Too much money? Now youre REALLY scaring me! Our currency is probably far overated. When the Chinese figure it is they will sell it like a hot potato. Think of it this way. By not conserving you might be spending those 12 hours on the BUS!
I think indeed the lifting of the bans will indeed bring a flood of diesels and I think that is what the hybrid manufacturers are indeed frightened of. Diesels have no problems selling. The problem is having ENOUGH diesels TO sell. The only short and long range questions are: will it approach the 12% of the vehicle fleet from less than 3% now? (12% being the SUV phenomenon)
The second point is if the proper diesel is mated to the Tahoe/Yukon sized vehicle to get 25-35 mpg,25-35 mpg is currently almost compact car like fuel mileage!!! I am thinking that that would fit a lot of folks' needs and also get good fuel mileage.
If the primary result then is transferring money from Big Oil and the Mideast to Japan, I will definitly take that option.
By eliminating small efficient diesels as some are so gleeful about, it is eliminating the last economical vehicle that will run on 100% American made biodiesel. Something we should all strive for. I do understand your position as your living is involved. I don't understand someone that claims to be an environmentalist having that viewpoint. The current hybrids have not eliminated one ounce of middle east oil from being imported. If the truth were known the owners of hybrids are probably the biggest users of oil. The best way to use less oil is to drive less. Hopefully VW will build enough 2006 diesels to cover the period until their new diesel is available. That was the last word I heard from VW.
I would buy a 6 cylinder Tahoe diesel in a second. I agree that would be a near perfect family vehicle. It will take Congress to jerk on the EPA chain to make much happen. Of course I can still buy a honkin big V8 diesel even in CA. That is better than some gas guzzling E85 burning engine. It is mind boggling to think of how little the minds of some people are, to eliminate the one type engine that can deliver both great mileage and use home grown fuel 100% of the time.
It does seem patently disengenuous to advocate having less to no dependence on foreign oil and on other fronts make sure on all fronts that we slowly import MORE of a % of "FOREIGN OIL".
I think ONE real question is: are we REALLY all ready to DRIVE 40-60% less and with ALL its intended and unintended consequences!!!?? Are we willing to cut 40-60% of infrastructure consumption in cities great and small?? How do you think places like BOSTON, NYC, WASH, D.C. etc would field the average COLD winter with 40-60% less energy consumption, heating oil, etc?? Should we demand that fuel mileage in winter meet the normal EPA standards? Brave new world when you really level out the playing field eh? The answer is NOT in 100 dollar so called "rebate" checks from the IRS.
john1701a, how smugly melodramatic of you: "newest fatal blow against diesels". tee hee! just to inject a few facts into this diesel vs. hybrid cage-match... - VW is skipping 2007 model year for TDIs but is shipping us extra boatloads of 2006 Jetta TDIs to be sold well into 2007. hooray! - 2007 Jeep cherokee will be available with diesel engine - maybe the same one that's in the Benz E320 "bluetec" for 2007. N I C E ! - maybe the 2006 GM duramax pickups & savana-vans will be available as 2007s too. we'll see - i've not seen anything authoritative about that. by the way, if there have been previous fatal blows to diesel, why are they still alive, why are more fatal blows necessary!? the diesels sure do have amazing recovery powers, like the multiply-dismembered knight from the monty python movie!
I am also reminded that environmentalist's want to on one hand get rid of farming in the USA and on the other not grow domestic energy sources !!! Hey with friends like that, who needs to go to IRAQ to find enemies?????
The use of diesel and biodiesel is the next step. Combined with a hybrid diesel/biodiesel multiplier is the best step.
The current hybrids have not eliminated one ounce of middle east oil from being imported
I don't follow this logic at all unless you are saying that the oil not used by hybrid owners is being imported anyway and used by other vehicles. OK I will grant that except that the sales of 'other' vehicles of the high consumption variety are declining as shown in the latest sales figures... from all manufacturers.
