The gasoline tax at the pump - the retail tax - is just a small part of the amount of money that flows to the government from drivers. You need to consider all the $ that goes to government, if you want to consider all the costs.
What do automobile drivers pay? State registration, city registration in some areas, inspection fee, titles, plates, parking rates include taxes, parking meters, and tolls.
And then you have all the automobile insurance money that goes into supporting many, many thousands of jobs in the insurance industry; and they and the companies all pay taxes.
What taxes are on gasoline? Well we mentioned the state and federal taxes at the pump. But what the taxes the distributor payes? and the refinery? and the taxes on the tankers and unloading the oil? and then the taxes on companies like Exxon? and all the employees in this supply-chain pay income taxes, and property taxes ...
And then you have the sales taxes on the cars themselves, all the parts and tires, and then you have the taxes people pay who build, fix, or sell autos and parts.
We could probably add to this, but I think you get the idea that each any every driver in this country is pumping thousands of dollars into government directly and indirectly each year!!
And don't forget if we didn't use so much gasoline then a country like Mexico would be much poorer. While we could close our eyes to the suffering that the lack of $ from oil would bring about in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nigeria amongst others, if Mexico didn't have oil $, how many more millions of Mexican refugees would you be paying for health insurance in this country?
and the Mexican oil cash input point is particularly important. Paying for illegal immigrant health care is not something any of the candidates is probably willing to address right now, but, what will be their remedy if they do address it. Close the border with a huge fence and deport millions of Mexican illegals now living and working here in the U.S.? I don't see much change to this situation but giving free health care to someone who is not here legally is ludicrous.
Especially when millions of American people don't have healthcare insurance!
It's also kinda silly when they call the Prius a "gas guzzler" when the difference between the two was like 1-2 mpg. I'd be curious to see what kind of economy the BMW would do in city-type driving. The Prius would blow it away, sure, but I'm sure the BMW would still do pretty good for what it is.
I'm also impressed that they could get a ~3500-3600 lb car with a 2.0 Diesel to do 0-62 in 8.3 seconds! Diesels really have come a long way.
I was waiting for the outrage. I don't really see the bias. "As many people know, the advantage of hybrids lies in urban driving where the stop-and-go recaptures the car's energy. On the highway, it's one more four-cylinder car pushing throught the wind." To paraphrase the article, they are saying that the Prius thrives in a city/suburb commute and that diesels are good on long highway vacation trips. Wait...isn't that just what you said? I thought you said that the article is dumb and biased?
"...if Mexico didn't have oil $, how many more millions of Mexican refugees would you be paying for health insurance in this country?"
It is going to get worse. Mexico exports about 1.32 million bbl/d of oil, however, they also must buy back about 0.32 million bbl/d of more expensive refined products. They lack the refining capacity to process all the oil (like Iran). “According to OGJ, Mexico has six refineries, all operated by Pemex, with a total refining capacity of 1.68 million bbl/d. “ www.wn.com/s/energymexico_old1/
As Mexican oil consumption rises more refined products like gasoline will need to be imported. Mexican oil consumption was about 2 million bbl/d in 2006. Add in the drop in oil production and in about 5 years the balance of payments will be negative. I am not sure of the exact numbers but I would guess that when consumption hits about 2.2 million bbl/d and production drops to around 2.8 million bbl/d they will go negative $$ (exports - imports). Oil exports would be 0.6 million bbl/d while imports of refined oil products would be 0.52 million bbl/d.
The bottom line, Mexico is in trouble. They get 40% of their tax revenue from oil. How will they be able to afford to pay the Federal Police when the budget goes down 40%? Will they be able to raise taxes???
We in the USA could see $5 or $6 a gallon gasoline and diesel prices when all this shakes out.
"... the taxes the distributor pays? and the refinery? and the taxes on the tankers and unloading the oil? and then the taxes on companies like Exxon?"
During the last quarter, when Exxon/Mobil posted an $11 billion profit, the company paid $20 billion in taxes.
That profit reflected in the company's stock, so all stockholders paid capital gains taxes on the same money all over again.
In other words, the federal government makes MORE money on Exxon's oil than Exxon does. Think about that the next time some congressman whines about how much the oil companies are making, and how he needs to raise gas taxes. .
The key point..even though they wrote the article with the opposite slant..is that the vastly superior city driving Prius did almost as well on a long highway trip as one of the premier Euro-highway-cruisers.
This is what the Jetta TDI ( vs the Prius ) and the Honda diesel ( vs the TCH and NAH ) will both have to face when they debut later this year. Both diesels will be roughly similar to the hybrid vehicles in highway driving but far less efficient in the city component. At least from initial reports.
The real issue for the EU buyer is do you want a funky under powered Prius or a "5" series BMW? The ONLY thing the Prius has in its favor is city stop and go. If that is your main driving, sadly Prius is better suited. The Prius is NO bargain in the EU price wise. I think that BMW as tested is less than the Prius in the UK. Diesel is cheaper in most places over there also. I think the sales figures will tell the tale. I can tell you if given that choice in the USA it would be an absolute NO brainer.
I just read two news articles that talked about how a 2007 Ford Fusion collided head on with a 2001 F150. The two people in the Fusion were hurt but talking to rescue crews. The driver of the F150 was dead. This is an example of how cars have gotten a lot safer. It is possible to buy a safe car weighing around 3,000 pounds.
My next car will be a 4 cyl compact/mid sized sedan/hatch. The size will depend on where I think gas prices will be going. I will also consider what every one else is driving. If half the people are still buying large vehicles I will likely get a Camry, Fusion or Accord. If it looks like most people are downsizing the options will include cars like a Corolla, Sentra, Verve, Versa or Civic. Salesman need not call. I probably won't buy anything for a few years.
I don't want to kill the messenger, here, so first off let me say I was responding to the test itself, not to you.
Any how, they say one thing (Prius works in the city), yet their actions tell the truth - they avoided the city like the plague.
Then they call the Prius a "gas guzzler"? Which is it? A gas guzzler, or a car with an "advantage" in urban driving.
Can't be both.
Fact is, they rigged the test so the BMW would win. Then basically admitted it was rigged. But it's still rigged.
Actions speak louder than words, this was 100% bias folks! Open your eyes.
I like diesels as much as anyone, in fact I've been a big proponent of them for a long time. But let's be realistic. Test them in ROUTINE driving, where you will actually be using them day in, day out.
OK, let's do the math for a US customer, assuming BMW bring that model over here.
Let's ignore the fact that you can get a Prius for $22-25 grand, and the BMW would cost well over double that amount.
The BMW got 41.9 mpg.
The Prius got 40.1mpg. Some gas guzzler.
