a good hedge bet. The "debate" is pretty much over, ( "debate": being defined as the use of actual evidence gathered in the field, within the scientific community, not opinion outside of science) although the particulars of the science evidence is still being worked out, as are the cost vs. benefit calculations. In other words, some proposed solutions may be too expensive to implement, while others are feasible. So I see the debate shifting from "is it true" to "what are sensible vs. wasteful solutions"

All new scientific discoveries are challenged very rigorously, which historically has been a good thing to do. Even great scientists were debating whether radioactivity was real, as late as 1930s.

I think just about all the automakers are on board with climate change challenges and solutions. Seems like they are taking it seriously.

RE: Where is the auto industry going with this? I'm seeing a trend toward plug-in hybrid as the immediate future response. I don't see why diesels technology can't be part of it

During a debate, whenever anyone says "The debate is over", you immediately know two things: One, the debate is not over, and two, whoever said the debate is over is losing the debate.

To state the obvious, you are blowing the issue WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. US market PVF uses ULSD delivered 15 ppm standard and nominally @ the pumps @ 5 to 10 ppm !! You continue to ignore the RUG/PUG advocated is anywhere from 2 to 18 times dirtier !!! You either deny it (DENIER) because you KNOW EXACTLY what it means. OR on the other hand, don't have a clue. Another would be if you ignore RUG/PUG you think then by ignoring it will then CAUSE ZERO pollution!! ??

Another is you see precious few folks shifting from bunker oil @ 25,000 ppm sulfur for sea transport, let alone to dirtier than ULSD, RUG/PUG. So the order of pollution magnitude @ 15/5/10 ppm is 1667 TIMES/5,000 TIMES 2,500 times GREATER !!! Against biodiesel? @ ZERO to1 ppm sulfur? It is a minimum of 25,000 TIMES GREATER to almost incalculable.

So what kind of ships fuel is used by GREENPEACE when they sail on the seas???? One issue for me is the "FAITHFUL" don't even do what they advocate.

gagrice

nyccarguy said:

Yes in the US.

It appears the editors here at edmunds like their RAM 1500 ECO DIESEL

http://www.edmunds.com/ram/1500/2014/long-term-road-test/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-20000-miles-in-7-5-months.html

Not just Edmunds are big on the Ram Diesel:

The judges were particularly impressed with the performance of the Ram 1500’s EcoDiesel V-6 engine as well as its eight-speed TorqueFlite transmission, a combination that boasts best-in-class 28 mpg fuel economy. The 1500 was named 2015 Green Truck of the Year by the Green Car Journal in November, and earned a “Best Buy” designation from Consumer Guide Automotive and Consumers Digest.

Mr_Shiftright

You can't snap your fingers and switch energy sources. All you can do in the age of interim energy is make the best possible choices with what it available.

I mean, everybody didn't just scrap their electric and steam cars in 1912 when Cadillac came out with the self-starting ICE, nor did they send their horses to the glue factory.

Transitions take time. Greenspeace isn't going to row to the Bering Straits.

gagrice

Looks like the lower priced gas has given rise to SUV sales this November.

Jeep brand sales were up 27 percent, the brand’s best sales performance ever in the month of November and its 14th-consecutive month of year-over-year sales gains.

This should make Toyota smile:

Toyota 4Runner up more than 53 percent for the month
Highlander post record November sales of 13,476, up 16.7 percent

Even Ford is happy:

Ford Escape posts best November sales ever; sales of 25,528 vehicles are up 22 percent
Ford Explorer sales of 14,949 vehicles represent vehicle’s best November results since 2004

Even the Gas Hogs from GM are kicking butt:

Cadillac Escalade deliveries were up 91 percent, with the retail days supply very tight at 16 days.


An interesting race is between the two top luxo brands. BMW has less than an 1800 car lead over Mercedes for the year. They are both tight lipped about their diesel sales.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

You can't snap your fingers and switch energy sources. All you can do in the age of interim energy is make the best possible choices with what it available.

I mean, everybody didn't just scrap their electric and steam cars in 1912 when Cadillac came out with the self-starting ICE, nor did they send their horses to the glue factory.