An owner switching from say a normal ICE auto to a hybrid - or diesel - saves 35% of the fuel normally used. But since the sales of high-consumption vehicles are declining 5-20% in toto as people trade out of trucks/SUVs into lower-consumption vehicles such as Corolla's, Civics, Prius', Cobalts (!!) fuel is being saved for every mile being driven. This switching of vehicles in of itself saves upwards of 50-60% of the fuel that was being used this time last year by the same drivers over the same miles driven.
Logic tells me that unless the excess is being stored total usage is going down.
agreed, driving less is the best conservation method. But if one is going to drive under present conditions then using the most efficent method, whether hybrid or diesel or ICE is the best alternative.
The answer is NOT in 100 dollar so called "rebate" checks from the IRS.
Oh, I agree. Although I will enjoy getting the full $3400 on my 2008 Jetta diesel that will qualify for the hybrid/diesel tax credit. All you folks that realize what a dead-end the hybrids are should nurse that old 1960 Pontiac until a good diesel car is available. That will drive the PZEV worshipers to congregate at Niagara Falls and go over the falls in their stalled Prius.
..."I don't follow this logic at all unless you are saying that the oil not used by hybrid owners is being imported anyway and used by other vehicles. OK I will grant that except that the sales of 'other' vehicles of the high consumption variety are declining as shown in the latest sales figures... from all manufacturers." ...
I would say the confusion in "logic" comes from the consumption of too much "Hollywood" drivel. We need to sober up and get out of that fog.
So if we cut to the chase. While I do not subscribe to the "addicted ness" that President Bush refers; that is like a Hollywood type saying he kicked the cocaine habit completely by using less OF it!!! ??? Now he would be technically correct if he kicked the FOREIGN cocaine habit if he were using domestically grown and produced cocaine???
Someone said we need to drive less. Yes I think thats true. Not just because of scare natural resources either. The roads are getting clogged with vehicles. Man its going to be BAD in another 10 years. (Another reason to have SMALL cars like the ECHO) I have managed to work it out so I live 6.5 miles to work. Takes 20 minutes! Also, I am getting an electric scooter I can ride to the mass transit then carry on mass transit and ride from there to work. (I cant walk too well)
First let me say I don't consider you part of the PZEV or die Cult. You are much too pragmatic for that kind of nonsense.
My point is the current hybrids have not eliminated the need for oil at all. They are not alternative fuel vehicles, only alternative technology using the same old fuel. Sure they save a bit of gas. At what cost? I would say if you did an honest analysis on all hybrid owners very few have benefited financially by owning a hybrid. I would agree that the person with a long commute can and probably will make out if the car makes it to 200k miles without significant repair bills.
I looked for an electric scooter to haul in the RV. Did not find any light enough to throw in. You rode your motorcycle up the Dalton Highway in Alaska? That is a long trip.
I would not mind a high quality small car. not an Echo. Not much available from what I am seeing. Then you add in license, insurance & maintenance on a second car and it costs as much as gas for a larger vehicle like an SUV or PU truck. I will drive a maximum of 8000 miles a year total in the 4 vehicles we have now. A separate high mileage vehicle for running errands does not make sense financially. I may as well drive the PU truck that I like driving best of our vehicles. As an example the insurance alone on the 2005 Passat I sold will buy gas for my truck all year.
That is pretty cool alright. I can see you flying down the sidewalk with a briefcase strapped to your back. Does beat walking a couple miles to catch a bus.
My brother was having dinner last week with a friend of his who is the sales manager of a local BMW dealership. Well, as you would expect, the subject of “when are you going to sell your old Acura and buy a “real” car from me” came up. My brother, who lived two years in Germany, told him that as soon as BMW brought over the 330D and 530D he would get one. His friend then proceeded to tell him to plan on coming in right after the first of the year to pick out his new diesel BMW. He explained that the EPA and CARB will not certify any new diesel for sale until October 2006 when ULSD is mandated in all 50 states. However, BMW’s new diesels already meet and surpass EPA’s and CARB’s 2009 rules. He also indicated that BMW, and all other car manufactures, cannot sell a car as a 2008 MY until January 2007 so there won’t be any diesels until then.