Any how. Gas costs $3.37 a gallon near me. Diesel is $4.19.
You see where I'm heading, right?
For me to take a road trip to the beach for spring break, let's say, it would be about 300 miles round trip.
The BMW would "sip" just 7.16 gallons of diesel, costing me exactly $30 bucks.
The Prius would GUZZLE (?) gas at the alarming rate of 7.48 gallon, a whopping 0.32 gallons more, costing me $25.21.
$5 bucks less than the BMW.
The BMW's fuel guzzles my wallet at a rate 19% higher than the economy champ, the Bimmer.
NINETEEN percent. Not even close.
Even if you never once drive in the city, over 100,000 miles that would amount to a $1600 savings with the Pruis.
So here in the US, with real-world current pricing, you would save THOUSANDS $$$ in fuel with the "gas guzzler" choice, even when the type of driving it optimized for the diesel engine.
Prius ends up winning, even this slanted test.
I'd like to see something Prius-sized and not as expensive or luxurious as the 5 series so that the playing field was truly level.
Sorry if I got a little defensive there. I felt like a messenger under attack.
I think we can all agree that calling a Prius a gas guzzler is silly hyperbole. In their defense, they did add 100 miles of city driving to the end of the test.
Diesel and hybrid people seem pretty equal in making some tall mileage claims for their cars. Ultimately I don't think there is any better way to compare than the (admittedly flawed) EPA tests, and these show the Prius as king.
That being said, if I was buying a car for economy purposes, it would probably be a Honda Fit.
And I'm sorry if I was a bit on the offense. :shades:
What I don't get is the whole Hybrid vs. Diesel thing. It seems the hybrid camp hates diesels and points to their poor emissions history, while diesel fans spread urban legend about fireman getting electrocuted to death and old batteries polluting handfills.
I just don't understand the rivalry, I suppose.
I'd like to have one of each. Put a hybrid powertrain in a city car, with a folding top or at least a giant moonroof, and it could replace my Miata. Then put a torquey turbo-diesel in a minivan, and I'll replace my Sienna.
Each comes with its own advantages.
I just hate slanted reporting.
Diesels are clean now. Low-sulfur diesel is abundant, and hopefully soon more clean diesels will meet even CARB standards.
Meanwhile, hybrids are already PZEVs, offer peak torque right at idle, access to HOV lanes, government tax credits, and gas simply costs less than diesel does right now, by a wide margin.
NiMH batteries will be recycled and Toyota even put a $300 bounty on them to be sure. What idiot is going to dump that battery pack in a landfill with $300 on the line? Nickel is easy to recycle, to boot.
Each offers a unique solution, and that's exactly what we need - not a silver bullet, but several ways to reduce oil consumption. Both are helping.
I just don't get why you have to take sides. Give me one of each.
And yes, a Fit makes sense. We helped my mom buy one last year.
Agreed. My Mom & stepdad carpool together, and probably go about 120-130 miles per day round trip, most of it highway. For awhile, my uncle was going 130-150 miles per day round trip. It's actually worse now, something like 200 round trip. But he only has to drive 50 miles to his company's office, and picks up a company truck...F350 crew cab I think. And then he gets to play designated driver to get him and 5 other construction workers the rest of the way out to the job site.
OK, folks. Ever hear of "tongue in cheek"? I've seen at least 4 or 5 posters that are outraged (my word, not theirs) that the article polks fun at the Prius by calling it a gas guzzler. Do you really think the authors are literally calling it a gas guzzler? Come on. Turn back on your "humor switch" and take the article less literal. If you spend any time reading any of the major auto magazines, you'd realize that this is a common writing style. Besides, the only mention of "gas guzzler" was in the title of the article. Ever read the newspaper and see attention getting titles for articles?
All in all, I think the article was well done and it mainly wanted to point out that for those that do not frequent stop and go traffic, there are alternatives that are geared more for the open road, unlike hybrids that are geared towards the city.
Diesels would suit many people better than hybrids. Most rural folks, for example. I live in Montana on the outskirts of a town of 35,000. When I'm right in town, there are plenty of stoplights, but I combine my errands and usually only go downtown once a week. My daily drive to work is on a small 70mph hwy (though with morning traffic, traffic moves about 55 - 60mph). 10 miles with no stop signs once I'm out of my neighborhood. Weekends, it's either 40 miles to the ski mountain or 80 miles to the lake. One or two stopsigns the entire way.
I really want the hybrid technology to be suitable for me, but in reality, a diesel would serve me better. Both add cost over a gasoline-only vehicle, but both have higher resale (which is only a benefit if you trade it in rather than driving it until the wheels fall off). Diesels also have the benefit of lasting way longer than a gas engine (Partly becausee gasoline is a solvent while diesel is a lubricant).
We don't plan on buying another vehicle until both of our vehicles are worn out. They are currently only 8 and 5 years old (both bought new, so we know the maintenance history has been top notch and both look like brand new). But when we do look for that next vehicle, maybe 4 years from now, I'm anxious to see what is offered for diesels and what the cost per gallon of diesel has become. Also to see where electric technology has gone. I'm guessing by then, gas will be at least where it is in Europe today ($8+ gallon), so our access to underpriced fuel will be over and we'll be more aligned with the rest of the world.
Did you notice that all the humor came at the expensive of the hybrid? :P
If it were my job to write a slanted article, i.e. I was hired by the diesel industry to write an article and had no scruples or conscience, that's pretty much exactly what I would have written.
The article is extremely biased. Even when they try to be funny, it's slanted. Rigged. Biased. Through and through, including the humor.
Meanwhile, hybrids are already PZEVs, offer peak torque right at idle, access to HOV lanes, government tax credits
Maybe therein lies the rivalry. Preferential treatment for a certain drive train. I got serious about owning a small diesel truck in 1998. Then it was dirty diesel and Chicken tax that kept me from owning one. Now it is PZEV emissions that keeps the diesels out of CARB states. Seems like the Government is always there to block people from having the superior engine qualities that diesel affords. When the Prius first came out I thought it was a good idea. For me it was not practical as I wanted a mid sized PU truck that would get better than 20 MPG. After 8 years of seeing what has come out in Hybrid I am less convinced of their value than I was in 2000. Face it the Prius is a horrible road car. At least where I travel 5 days out of 10 the wind buffets them all over the road. They block traffic going up the long grades as bad as the semi trucks do. For those that have a city commute I say go for it. They will never compete with diesel for all around good driving experience and practicality.
Valid points, but as a consumer are we supposed to walk around with blinders and ignore these advantages?
Lobby to end them? Sure.
But in the real world that Prius would be more quiet than the BMW, and would take the HOV lanes to work to get there in half the time, while using less fuel that also happens to cost a lot less. The tax credit you'd receive would pay for all of your gas bills for two years.