Transitions take time. Greenspeace isn't going to row to the Bering Straits.

Well, on EVERY point, you made my case, So quit snapping the fingers already.

houdini1

Mr_Shiftright said:

I meant the scientific debate, not the political one. Sorry for the confusion.

I should have worded that differently, you're right!

What I meant is that American business (Fortune 500 et al) and scientists are teaming up and not waiting for Washington DC to catch up to the realities of Global Warming.

So you know, if science buys in, and business buys in, what have you got left but inevitably throwing in the towel or maintaining an outlier position? Momentum is not in favor of the denier at this point in time except in one area (see below)

Of course, you can still get elected as a Global Warmer denier---I'm not disputing that at all. In fact, it just happened!

The denier or opposing position still has legs, yes, and quite a bit of credibility among the non-scientific, non-business community. Point taken, and the contrary position is real enough in that respect.

houdini1 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

RE: France banning diesels --- not only France, but city of Rotterdam and the Netherlands may be jumping on this bandwagon.

Given that much of our best diesel technology comes out of Europe, this isn't good news for the future of diesel cars in America, seems to me. What do you think? An evil portent of the future, or just eccentricity within the EU?

RE: Corporate taxes---that is correct, the USA has a higher *statutory* RATE but in practice, due to a very generous depreciation schedule, US corporations actually pay far less than the statutory rate. Corporations do not have a sovereign allegiance, and especially not energy corporations. The actual pay rate is elusive, because it differs so much among the types of business. If you group certain coporations, you'd get about 19%, but if you cherry-pick other lists, you can show a 27% rate actually paid. So somewhere in there is the real number, and that puts it lower than much of the EU.

RE: Global Climate Change --- the pendulum seems to be swinging toward acceptance of anthropological climate change in 2014, as new data pours in month to month, so I think anyone in the business world had better get on the bandwagon ASAP, even if they are still somewhat skeptical, just as a good hedge bet. The "debate" is pretty much over, ( "debate": being defined as the use of actual evidence gathered in the field, within the scientific community, not opinion outside of science) although the particulars of the science evidence is still being worked out, as are the cost vs. benefit calculations. In other words, some proposed solutions may be too expensive to implement, while others are feasible. So I see the debate shifting from "is it true" to "what are sensible vs. wasteful solutions"

All new scientific discoveries are challenged very rigorously, which historically has been a good thing to do. Even great scientists were debating whether radioactivity was real, as late as 1930s.

I think just about all the automakers are on board with climate change challenges and solutions. Seems like they are taking it seriously.

RE: Where is the auto industry going with this? I'm seeing a trend toward plug-in hybrid as the immediate future response. I don't see why diesels technology can't be part of it

During a debate, whenever anyone says "The debate is over", you immediately know two things: One, the debate is not over, and two, whoever said the debate is over is losing the debate.

There is no way to separate the science from the politics on this one so there is only one debate here.

Mr_Shiftright

Sure there is. Politicians aren't scientists. They even admit that. That's why we have scientists, to inform politicians on energy policy---those who are willing to listen.

If they don't listen, then the train leaves the station without them.

If some automobile company wants to build coal-powered SUVs, more power to 'em. Let market realities decide which way the winds blow.

gagrice

Mr_Shiftright said:

Sure there is. Politicians aren't scientists. They even admit that. That's why we have scientists, to inform politicians on energy policy---those who are willing to listen.

If they don't listen, then the train leaves the station without them.

If some automobile company wants to build coal-powered SUVs, more power to 'em. Let market realities decide which way the winds blow.

What I am seeing is the politicians telling the scientist what result they want to see. If they want to stay on the train it better be the right result. Those on the government dole are as suspect as those on Big oil payroll. There are only a few unbiased or should I say scientists that have not been corrupted by Corporate or government greed.

stever

$3.79 for diesel in LA. Must be a record.

Flying the puddle jumper to El Paso this afternoon (not complaining about a short trip mind you), and you have to bus to the remote terminal. The diesel buses idle non-stop and they overpower the jet fuel fumes. If any outfit needs some NG or electric buses, it's American Airlines.