Looks like the “flood” may be here sooner than we think.
The last GM diesel SUV that I remember was the 1995 Yukon with the 6.5 liter diesel. I've seen a lot of them still on the road. GM didn't produce many of them but they did get about 22+ MPGs while towing some big trailers. They had injector pump issues in the beginning but have been "very dependable" ever since. Try to pry one of these units from their very loyal owners.
In my "younger" day, I would have wholeheartedly agreed. But then a whole host of folks (my peers to be specific) considered themselves IMMORTAL and bullet proof.
It was cool until a high school friend and his girlfriend got into a motor bike accident. He literally took up the career as a long term vegetable and the girl, who I was good friends, DIED. One should also look at the NHSTA's motorcycle accident and death rate!!!
They are not alternative fuel vehicles, only alternative technology using the same old fuel.
A most outstanding point! Still got to use gasoline. FE might be a bit better, but you are still using gasoline.
Did a little research about E85. Turns out that these flex fuel vehicles average about 26% less FE when running on E85. Would be interesting to see how many Prius' would sell if they were E85 compatible and suffered from a similar loss in FE.
26% less on a 50 mpg (being a tad generous here given the gov self reported web site) Prius would = 37 mpg.
So I am sure someone will chime in why anyone could/should/would pay 12,500 more for a Prius when the commute Civic gets 38-41 in my plain jane 104 mile per day commute. I don't even have to run a B/E analysis to know that I (probably, to be PC about it) will NOT B/E. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Math sux alright! The one trick pony is becoming .75 of one. Now if E85 would be sold for 35-50% cheaper........ Sorry I will wake up from THAT dream.
Another would be what would the mpg be for a 100% ethanol Prius.
In Europe, I found the emissions specs for a Jeep GC with the 3.0L diesel. It is EURO IV compliant. Values are in gm/km
HC: 0.0 CO: 0.019
For a Prius
HC: 0.02 CO: 0.18
So much for the Prius so being green. The Jeep did not have a PM filter and yielded 0.037. If it had the PM filter, the value would be 0.003(based on a MB with the same engine and a PM filter). Again all values are in gm/km.
Just goes to show the monumental mistake the regulators wreaked on us in the mid 70's by NOT phasing in low sulfur diesel as they took lead and sulfur out of leaded gas to clear the way for the unleaded fuel we have today. As you have reported, the gasser polutes more and uses MORE fuel in the (total) process !!! It perplexs me how the unleaded regular advocates are still in denial. The disadvantages are even more pronounced given the same displacement for gasser/diesel engine. What is a Prius engine 1.5 L vs a 3.0 L diesel? Pardon me for letting the math get in the way, but 3.0 is 2X or DOUBLE the displacement of the 3.0 diesel.
Yes and what IS that engine anyway? Is it the old 300D like from 1980? (big brother to my old 240D?) The way some people ride scares the heck out of me. I myself have been riding since like 1974. No accidents. Lots of miles. One of the things I enjoy about riding a motorcycle is the possibility of death, or worse, dismemberment leading to quadriplegia (of course the same possibility exists in an automobile). Death as an everyday possibility doesnt exist anymore (or apparently doesnt exit anymore) for most people. But our ancestors thrived on it.
I am also reminded that environmentalist's want to on one hand get rid of farming in the USA and on the other not grow domestic energy sources !!! Hey with friends like that, who needs to go to IRAQ to find enemies?????
What ARE you talking about? I am an environmentalist. I do not want to "get rid of farming in the USA" nor do I want to "not grow domestic energy sources."
I am a member of Audobuon, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy AND NRDC, and I can't think of a single article that has been written in any of their magazines that supports your claim.