I'm not in the hybrid camp, as I think they still cost too much, but I do like to play Devil's Advocate, and some Diesel fans (not all, some) seem to go to extreme lengths to set conditions where a diesel will be compared favorably.
But in the real world that Prius would be more quiet than the BMW, and would take the HOV lanes to work to get there in half the time, while using less fuel that also happens to cost a lot less. The tax credit you'd receive would pay for all of your gas bills for two years.
At the moment, yes. But there's no guarantee that gas will remain a "lot" cheaper than diesel in the long term or that the HOV access will continue (if your locality allows that in the first place), and the diesel qualifies for the "alternative fuel credit" while the gas hybrid doesn't.
When these new, clean diesels make it to the US it will be interesting to see what kind of mileage they get. My understanding is that the emissions equipment that allows them to meet EPA standards also results in a mileage hit. Let's say these new diesels only end up getting 15% better mileage than their gasoline burning counterparts. Given that diesel fuel typically costs at least that much more what would be the point?
I do think the Prius federal credits expired because Toyota sold so many of them. They still apply to Honda, Ford, Nissan, and GM, as far as I know. Plus check your state for whatever credits they may offer.
Yes, fuel prices are volatile. But think about it - right now diesel options for the average consumer are *rare*. Imagine when a lot of new options become available? Diesel demand will increase significantly. Increased demand means higher prices.
If more people buy diesel, that means fewer people buy gas. A drop in demand for gas. That could lower gas prices (though I would not hold my breath, it might just slow the price increases).
I think it's fair to say the tendency for diesel to cost more than gas will only get worse as many more diesel vehicles start to become available here.
To expand on the good points tpe just made, we have to remember that clean diesels with urea injection and particulate traps cost more. Right now some diesels only cost $800 more than the gas equivalent, so the break-even points were shorter than for hybrids, given the surcharge for the hybrids was greater.
But with clean diesels, the surcharge will likely jump to $2000 or so, pretty much negating that advantage.
Just a couple of things to consider. Like tpe said, imagine having to pay $2000 extra for a diesel, then only getting a 15-20% advantage, yet the fuel costs 19% more.
You enjoy more range, sure, but you're not really saving any on your fuel bill. You may not ever break even.
Maybe you missed the whole point of the article. First they said the BMW came along for the trip. They were testing the all around mileage of the Prius. Toyota is claiming in the UK that the Prius gets 65 MPG. Trying to drive without a lot of excess speed they were unable to come close to the propaganda put out by Toyota. The BMW by contrast IIRC came in with better than claimed mileage. I have never seen anywhere that Toyota sells the Prius as a city only car. So taking it on a road trip is fair game. Most test drives by magazines have not given the Prius a thumbs up when it came to meeting mileage expectations. It has always fallen well below the advertised figures. If you drive one of the small high mileage diesels in the EU that get actual 60+ MPG you would consider the Prius a gas guzzler.
Remember that Prius mileage is higher in the city than on the highway. Again, they went straight for its weakness.
Road trips are fair game, but they happen seldom. We haven't driven out of town since last summer. I commute every day. Hundreds of times since my last road trip.
Toyota knows how to tweak their cars for EPA tests, but you can't blame them - they are required to take that specific test and publish that figure.
"Did you notice that all the humor came at the expensive of the hybrid?"
Well sure it did. And all the hybrid articles make jokes at the expense of pickup and SUVs (lumping in all those that really need to use that type of vehicle with those that just like the style). Does it bug me since one of our vehicles is a truck? No. Actually, it's usually pretty funny. It takes more than humor to get me all worked up.
"The article is extremely biased. Even when they try to be funny, it's slanted. Rigged. Biased. Through and through, including the humor. "
I just re-read the entire thing to try and pick up some of the "extremely biased" writing styles you are talking about and actually it's even less biased than I thought from my first read. They do a pretty good job of outlining what they are trying to do which is an open road trip comparison. Yes they know that hybrids perform best in town. That is not what this article was about (even though they added an extra 100 miles of urban driving, to the 450 mile trip, so it wasn't only a open road test). They say they are comparing open road mileage and that is what they do. 75mph open road cruising.
In any case, I think the fact that a larger sedan can be even in the same mpg ballpark as a compact is amazing. Granted the weight difference was only 573lb since the battery packs make a Prius weigh more for it's size than a non-hybrid, but it's also a fair size smaller than the 5 Series. Imagine if they'd used the more comparably sized 3 or 1 series diesels.
It's well known that people that do a lot of in town driving benefit the most from hybrid technology. Even over on the Prius board, those that own them, or have researched it, agree that, from a mpg and dollars/cents perspective, if most of your driving is open road, you really benefit very little from hybrid technology. Which makes sense, because that is not the environment for which it is intended. This article does a good job of pointing out that you can't blindly follow/use one technology if it doesn't align with your particular situation. If your driving environment and/or habits are different, you need to consider the best choice for that.
It's nice to know there are good choices for everyone out there.
Toyota knows how to tweak their cars for EPA tests,
In the US Toyota is bound by the EPA mileage rules. That is not the case in the EU. The Prius is getting preferential treatment based on perceived mileage. That has car owners that are getting better mileage up in arms.
The official fuel consumption figure for the Prius – supplied by Toyota itself – is 65.7mpg in mixed motoring. That’s a claim not supported by many of the letter writers to The Sunday Times who say they get nearer to 50mpg. If our readers are right and the official figure is wrong it has important implications, not least of which is that people driving frugal diesels are getting a raw deal.
Yes the initial round of Federal tax credits have expired for Toyota. Honda's are beginning to phase out and will be gone on Jan 1 2009. Ford's will be gone soon afterward.
One of the bigger benefits still remaining is the state sales tax waiver. I believe that CT, WV and CO all offer incentives of waived sales taxes on hybids. This can be significant.
The new diesels have several obstacles to overcome which are not insignificant. ..the price of the fuel itself ..the extra cost vis-a-vis a normal gasser ( not a hybrid ) ..the new EPA fuel economy/emisions requirements ( the Canadian tests are a first indication ) ..re-educating the general public ..GM, Ford and Toyota are currently against diesels for mass market autos, all three favor hybrids.
I'd expect that like the Prius and hybrids in general that it will take a good 5 years for widespread acceptance.
From what I recall, early Prius reviews carefully compared the fuel economy to other EPA mid-sizer cars, usually the Camry 4 cylinder. That's how they would calculate break-even points.
Toyota would shoot themselves in the foot to criticize SUVs, given they sell about 37 different ones.