Mr_Shiftright

Diesel engines like to idle. They are very good at it!

stever

I never did understand why you can't simply turn an engine off and turn it back on again a minute or five later. Must be an inherent diesel engine fault.

Mr_Shiftright

A typical truck diesel would burn about 1 gallon per hour while idling.

stever

Getting zero mpg. Even reefers get plugged in at Flying Js these days.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

Sure there is. Politicians aren't scientists. They even admit that. That's why we have scientists, to inform politicians on energy policy---those who are willing to listen.

If they don't listen, then the train leaves the station without them.

If some automobile company wants to build coal-powered SUVs, more power to 'em. Let market realities decide which way the winds blow.

Truly unless one just stepped off the bus back from another galaxy, the real issue as described is the sound of one hand clapping.

The full truth is the politics IS the SCIENCE and the science IS the POLITICS.

IF one IS a scientist that is not a global "warmacist" (the faithful), you probably don't have a JOB or are walking the proverbial (short) plant if you do happen to have a science job.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

A typical truck diesel would burn about 1 gallon per hour while idling.

I assume you are referring to a tractor trailer rig that normally gets 6 mpg. That consumption rate @ idle would be 17% or 4.98 mpg instead.

What should be listed is what a gasser under the similar circumstances would be posting.

So for example a typical VW TDI (CAR) by VAG.com will burn .2 gal per hr. 25.6 oz. I do not know what a gasser VW would get. My guess is that figure would exceed 25.6 oz per hour. So on a 48 to 52 mpg TDI (includes a lot of idle time should be able to post better mpg, or go faster and or longer.

gagrice

We did some research in the Arctic where we left our gas vans running 10-12 hours a day. According to GM wear on the engines is equal to driving 45 MPH. So I assume a V8 gasser would use at least a couple gallons per hour idling. We filled our vans every day until we started buying Ford crew cab diesels. Which were equipped with Idle control. After about 5 minutes it would kick the engine up to 1600 RPM, to keep it warm enough. They built a heated shop after I retired so they could pull in and shut down until they needed the truck.

Mr_Shiftright

Did you catch the number of Fortune 500 CEOs at the recent UN Climate Summit?

The winds of change are upon us!

RE: Fuel consumed by gasoline car engines (typical car, light truck)

Ranges from 1/4 gallon per hour to maybe 5/8 gallon per hour.

source: Green Action Center of Canada

or

10 minutes idling = 5 miles driving

I also learned something arcane but interesting about diesel motors in locomotives. They don't use anti-freeze and so must idle continuously in cold weather.

dudleyr

Those vehicles sure use a lot of gas at idle. My scangauge II shows my car idles at .2 Gallons Per Hour once warmed up - not Arctic temps though, but South Dakota in winter. I would think diesels could do at least as well.

And I don't think anybody accused politicians of any party of being inherently smart. I am with science and business. There are still politicians that believe the earth is 10,000 years old and you can probably find some that think the earth is flat.

Global warming is guess what - "global". It is the temp of the Earth not a few random spots that may be cold. Throw an ice cube in a bucket of chili and the chili is still hot everywhere else.

Here is a recent pic of local prices. This place has one of the largest differences I have seen.

stever

I used to buy that brand of gas when I was in the UP. Usually an okay price and Top Tier too.

That may be the winner for the RUG/diesel price differential.

houdini1

Mr_Shiftright said:

Sure there is. Politicians aren't scientists. They even admit that. That's why we have scientists, to inform politicians on energy policy---those who are willing to listen.

If they don't listen, then the train leaves the station without them.

If some automobile company wants to build coal-powered SUVs, more power to 'em. Let market realities decide which way the winds blow.

Many auto companies have been building coal powered SUVS for years now, with more on the way. They are called electrics and hybrids. Where do you think that electricity comes from that powers these things?

stever

Oh but it's all "clean" coal now, just like "clean" diesel. The rest comes from "safe" nukes.

ruking1

So really ANYTHING ELECTRIC/HYBRID is really by both definition and DE-FACTO "safe"" NUCKCLEAR" and COAL (MAJORITY @ 65% PLUS+) !!!