Maybe you should be more specific with your claim.
The purpose of the SULEV rating is to prevent misleading claims, just like yours. Selecting only data to fit your needs (intentionally being vague) is just plain wrong.
NOx is the biggest contributor to smog. Levels are far too high from diesel to achieve the SULEV rating. And from biodiesel, the NOx emissions are even higher! Yet, you excluded NOx from your green assertion.
Feeding people only numbers that draw a false picture doesn't help with the lack of actual competition from diesel.
Where is a diesel car to compete (both emissions & efficiency) with Prius and Camry-Hybrid?
"What ARE you talking about? I am an environmentalist. I do not want to "get rid of farming in the USA" nor do I want to "not grow domestic energy sources.""
In some states, enviromental activists are attempting to have farms covered as superfund cleanup sites (because of the manure). Apparently, the Superfund legistaion (meant to clean up industrial waste sites) failed to specifically exclude manure as a toxic substance.
This would expose the possibility of massive penalties on any farm that has livestock.
I would say if you did an honest analysis on all hybrid owners very few have benefited financially by owning a hybrid.
Why, oh WHY, do we have to go over this same point again and again and again?
oh, I know - it's because certain posters keep bringing it up as a red herring, because they are anti-hybrid
saving money is NOT the only reason people buy hybrids
in FACT, if you are using ANY financial analysis for your car purchase, you will certain buy a USED car, and not a NEW anything
Many people don't care about the financial argument when buying a car. In fact, EVERY new car purchase is a BAD financial decision. [of course, some people can ONLY get financing on a new car, and those people don't really have the luxury of making good financial decisions]
Many hybrid buyers buy hybrids because they want to contribute less to the air pollution where they live.
Many people like the gizmos on hybirds.
Many people just want to use less gasoline.
They don't care about the money.
Why are you on your propaganda campaign?
Is it against Edmunds rules to be paid to post on these forums? Does anyone at Edmunds ever police this issue? If you look back over the years, there are people who are here saying the same things, for YEARS. No person would do that if they weren't getting paid.
first, I was talking to ruking, since he was the one who made that claim. I amnot sure how you can know what he was talking about. Though maybe you share the same brain. Or you are the same person, posting under two names. I dunno. But I think he can speak for himself.
second, I am fairly certain that there is more to this manure issue than you have posted. Could it be that the manure is contaminating water supplies? Creeks?
Perhaps you don't know this, but there are beaches in California that are routinely shut down because of the bacteria from cows that graze near creeks. Of course, you will refute this and note that seagulls also poop. No duh. Does that mean grazing should not be regulated, to keep the cow poop off the beaches?
and just because ONE group takes a position, that is a reason to skewer ALL "environmentalists"??? Stop painting with such a broad brush.
The headquarters of the Sierra Club are not far from the Silicon Valley. Before the "Silicon Valley" the Santa Clara Valley almost bar none WAS (still is but the ground is under massive amounts of concrete) one of the PREMIER growing regions in CA and probably the WORLD!! How did the democratic controlled powers that be GET rid of farming? Well they didn't say you couldn't run your tractor to pass by Apple Computer or Cisco Systems etc, they just made the water and power so expensive as to be uneconomically unsupportable to use. Also they penalized the "effluent" side. If anything the gross polluters are the new uses that go in its place!! But the rules and regulations say that is just fine and besides it generates more tax revenue. Actually the environmental impact and discovery reports on former farm lands do not at all support your allegations of farmers as gross polluters of the land.
We use to have a (I used to call it high tech slaughter house) in San Jose off of Montaque Expressway, but predictably that got shot in the head. I don't think I need to bore you with the REST OF THE STORY.
Gilroy which incidently is another farming community is going through something similar. They want the "pastoral rural nature" preserved but there is absolutely NO spread sheet sense in doing ANY farming in those areas labeled as such!!! If farm equipment used Highway 152 and did not go 60-75 mph the urban commuters would bust a gut with complaints!!!