75mph is higher than normal speeds around the DC beltway, too. You rarely hit that speed around here, not until you're a good half hour or so out of town. I'm sure that varies a lot, but again, the odds were stacked against the hybrid.
75mph = 120kph, isn't that well above legal speeds for most of those roads? I'm not sure, just asking.
The 5 series did well, but I don't think it takes a slanted test to determine that. How about an even mix of typical driving? It would have been more informative.
I agree that they should have used a different vehicle, preferably one at a similar price.
While we're at it, what's the price of for a 535d? How much more than a 528i?
I recall C&D tests of both a 335d and a 328i, and while BMW would prefer that we compare a 335i twin turbo, the fact is the performance was comparable to the cheaper 328i. Acceleration was nearly identical, I recall.
Basically, let's evaluate the 5 series on its own merits. How long (if ever) would it take to recover your initial investment when you pay more for the diesel? Compared to a similar performance gas engine (not a much quicker twin turbo).
Quick peek - looks like here in the US, a 535i is $5100 more than a 528i. If they brought the 535d here and it had that kind of markup, you would probably never break even. $2000 or so, then maybe (it would depend on diesel prices).
"Quick peek - looks like here in the US, a 535i is $5100 more than a 528i. "
I think that price mark-up includes some features that are only options on the 528i, though. So the $5,100 isn't for only the engine upgrade. It's for some extra add-ons that they include with the base 335i.
When they bring the diesel (press releases say 2009), I'd prefer they brought the 520d like the one they used in the test, rather than the 335d. Still plenty zippy and great mileage.
From: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/detroit/2008/2009bmw335d.html "The 335d's twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-6 generates a healthy 265 horsepower. More impressive is the staggering torque output — 425 pound-feet at just 1,750 rpm. So in other words, the 335d's inline-6 generates as much torque as Chrysler's 6.1-liter Hemi V8. It's enough power to get the 335d from zero to 60 mph in just 6.2 seconds, BMW claims. All that power doesn't torpedo the 335d's fuel economy, as BMW claims mileage figures of 23 mpg city and 33 mpg highway. "
As usual, in the US, it's all about the horsepower and 0-60 times. US buyers don't care (in enough numbers) about mileage so they'll never offer the 520d. Unfortunately, we've proven, with our buying power, that we'd rather have a car that is a couple seconds faster in 0-60 and has higher peak horsepower even though most people only drive at wide open throttle a few times a month and that is a few seconds at a time. I would think those that care about that could opt for the V8, though, since mpg is low on their list, and the diesel solution could be geared towards the person prioritizing economy (hence the 520d vs the 535d). The great thing about a diesel is even a very small displacement engine makes great torque so will move around a heavy vehicle more easily than a comparable gas engine.
When they bring the diesel (press releases say 2009), I'd prefer they brought the 520d like the one they used in the test, rather than the 335d. Still plenty zippy and great mileage.
That would be my preference also. My 2.0 Passat TDI had more than enough power for me. If it was just a couple inches higher off the ground I may have kept it. I just prefer the ease of getting in and out of a PU or SUV. I think that VW is the only diesel car maker selling in the US that gets what many of us want. Whichever company gets here with a full size diesel SUV I like will get my cash.
Diesel demand will increase significantly. Increased demand means higher prices.
That's a good point. Diesel currently commands a substantial price premium despite the fact that, with the exception of commercial vehicles, there are very few diesel consumers. Add more diesel vehicles to our fleet and common sense dictates that the disparity between diesel fuel prices and gasoline prices will increase. One of the reasons that our gas prices haven't increased more is that we currently import unleaded gas from Europe. With their high percentage of diesel vehicles they end up with a surplus of gasoline that they've got to get rid of.
You can complain all you want about how the government won't allow diesels but it's really a moot point if the consumers end up not wanting them. Sure diesels have unique torque characteristics that might appeal to a select group but for most people interested in reducing their fuel bills that will be a non-issue.
My personal opinion is that we need diesel fuel for certain applications. However I'm not sure it makes sense for the general motorist. I think that if Europe could no longer find buyers for their unleaded gas you'd see a significant shift away from diesels in those countries.
My personal opinion is that we need diesel fuel for certain applications. However I'm not sure it makes sense for the general motorist. I think that if Europe could no longer find buyers for their unleaded gas you'd see a significant shift away from diesels in those countries.
What do you think they would get to replace the diesel cars they have. In most cases the diesel gets nearly double the mileage of the gas counterpart. At least that is the case with VW cars, which is the largest market segment in the EU. The only gas vehicle that can come close to a diesel in the UK, the Prius has a price tag of $35k USD to $41k USD. By comparison the Golf Plus TDI ranges from $29k to $35K USD.
If you are on a budget you can get a Polo diesel that is rated 72+ MPG for half the price of a Prius. The Touran diesel minivan with seating for 7 people costs the same as a Prius and gets over 42 MPG combined. Choices is all I am asking for. And we do not get any real choices. It is all controlled by lobbyist dollars.
I agree that they should have used a different vehicle, preferably one at a similar price.
How about the 318d ES? It is actually a little bigger than the Prius and very closely priced. It is rated 68.9 MPG combined with 0-62 MPH in 9.3 seconds. That should be a fair match with 50/50 urban/hwy. I don't think with our high priced diesel the hybrids would do any better here than they have in the EU if we had their choice of vehicles..
"How about the 318d ES? It is actually a little bigger than the Prius and very closely priced."
Interesting link. I noticed that the price was £23,760. That works out to be 505,094 Mexican Pesos or $47,091 USD. The price of the BMW is twice that of a typical US Prius which is going for $23,000 to $28,000 or so. The same web site had the European Prius at £17,777 - £20,677 ($35,233 - $40,980). You folks across the pond are paying a lot more for your Prius.
If you add in US diesel emissions that price would likely be $50k for the 318d.
BMW does not seem to want to bring in their One and Three series diesels. Maybe they are afraid their performance image will suffer. Too bad, I like the look of the One series. It may also be just that the Euro to dollar ratio is not favorable for bringing in inexpensive vehicles -- they would lose their shirt. With a performance vehicle they can hide some of the costs or inflate the sticker price. Rich people are weird that way, increase the price, they get all excited.
plenty of liquid fuel to come, once oil prices stay high. "We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going to burn coal."
Seems more like a last resort kind of solution though.
“From mining to processing to transportation to burning to disposal, coal has more environmental impacts than any other energy source.” (I guess they didn't plug in nuke accident cleanup costs into their formula :P ).
What ever you have to do to keep warm in the winter. The last time I lived in Anchorage area in the early 1990s. I was paying $500+ per month to heat our log home with Propane. We were also going through more than a cord of wood per month. Coal seems reasonable to me. China is building coal fired generators at the rate of one per week. I guess that tells you what they think of Kyoto.