Indeed, I do not know the exact %, but swagged @ 20% that nuclear provides, as it remains an open but hidden secret.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

So for example the nuclear power plant in Japan that went down in the earthquake provided 10% of Japan's needs. I have read the plan is to decommission and "board UP" the place. The power is slated to be replaced with a natural gas power plant and attending logistical infrastructure. The natural gas fuel is most likely to come from the US. @ up to 4 times the cost of US rates. Naturally is is also way more than the nuclear power it is replacing. So how much of the decommissioning and natural start up costs will come out of the hides of the Japanese consumers? The new power costs, as one can see will be many times more.

I have read and heard through various sources that COAL is a minority work horse @ 40 to 45%. So say nuclear is @ 20%+. So both HATED and vilified systems provide the MAJORITY of power @ 65 % PLUS, for the electrical/hybrid systems !!!!! The other %'s are provided by hydro, etc. and natural gas, which are almost as hated and vilified as nuclear and coal. (aka free those damned dams, etc) SOLAR & wind are SO inefficient and ineffective (@ 2%??? and that might be inflated ) that they can not be relied on in any meaningful way. Indeed they are given an almost 2 cent per KWH tax credit and other write offs just to keep it viable in the market place. To state the obvious, it is totally disingenuous to force changes to COAL, NUCLEAR, HDRO, and NATURAL GAS, etc which are so hated and vilified !!!! ???

I just ran a quick and dirty break even based on my monthly ELECTRICAL ($2.49 per day) consumption and a $30,000 solar system and it would take 44 years. Of course, it would be a miracle if the solar system needed no maintenance, repair or replacement. God willing, I would be almost 110 years old to break even. The current fees already include a CA nuclear power plant decommissioning. Of course, when and if they want to get me off Natural GAS, there are whole sets of enormous costs to convert. 44 years is also way longer than an unreasonable 30 year mortgage.

houdini1

Even though it might not pay off financially, if going solar will enable you to live to the ripe old age of 110, then I say go for it !

stever

Go for it - I just got a 30 year home loan that I'll have paid off when I'm 92.

Nothing is static and the solar industry isn't sitting still any more than the oil and gas industry is. Efficiencies keep increasing. Who heard of fracking five years ago? Coal is barely economical right now as it is and frackers are getting a bit concerned. (Forbes)

More stuff we sort of already knew:

"From each barrel of oil, U.S. refineries produce 18 to 21 gallons of gasoline and 10 to 12 gallons of diesel fuel, on average, according to the convenience and fuel retailing association.

"Refinery yields can be somewhat tweaked, but to produce significantly more (diesel) would require significant upgrades costing billions of dollars," the association says on its website."

Diesel fuel prices remain stubbornly high (jsonline.com)

gagrice

stever said:

Oh but it's all "clean" coal now, just like "clean" diesel. The rest comes from "safe" nukes.

Well Obama has the Eco Nuts wanting to slash their wrists. And his last Energy Czar went into it full blast.

Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.

What a difference a year makes when the Oligarchy helps you see the light.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/11/steven-chu-coal-is-my-worst-nightmare/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/14/obama-energy-nominee-chu-backs-clean-coal/

http://energy.gov/articles/obama-administration-announces-clean-coal-research-awards-universities-across-country

ruking1

stever said:

Go for it - I just got a 30 year home loan that I'll have paid off when I'm 92.

Nothing is static and the solar industry isn't sitting still any more than the oil and gas industry is. Efficiencies keep increasing. Who heard of fracking five years ago? Coal is barely economical right now as it is and frackers are getting a bit concerned. (Forbes)

More stuff we sort of already knew:

"From each barrel of oil, U.S. refineries produce 18 to 21 gallons of gasoline and 10 to 12 gallons of diesel fuel, on average, according to the convenience and fuel retailing association.

"Refinery yields can be somewhat tweaked, but to produce significantly more (diesel) would require significant upgrades costing billions of dollars," the association says on its website."