Consider this. Smog also contains lots of volatile unburned hydrocarbons.
So what you are feeding the world is just as tilted. Also in smog there is ozone. There are many more gassers on the road that dump more unburned HC into the air spite of being SULEV or PZEV. A Prius dumps ten times more unburned HC into the air as does a Jeep GC CRD (in European form sans Bluetec).
As to NOx, let us wait until Bluetec arrives. We are looking at a 90% drop in NOx so the Jeep GC CRD will emit 0.029 gm/km of NOx or about twice as much as the Prius. That is my green statement on NOx.
Last time I checked, every Silicon Valley farmer sold his farm for about 100 times what he paid for it. Yeah, the enviros "forced" the farmers out of Silicon Valley. [eyeroll]
LOL
You think Sierra Club wouldn't favor farming here over strip malls?
At least now I understand where your objectivity coes from.
I guess farmers should not be responsible for the chemicals they put into streams, groundwater, the air. They should get a free pass.
You did a total misread of what I said. If the effluent is going to the treatment plant what didnt you understand about that? Isn't that what you want? It would be what I would want. If it is uneconomical due to regulations and such what are you really saying? I know what I am saying and I have said it!! Would you rather it go to the streams groundwater etc etc? So in effect, the result is achieved? Less to no farmers!!
So lets try an interesting one. Do you think the government shoould pay say $ 1 M per acre for a farmer who farms 40,000 acres NOT to farm?
Do you think the government shoould pay say $ 1 M per acre for a farmer who farms 40,000 acres NOT to farm?
I would say I don't have enough information to judge that.
You, on the other hand, based on almost no information, would say, "hell no."
I hardly think this is the place for such a debate.
and you have done nothing to support your claim, which I challenged.
so, if a regulation is "uneconomical" then the regulation should not be enforced? What if the regulator is directly causing death? "Nah, that regulation is expensive, so don't implement it" ?? That is what you are saying?
If you can't run your business legally, then get out of the business. No community needs businesses that cause harm. Period. Take responsibility for your own actions. Isn't that what they say? But you want to let people throw their garbage into the creek, so the downstream folks have to deal with it. That's a good lesson in personal responsibility.
No It is you that is saying that I am saying polute like hell. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are inventing an enemy. The businesses are run legally. Period.
I know the environ folks dont like being told they are a shrill for big oil!! But you don't hear them pressuring congress to require the big oil companies to build better and greater refining capacity in the USA are you? As a matter of fact it is darn near impossible to do so. So you have to ask the logic question why should they given the impossible climate? Of course massive dollar and not % profits don't hurt much at all. It is hard to claim MASSIVE margins when the oil companies (as declared by the CEO of Chevron) make .05 cents a gal!!! Shoot governments at all levels make at the very least .40 cents a gal. HMMMMMMMMM
The debate centers around less dependence on foreign oil. As it works in reality it is just a mantra saying and nothing more. If we do not DOMESTICALLY ramp up, then where else are we going to get this stuff??
I am on your side. I want the same clean air and clean water. However, one does not need to be so extreme in obtaining this goal.
Before I forget, my usual diesel filling station is now selling ULSD at ten cents less per gallon than unleaded regular. Bought eighteen plus gallons worth. Put a little on my fingers to smell. Had less diesel fuel odor than before. Felt just as oily. After I washed my hands, the residual smell that one would normally have from S500 was not there.
No It is you that is saying that I am saying polute like hell.
no, it was YOU who blames "environmentalists"
see your post that I was replying to
I am not sure that YOU get to define what the "debate centers around" - MY debate does not center around less dependence on foreign oil. As far as I am concerned, oiul is a commodity like any other. I could care less where it comes from. If an Arab country wants to destroy a particular ecosystem, I can say "that's bad," but it's not my business, as much as an ecosystem in California or even Alaska (being a citizen of California and the U.S.)