You can blame it on the environmentalist that have blocked the cleaner Nuclear power plants. We are so far behind France and Japan in that technology, we will never catch up. Probably buy from them. My understanding the small 10 MW nuclear plant that was going into Galena, a remote site in Alaska was shot down by environmentalists & regulators. Let em breath coal smoke.
ND coal production is about 30 million tons per year and Montana is about 40 million tons per year. If they build two small 50,000 barrel a day coal-to-liquid plants in ND they would need to double coal production in the state. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/nd.htm
They mention all the jobs -- 700 just for one plant. That is great except the coal industry is already concerned about people retiring at the coal power plants and mines in the next ten years. The baby boomers are retiring!! Another example: "A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry" http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a- worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry.html
Google worker shortage in quotes and you should get over 100,000 hits.
And then there is the water issue, which could take a few pages to explain. Bottom line, everyone thinks the rivers and aquifers have unlimited water and all we have to do is stick another straw in there and presto unlimited water... The next ten years or so should be really interesting. I need to find me a nice island in the south pacific and learn to like coconuts. :shades: Probably need some good SPF 100 sun tan oil too.
I got the tractor fired up, and gave my lawn its first cut. Looks like grasscutting season will soon be upon us. I did purposely miss a few parts of the yard though, areas that I plan to let return to nature. I figure maybe I'll save a bit of gasoline that way, plus, maybe it helps the environment just a touch, too.
Natural gas was cheap when I lived there - don't think I ever had a bill more than $100 in the winter for my little (1100 sq. ft.) house.
I think you are wrong about the Galena situation - Toshiba is the problem. Sounds like the design issues aren't trivial. Interesting to note that Toshiba now owns Westinghouse. KIYU
Toshiba just created Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corporation within the last month. link
I can just hear the catch phase on the next generation of Priusmobiles:
Our home was out at the end of Eagle River road. Then 2.7 miles up Prudhoe Bay drive. No natural gas out there. Gas & electric used to be cheap in Anchorage because of the free natural gas from the Beluga field. Not any more. They pay the going price. It can be pricey to heat some of those mega homes built in the 1980s and 90s in Anchorage. Unleaded is usually about the same as CA or just a little less. They don't use all that designer gas we have.
Looks like it is still alive alright. Last I heard it was dead. I think Toshiba picked Galena for its remote location and the military base that is there. It should be relatively safe for testing such a plant. The neat part is the reactor is deep in the earth. Only the steam for the turbines is brought to the surface. Seemed like a great little system that only needs servicing once every 30 years.
Comments
What do automobile drivers pay? State registration, city registration in some areas, inspection fee, titles, plates, parking rates include taxes, parking meters, and tolls.
And then you have all the automobile insurance money that goes into supporting many, many thousands of jobs in the insurance industry; and they and the companies all pay taxes.
What taxes are on gasoline? Well we mentioned the state and federal taxes at the pump. But what the taxes the distributor payes? and the refinery? and the taxes on the tankers and unloading the oil? and then the taxes on companies like Exxon? and all the employees in this supply-chain pay income taxes, and property taxes ...
And then you have the sales taxes on the cars themselves, all the parts and tires, and then you have the taxes people pay who build, fix, or sell autos and parts.
We could probably add to this, but I think you get the idea that each any every driver in this country is pumping thousands of dollars into government directly and indirectly each year!!
And don't forget if we didn't use so much gasoline then a country like Mexico would be much poorer. While we could close our eyes to the suffering that the lack of $ from oil would bring about in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nigeria amongst others, if Mexico didn't have oil $, how many more millions of Mexican refugees would you be paying for health insurance in this country?
Especially when millions of American people don't have healthcare insurance!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You do that once a year. Maybe. More like once in a lifetime.
The Prius thrives in a city/suburb commute, which you drive every single day. Well, maybe 220 or so working days out of the year.
So the Prius wins 220 days.
The BMW wins on that weekend, once per year.
These are the dumbest, most biased tests I've ever seen.
There was another one in the USA, where they did the same thing - one very long road trip, I think it was around the Great Lakes.
Diesel are good on long highway vacation trips. Duh. We know. Most families take one per year. Whoopeee.
The Prius would win 99% of the time in real life.
Bias at its worst.
I'm also impressed that they could get a ~3500-3600 lb car with a 2.0 Diesel to do 0-62 in 8.3 seconds! Diesels really have come a long way.
It is going to get worse. Mexico exports about 1.32 million bbl/d of oil, however, they also must buy back about 0.32 million bbl/d of more expensive refined products. They lack the refining capacity to process all the oil (like Iran).
“According to OGJ, Mexico has six refineries, all operated by Pemex, with a total refining capacity of 1.68 million bbl/d. “ www.wn.com/s/energymexico_old1/
As Mexican oil consumption rises more refined products like gasoline will need to be imported. Mexican oil consumption was about 2 million bbl/d in 2006. Add in the drop in oil production and in about 5 years the balance of payments will be negative. I am not sure of the exact numbers but I would guess that when consumption hits about 2.2 million bbl/d and production drops to around 2.8 million bbl/d they will go negative $$ (exports - imports). Oil exports would be 0.6 million bbl/d while imports of refined oil products would be 0.52 million bbl/d.
The bottom line, Mexico is in trouble. They get 40% of their tax revenue from oil. How will they be able to afford to pay the Federal Police when the budget goes down 40%? Will they be able to raise taxes???
We in the USA could see $5 or $6 a gallon gasoline and diesel prices when all this shakes out.
Plan for the future.
During the last quarter, when Exxon/Mobil posted an $11 billion profit, the company paid $20 billion in taxes.
That profit reflected in the company's stock, so all stockholders paid capital gains taxes on the same money all over again.
In other words, the federal government makes MORE money on Exxon's oil than Exxon does. Think about that the next time some congressman whines about how much the oil companies are making, and how he needs to raise gas taxes.
.
This is what the Jetta TDI ( vs the Prius ) and the Honda diesel ( vs the TCH and NAH ) will both have to face when they debut later this year. Both diesels will be roughly similar to the hybrid vehicles in highway driving but far less efficient in the city component. At least from initial reports.
My next car will be a 4 cyl compact/mid sized sedan/hatch. The size will depend on where I think gas prices will be going. I will also consider what every one else is driving. If half the people are still buying large vehicles I will likely get a Camry, Fusion or Accord. If it looks like most people are downsizing the options will include cars like a Corolla, Sentra, Verve, Versa or Civic. Salesman need not call. I probably won't buy anything for a few years.
Any how, they say one thing (Prius works in the city), yet their actions tell the truth - they avoided the city like the plague.