Diesel fuel prices remain stubbornly high (jsonline.com)

No actually you apply the %'s incorrectly. Given a barrel of oils' production, with 95% being RUG/PUG use, will it take more or LESS barrels of oil than if there were app 40% diesel consumption ??? So structurally you have to use more barrels of oil produce more gals to maintain 95% RUG/PUG use. It is also @ much higher prices (than if we had closer to 40% diesel population) for obvious reasons.

Diesel is also in the backbone structure of the US economy. It also is used (EXPORTED) in the US balance of payments. It is charged more taxes, It is 30%+ PLUS more efficient than RUG/PUG. It also has the competitive heating oil market also. So as one MIGHT not SEE, it is a major component in the LESS use of fuel and not MORE.

ruking1

houdini1 said:

Even though it might not pay off financially, if going solar will enable you to live to the ripe old age of 110, then I say go for it !

No it doesn't, as you well know.

Indeed if "they" want these so much, they should pay folks like YOU & me to get them installed. (for obvious reasons, that ah ain't happening either)

Mr_Shiftright

5 BIL? That's nothing more than a political gesture. That's 2.5 Stealth bombers on the used bomber market.

Obviously, somebody from Wyoming got placated.

gagrice said:

stever said:

Oh but it's all "clean" coal now, just like "clean" diesel. The rest comes from "safe" nukes.

Well Obama has the Eco Nuts wanting to slash their wrists. And his last Energy Czar went into it full blast.

Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.

What a difference a year makes when the Oligarchy helps you see the light.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/11/steven-chu-coal-is-my-worst-nightmare/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/14/obama-energy-nominee-chu-backs-clean-coal/

http://energy.gov/articles/obama-administration-announces-clean-coal-research-awards-universities-across-country

ruking1

Looks like Mazda STILL hasn't found its "DIESEL" groove yet.

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/mazda-6-diesel-sedan-still-planned-more-oomph-140005484.html

This is echoed by the apparent over stated (GASSER) mpg mojo.

..."The version we tested, a 2014 Mazda 3 S Grand Touring five-door, comes with the larger of two engines, a 184-horsepower 2.5-liter four-cylinder that produces 185 lb-ft of torque. It was fitted with the six-speed automatic transmission designed specifically to work with the SkyActiv engines.

In that guise, the car was rated at 32 mpg combined (28 mpg city, 38 mpg highway).

We registered only 30.9 mpg on the car's trip computer over 277 miles of our usual test cycle, which is roughly two-thirds highway and one-third city and suburban stop-and-go. That's a cycle on which, frankly, we'd have expected the car to do better than its combined rating."...

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091298_2014-mazda-3-gas-mileage-review-of-sporty-compact-hatchback

ruking1

Of course REAL WORLD stuff like this article talks about might complicate GASSERS MPG efforts.

Montana Mulls 85 MPH Speed Limit
The Car Connection By feedback@highgearmedia.com (Richard Read)
18 hours ago

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/montana-mulls-85-mph-speed-224803407.html

Not to beat an already dead horse (with 4 different model diesels),

the issue with (those) diesels has been by how MANY mpg does 85 mph speeds beat the H EPA mpg BY !!!

Needless to say ANYONE with an issue with an 85 mph speed limit can STILL go 55 mph or LESS !!!!

On the other side my swag with the 2003 Jetta TDI @ 55 mph would be 62 mpg PLUS. It has the older technology and probably the newer technology, aka 2012 Passat TDI's will easily post 84 mpg. Not bad for an H EPA of 43 mpg.

AND on this day in infamy.....

December 4: GM kills the Oldsmobile diesel on this date in 1984
Justin Hyde By Justin Hyde
5 hours ago
Motoramic

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/dec-4-gm-pulls-glow-plug-oldsmobile-diesel-143735758.html

Mr_Shiftright

Well it can't be all bad for Mazda. The Mazda3 has one of the highest resale values in the industry.

84 MPG in a Passat? My friend's 2012 gets 41 mpg. What's he doing wrong?