The debate, here, is "Hybrids and Diesels - Deals or Duds" not "Decreased dependence on foreign oil - how do we get there"
I am all for using less oil in whatever we do, but that's mostly because of the health effect from all the ICEs in every metro area. Maybe if the government paid for medical care, we'd see more attention paid to improving air quality. (we do all know it would just result in lesser health care, but that is a whole nuther debate)
..."As far as I am concerned, oiul (sic)is a commodity like any other. I could care less where it comes from. If an Arab country wants to destroy a particular ecosystem, I can say "that's bad," but it's not my business, as much as an ecosystem in California or even Alaska (being a citizen of California and the U.S.) "...
Actually that issue came up during the Kerry for President Campaign. Senator Kerry's wife's holdings include manufacturing plants, which is owned by an Amercian Corporation but the majority of the plants were in fact not in the USA!! I believe (dont quote me) it was 59/75 plants for a majority of 79% were OFF SHORE or foreign plants.
..."The debate, here, is "Hybrids and Diesels - Deals or Duds" not "Decreased dependence on foreign oil - how do we get there" "...
Pretty simple, hybrid advocates claim this is so. Or more to the point some to most of the hybrid advocates say it will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. As I and Gagrice and a few others have pointed out, it is not true.
As an aside, Senator Kerry also at the time drove an SUV (FORD I believe). Let me say unequivocally this is fine to me. However when asked if he owned or drove an SUV, he said it belonged to his wife.
It does seem like that but I was not. I feel that some environmentalists have good input and see that there is a middle road to achieve a common goal. Unfortunately, like in every group, there are some who take things to an extreme and end up slitting everyone's throat including their own.
The lack of good oversight in environmental control is part of the problem. We need more refineries, no two bones about it, but they need to be built and run in a very responsible manner.
Look at it this way. Im not going to double my cost of transportation to drive a less polluting vehicle. Or for any other reason for that matter. The manufacturers are just going to have to come up with something better than that. I dont want hybrids to catch on because I dont consider giving my money to Toyota instead of Exxon a solution. So Im going to beat you with that stick until the cows come home. As it is my ECHO gets 40 mpg driving it 6.5 miles to work. If you made the engine smaller, reduced the horsepower 25% (like the Prius does), reduced the weight by 250 pounds and added a few gidget gadgets like engine stop/start it would probably get BETTER mileage than a Prius. (after all, the Prius is carrying around 800 pounds more than an ECHO) As far as pollution goes, theres no reason in the world you couldnt make the ECHO engine as clean as a Prius engine. (not thats its terribly dirty as it is). So take your beating like a man!
saving money is NOT the only reason people buy hybrids
This thread is for debating whether it is worthwhile to own a diesel or a hybrid. My contention is that the biggest percentage of hybrid owners DO NOT come out ahead financially. When that is proven folks throw in the money isn't important argument. I got news for those folks Money is important to people that don't have it or don't want to throw it down the toilet. When that gets all argued out we get the emissions is more important than anything argument. I got news for all the hybrid owners that bought a hybrid just to be cleaner than their neighbors. There are at least 30 non-hybrid cars on the market that are PZEV rated. And they don't cost $2000-$10,000 more to buy. So you can be as green or greener without spending additional money for a hybrid. You may even get better mileage than some get with their hybrids.
The Sierra Club and the Audubon Society of which I am a member, both have pending lawsuits against segments of the Mega Agri corporations, with a special emphasis on the pollution from ethanol plants. I read my magazines each month when I get them.
What you are saying was proven back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Civic CRX HF was rated 52 MPG combined. And I guarantee it was more fun to drive and handled much better than the best of the high mileage hybrids of today. Check out the EPA rating on the 1987 Civic Coupe. It was rated 54 MPG combined. Oh yeah, we have made some great progress in the last 20 years.
Comments
Not if you are in it 3-12 hours 5 days a week, every week, every month, every year. Some people spend more time in their vehicles than they do in bed.