Then they call the Prius a "gas guzzler"? Which is it? A gas guzzler, or a car with an "advantage" in urban driving.
Can't be both.
Fact is, they rigged the test so the BMW would win. Then basically admitted it was rigged. But it's still rigged.
Actions speak louder than words, this was 100% bias folks! Open your eyes.
I like diesels as much as anyone, in fact I've been a big proponent of them for a long time. But let's be realistic. Test them in ROUTINE driving, where you will actually be using them day in, day out.
Let's ignore the fact that you can get a Prius for $22-25 grand, and the BMW would cost well over double that amount.
The BMW got 41.9 mpg.
The Prius got 40.1mpg. Some gas guzzler.
Any how. Gas costs $3.37 a gallon near me. Diesel is $4.19.
You see where I'm heading, right?
For me to take a road trip to the beach for spring break, let's say, it would be about 300 miles round trip.
The BMW would "sip" just 7.16 gallons of diesel, costing me exactly $30 bucks.
The Prius would GUZZLE (?) gas at the alarming rate of 7.48 gallon, a whopping 0.32 gallons more, costing me $25.21.
$5 bucks less than the BMW.
The BMW's fuel guzzles my wallet at a rate 19% higher than the economy champ, the Bimmer.
NINETEEN percent. Not even close.
Even if you never once drive in the city, over 100,000 miles that would amount to a $1600 savings with the Pruis.
So here in the US, with real-world current pricing, you would save THOUSANDS $$$ in fuel with the "gas guzzler" choice, even when the type of driving it optimized for the diesel engine.
Prius ends up winning, even this slanted test.
I'd like to see something Prius-sized and not as expensive or luxurious as the 5 series so that the playing field was truly level.
And so that the diesel had a chance. :P
I think we can all agree that calling a Prius a gas guzzler is silly hyperbole. In their defense, they did add 100 miles of city driving to the end of the test.
Diesel and hybrid people seem pretty equal in making some tall mileage claims for their cars. Ultimately I don't think there is any better way to compare than the (admittedly flawed) EPA tests, and these show the Prius as king.
That being said, if I was buying a car for economy purposes, it would probably be a Honda Fit.
Some of us do. Some of us don't. I venture into areas that would qualify as a "city/suburb commute" maybe half a dozen times a year.
What I don't get is the whole Hybrid vs. Diesel thing. It seems the hybrid camp hates diesels and points to their poor emissions history, while diesel fans spread urban legend about fireman getting electrocuted to death and old batteries polluting handfills.
I just don't understand the rivalry, I suppose.
I'd like to have one of each. Put a hybrid powertrain in a city car, with a folding top or at least a giant moonroof, and it could replace my Miata. Then put a torquey turbo-diesel in a minivan, and I'll replace my Sienna.
Each comes with its own advantages.
I just hate slanted reporting.
Diesels are clean now. Low-sulfur diesel is abundant, and hopefully soon more clean diesels will meet even CARB standards.
Meanwhile, hybrids are already PZEVs, offer peak torque right at idle, access to HOV lanes, government tax credits, and gas simply costs less than diesel does right now, by a wide margin.
NiMH batteries will be recycled and Toyota even put a $300 bounty on them to be sure. What idiot is going to dump that battery pack in a landfill with $300 on the line? Nickel is easy to recycle, to boot.
Each offers a unique solution, and that's exactly what we need - not a silver bullet, but several ways to reduce oil consumption. Both are helping.
I just don't get why you have to take sides. Give me one of each.
And yes, a Fit makes sense. We helped my mom buy one last year.
That's still more often than I take very long road trips.
OK, folks. Ever hear of "tongue in cheek"? I've seen at least 4 or 5 posters that are outraged (my word, not theirs) that the article polks fun at the Prius by calling it a gas guzzler. Do you really think the authors are literally calling it a gas guzzler? Come on. Turn back on your "humor switch" and take the article less literal. If you spend any time reading any of the major auto magazines, you'd realize that this is a common writing style. Besides, the only mention of "gas guzzler" was in the title of the article. Ever read the newspaper and see attention getting titles for articles?
All in all, I think the article was well done and it mainly wanted to point out that for those that do not frequent stop and go traffic, there are alternatives that are geared more for the open road, unlike hybrids that are geared towards the city.
Diesels would suit many people better than hybrids. Most rural folks, for example. I live in Montana on the outskirts of a town of 35,000. When I'm right in town, there are plenty of stoplights, but I combine my errands and usually only go downtown once a week. My daily drive to work is on a small 70mph hwy (though with morning traffic, traffic moves about 55 - 60mph). 10 miles with no stop signs once I'm out of my neighborhood. Weekends, it's either 40 miles to the ski mountain or 80 miles to the lake. One or two stopsigns the entire way.
I really want the hybrid technology to be suitable for me, but in reality, a diesel would serve me better. Both add cost over a gasoline-only vehicle, but both have higher resale (which is only a benefit if you trade it in rather than driving it until the wheels fall off). Diesels also have the benefit of lasting way longer than a gas engine (Partly becausee gasoline is a solvent while diesel is a lubricant).
We don't plan on buying another vehicle until both of our vehicles are worn out. They are currently only 8 and 5 years old (both bought new, so we know the maintenance history has been top notch and both look like brand new). But when we do look for that next vehicle, maybe 4 years from now, I'm anxious to see what is offered for diesels and what the cost per gallon of diesel has become. Also to see where electric technology has gone. I'm guessing by then, gas will be at least where it is in Europe today ($8+ gallon), so our access to underpriced fuel will be over and we'll be more aligned with the rest of the world.
If it were my job to write a slanted article, i.e. I was hired by the diesel industry to write an article and had no scruples or conscience, that's pretty much exactly what I would have written.
The article is extremely biased. Even when they try to be funny, it's slanted. Rigged. Biased. Through and through, including the humor.
Maybe therein lies the rivalry. Preferential treatment for a certain drive train. I got serious about owning a small diesel truck in 1998. Then it was dirty diesel and Chicken tax that kept me from owning one. Now it is PZEV emissions that keeps the diesels out of CARB states. Seems like the Government is always there to block people from having the superior engine qualities that diesel affords. When the Prius first came out I thought it was a good idea. For me it was not practical as I wanted a mid sized PU truck that would get better than 20 MPG. After 8 years of seeing what has come out in Hybrid I am less convinced of their value than I was in 2000. Face it the Prius is a horrible road car. At least where I travel 5 days out of 10 the wind buffets them all over the road. They block traffic going up the long grades as bad as the semi trucks do. For those that have a city commute I say go for it. They will never compete with diesel for all around good driving experience and practicality.
Lobby to end them? Sure.
But in the real world that Prius would be more quiet than the BMW, and would take the HOV lanes to work to get there in half the time, while using less fuel that also happens to cost a lot less. The tax credit you'd receive would pay for all of your gas bills for two years.
I'm not in the hybrid camp, as I think they still cost too much, but I do like to play Devil's Advocate, and some Diesel fans (not all, some) seem to go to extreme lengths to set conditions where a diesel will be compared favorably.
At the moment, yes. But there's no guarantee that gas will remain a "lot" cheaper than diesel in the long term or that the HOV access will continue (if your locality allows that in the first place), and the diesel qualifies for the "alternative fuel credit" while the gas hybrid doesn't.
I do think the Prius federal credits expired because Toyota sold so many of them. They still apply to Honda, Ford, Nissan, and GM, as far as I know. Plus check your state for whatever credits they may offer.
Yes, fuel prices are volatile. But think about it - right now diesel options for the average consumer are *rare*. Imagine when a lot of new options become available? Diesel demand will increase significantly. Increased demand means higher prices.
If more people buy diesel, that means fewer people buy gas. A drop in demand for gas. That could lower gas prices (though I would not hold my breath, it might just slow the price increases).
I think it's fair to say the tendency for diesel to cost more than gas will only get worse as many more diesel vehicles start to become available here.
To expand on the good points tpe just made, we have to remember that clean diesels with urea injection and particulate traps cost more. Right now some diesels only cost $800 more than the gas equivalent, so the break-even points were shorter than for hybrids, given the surcharge for the hybrids was greater.
But with clean diesels, the surcharge will likely jump to $2000 or so, pretty much negating that advantage.
Just a couple of things to consider. Like tpe said, imagine having to pay $2000 extra for a diesel, then only getting a 15-20% advantage, yet the fuel costs 19% more.
You enjoy more range, sure, but you're not really saving any on your fuel bill. You may not ever break even.
At least residuals are strong.
Maybe you missed the whole point of the article. First they said the BMW came along for the trip. They were testing the all around mileage of the Prius. Toyota is claiming in the UK that the Prius gets 65 MPG. Trying to drive without a lot of excess speed they were unable to come close to the propaganda put out by Toyota. The BMW by contrast IIRC came in with better than claimed mileage. I have never seen anywhere that Toyota sells the Prius as a city only car. So taking it on a road trip is fair game. Most test drives by magazines have not given the Prius a thumbs up when it came to meeting mileage expectations. It has always fallen well below the advertised figures. If you drive one of the small high mileage diesels in the EU that get actual 60+ MPG you would consider the Prius a gas guzzler.
Remember that Prius mileage is higher in the city than on the highway. Again, they went straight for its weakness.
Road trips are fair game, but they happen seldom. We haven't driven out of town since last summer. I commute every day. Hundreds of times since my last road trip.
Toyota knows how to tweak their cars for EPA tests, but you can't blame them - they are required to take that specific test and publish that figure.
Hate the game, not the player.
Well sure it did. And all the hybrid articles make jokes at the expense of pickup and SUVs (lumping in all those that really need to use that type of vehicle with those that just like the style). Does it bug me since one of our vehicles is a truck? No. Actually, it's usually pretty funny. It takes more than humor to get me all worked up.
"The article is extremely biased. Even when they try to be funny, it's slanted. Rigged. Biased. Through and through, including the humor. "
I just re-read the entire thing to try and pick up some of the "extremely biased" writing styles you are talking about and actually it's even less biased than I thought from my first read. They do a pretty good job of outlining what they are trying to do which is an open road trip comparison. Yes they know that hybrids perform best in town. That is not what this article was about (even though they added an extra 100 miles of urban driving, to the 450 mile trip, so it wasn't only a open road test). They say they are comparing open road mileage and that is what they do. 75mph open road cruising.
In any case, I think the fact that a larger sedan can be even in the same mpg ballpark as a compact is amazing. Granted the weight difference was only 573lb since the battery packs make a Prius weigh more for it's size than a non-hybrid, but it's also a fair size smaller than the 5 Series. Imagine if they'd used the more comparably sized 3 or 1 series diesels.
It's well known that people that do a lot of in town driving benefit the most from hybrid technology. Even over on the Prius board, those that own them, or have researched it, agree that, from a mpg and dollars/cents perspective, if most of your driving is open road, you really benefit very little from hybrid technology. Which makes sense, because that is not the environment for which it is intended. This article does a good job of pointing out that you can't blindly follow/use one technology if it doesn't align with your particular situation. If your driving environment and/or habits are different, you need to consider the best choice for that.
It's nice to know there are good choices for everyone out there.
In the US Toyota is bound by the EPA mileage rules. That is not the case in the EU. The Prius is getting preferential treatment based on perceived mileage. That has car owners that are getting better mileage up in arms.
The official fuel consumption figure for the Prius – supplied by Toyota itself – is 65.7mpg in mixed motoring. That’s a claim not supported by many of the letter writers to The Sunday Times who say they get nearer to 50mpg. If our readers are right and the official figure is wrong it has important implications, not least of which is that people driving frugal diesels are getting a raw deal.
Prius Gas Guzzler????
One of the bigger benefits still remaining is the state sales tax waiver. I believe that CT, WV and CO all offer incentives of waived sales taxes on hybids. This can be significant.
The new diesels have several obstacles to overcome which are not insignificant.
..the price of the fuel itself
..the extra cost vis-a-vis a normal gasser ( not a hybrid )
..the new EPA fuel economy/emisions requirements ( the Canadian tests are a first indication )
..re-educating the general public
..GM, Ford and Toyota are currently against diesels for mass market autos, all three favor hybrids.
I'd expect that like the Prius and hybrids in general that it will take a good 5 years for widespread acceptance.
Toyota would shoot themselves in the foot to criticize SUVs, given they sell about 37 different ones.
75mph is higher than normal speeds around the DC beltway, too. You rarely hit that speed around here, not until you're a good half hour or so out of town. I'm sure that varies a lot, but again, the odds were stacked against the hybrid.
75mph = 120kph, isn't that well above legal speeds for most of those roads? I'm not sure, just asking.
The 5 series did well, but I don't think it takes a slanted test to determine that. How about an even mix of typical driving? It would have been more informative.
I agree that they should have used a different vehicle, preferably one at a similar price.
I recall C&D tests of both a 335d and a 328i, and while BMW would prefer that we compare a 335i twin turbo, the fact is the performance was comparable to the cheaper 328i. Acceleration was nearly identical, I recall.
Basically, let's evaluate the 5 series on its own merits. How long (if ever) would it take to recover your initial investment when you pay more for the diesel? Compared to a similar performance gas engine (not a much quicker twin turbo).
Quick peek - looks like here in the US, a 535i is $5100 more than a 528i. If they brought the 535d here and it had that kind of markup, you would probably never break even. $2000 or so, then maybe (it would depend on diesel prices).
I think that price mark-up includes some features that are only options on the 528i, though. So the $5,100 isn't for only the engine upgrade. It's for some extra add-ons that they include with the base 335i.
When they bring the diesel (press releases say 2009), I'd prefer they brought the 520d like the one they used in the test, rather than the 335d. Still plenty zippy and great mileage.
From:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/detroit/2008/2009bmw335d.html
"The 335d's twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-6 generates a healthy 265 horsepower. More impressive is the staggering torque output — 425 pound-feet at just 1,750 rpm. So in other words, the 335d's inline-6 generates as much torque as Chrysler's 6.1-liter Hemi V8. It's enough power to get the 335d from zero to 60 mph in just 6.2 seconds, BMW claims. All that power doesn't torpedo the 335d's fuel economy, as BMW claims mileage figures of 23 mpg city and 33 mpg highway. "
As usual, in the US, it's all about the horsepower and 0-60 times. US buyers don't care (in enough numbers) about mileage so they'll never offer the 520d. Unfortunately, we've proven, with our buying power, that we'd rather have a car that is a couple seconds faster in 0-60 and has higher peak horsepower even though most people only drive at wide open throttle a few times a month and that is a few seconds at a time. I would think those that care about that could opt for the V8, though, since mpg is low on their list, and the diesel solution could be geared towards the person prioritizing economy (hence the 520d vs the 535d). The great thing about a diesel is even a very small displacement engine makes great torque so will move around a heavy vehicle more easily than a comparable gas engine.
That would be my preference also. My 2.0 Passat TDI had more than enough power for me. If it was just a couple inches higher off the ground I may have kept it. I just prefer the ease of getting in and out of a PU or SUV. I think that VW is the only diesel car maker selling in the US that gets what many of us want. Whichever company gets here with a full size diesel SUV I like will get my cash.
That's a good point. Diesel currently commands a substantial price premium despite the fact that, with the exception of commercial vehicles, there are very few diesel consumers. Add more diesel vehicles to our fleet and common sense dictates that the disparity between diesel fuel prices and gasoline prices will increase. One of the reasons that our gas prices haven't increased more is that we currently import unleaded gas from Europe. With their high percentage of diesel vehicles they end up with a surplus of gasoline that they've got to get rid of.
You can complain all you want about how the government won't allow diesels but it's really a moot point if the consumers end up not wanting them. Sure diesels have unique torque characteristics that might appeal to a select group but for most people interested in reducing their fuel bills that will be a non-issue.
My personal opinion is that we need diesel fuel for certain applications. However I'm not sure it makes sense for the general motorist. I think that if Europe could no longer find buyers for their unleaded gas you'd see a significant shift away from diesels in those countries.
What do you think they would get to replace the diesel cars they have. In most cases the diesel gets nearly double the mileage of the gas counterpart. At least that is the case with VW cars, which is the largest market segment in the EU. The only gas vehicle that can come close to a diesel in the UK, the Prius has a price tag of $35k USD to $41k USD. By comparison the Golf Plus TDI ranges from $29k to $35K USD.
If you are on a budget you can get a Polo diesel that is rated 72+ MPG for half the price of a Prius. The Touran diesel minivan with seating for 7 people costs the same as a Prius and gets over 42 MPG combined. Choices is all I am asking for. And we do not get any real choices. It is all controlled by lobbyist dollars.
How about the 318d ES? It is actually a little bigger than the Prius and very closely priced. It is rated 68.9 MPG combined with 0-62 MPH in 9.3 seconds. That should be a fair match with 50/50 urban/hwy. I don't think with our high priced diesel the hybrids would do any better here than they have in the EU if we had their choice of vehicles..
318d ES
Interesting link. I noticed that the price was £23,760. That works out to be 505,094 Mexican Pesos
If you add in US diesel emissions that price would likely be $50k for the 318d.
BMW does not seem to want to bring in their One and Three series diesels. Maybe they are afraid their performance image will suffer. Too bad, I like the look of the One series. It may also be just that the Euro to dollar ratio is not favorable for bringing in inexpensive vehicles -- they would lose their shirt. With a performance vehicle they can hide some of the costs or inflate the sticker price. Rich people are weird that way, increase the price, they get all excited.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-03-22-airforcecoal_N.htm
“From mining to processing to transportation to burning to disposal, coal has more environmental impacts than any other energy source.” (I guess they didn't plug in nuke accident cleanup costs into their formula :P ).
link
You can blame it on the environmentalist that have blocked the cleaner Nuclear power plants. We are so far behind France and Japan in that technology, we will never catch up. Probably buy from them. My understanding the small 10 MW nuclear plant that was going into Galena, a remote site in Alaska was shot down by environmentalists & regulators. Let em breath coal smoke.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/10/14/news/state/14 0931.txt
I am sure they can build a few plants. But what they don't usually mention in these articles is how much coal is really needed.
"Production is estimated to be 10,000-50,000 barrels per day of liquid fuels –would require 3-15 million tons of coal."
http://www.gasification.org/Docs/Workshops/2006/Bismarck% 2006/17Kuntz.pdf
ND coal production is about 30 million tons per year and Montana is about 40 million tons per year. If they build two small 50,000 barrel a day coal-to-liquid plants in ND they would need to double coal production in the state.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/nd.htm
They mention all the jobs -- 700 just for one plant. That is great except the coal industry is already concerned about people retiring at the coal power plants and mines in the next ten years. The baby boomers are retiring!! Another example:
"A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry"
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a- worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry.html
Google worker shortage in quotes and you should get over 100,000 hits.
And then there is the water issue, which could take a few pages to explain. Bottom line, everyone thinks the rivers and aquifers have unlimited water and all we have to do is stick another straw in there and presto unlimited water... The next ten years or so should be really interesting. I need to find me a nice island in the south pacific and learn to like coconuts. :shades: Probably need some good SPF 100 sun tan oil too.
I think you are wrong about the Galena situation - Toshiba is the problem. Sounds like the design issues aren't trivial. Interesting to note that Toshiba now owns Westinghouse. KIYU
Toshiba just created Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corporation within the last month. link
I can just hear the catch phase on the next generation of Priusmobiles:
"Hey, does that thing have a Toshiba?"
Looks like it is still alive alright. Last I heard it was dead. I think Toshiba picked Galena for its remote location and the military base that is there. It should be relatively safe for testing such a plant. The neat part is the reactor is deep in the earth. Only the steam for the turbines is brought to the surface. Seemed like a great little system that only needs servicing once every 30 years.