There is too much money available in this country to force, coerce the buying public into a one-size-fits-all box. It's just not realistic.
The second point is if the proper diesel is mated to the Tahoe/Yukon sized vehicle to get 25-35 mpg,25-35 mpg is currently almost compact car like fuel mileage!!! I am thinking that that would fit a lot of folks' needs and also get good fuel mileage.
By eliminating small efficient diesels as some are so gleeful about, it is eliminating the last economical vehicle that will run on 100% American made biodiesel. Something we should all strive for. I do understand your position as your living is involved. I don't understand someone that claims to be an environmentalist having that viewpoint. The current hybrids have not eliminated one ounce of middle east oil from being imported. If the truth were known the owners of hybrids are probably the biggest users of oil. The best way to use less oil is to drive less. Hopefully VW will build enough 2006 diesels to cover the period until their new diesel is available. That was the last word I heard from VW.
I think ONE real question is: are we REALLY all ready to DRIVE 40-60% less and with ALL its intended and unintended consequences!!!?? Are we willing to cut 40-60% of infrastructure consumption in cities great and small?? How do you think places like BOSTON, NYC, WASH, D.C. etc would field the average COLD winter with 40-60% less energy consumption, heating oil, etc?? Should we demand that fuel mileage in winter meet the normal EPA standards? Brave new world when you really level out the playing field eh? The answer is NOT in 100 dollar so called "rebate" checks from the IRS.
- VW is skipping 2007 model year for TDIs but is shipping us extra boatloads of 2006 Jetta TDIs to be sold well into 2007. hooray!
- 2007 Jeep cherokee will be available with diesel engine - maybe the same one that's in the Benz E320 "bluetec" for 2007. N I C E !
- maybe the 2006 GM duramax pickups & savana-vans will be available as 2007s too. we'll see - i've not seen anything authoritative about that.
by the way, if there have been previous fatal blows to diesel, why are they still alive, why are more fatal blows necessary!? the diesels sure do have amazing recovery powers, like the multiply-dismembered knight from the monty python movie!
Not to mention the fact that diesel has the ability to be DOMESTICALLY produced.
Not to mention there are a myriad of processes and materials it can be produced from.
Not to mention the production can be supported from waste stream materials.
Not to mention the production can be supported from EXISTING waste stream materials.
Oh and did we ever mention that biodiesel can be processed from DOMESTICALLY GROWN plants?
Gasser hybrids are almost a one trick pony in comparison to the diesel option.
The current hybrids have not eliminated one ounce of middle east oil from being imported
I don't follow this logic at all unless you are saying that the oil not used by hybrid owners is being imported anyway and used by other vehicles. OK I will grant that except that the sales of 'other' vehicles of the high consumption variety are declining as shown in the latest sales figures... from all manufacturers.
An owner switching from say a normal ICE auto to a hybrid - or diesel - saves 35% of the fuel normally used. But since the sales of high-consumption vehicles are declining 5-20% in toto as people trade out of trucks/SUVs into lower-consumption vehicles such as Corolla's, Civics, Prius', Cobalts (!!) fuel is being saved for every mile being driven. This switching of vehicles in of itself saves upwards of 50-60% of the fuel that was being used this time last year by the same drivers over the same miles driven.
Logic tells me that unless the excess is being stored total usage is going down.
agreed, driving less is the best conservation method. But if one is going to drive under present conditions then using the most efficent method, whether hybrid or diesel or ICE is the best alternative.
Oh, I agree. Although I will enjoy getting the full $3400 on my 2008 Jetta diesel that will qualify for the hybrid/diesel tax credit. All you folks that realize what a dead-end the hybrids are should nurse that old 1960 Pontiac until a good diesel car is available. That will drive the PZEV worshipers to congregate at Niagara Falls and go over the falls in their stalled Prius.
I would say the confusion in "logic" comes from the consumption of too much "Hollywood" drivel. We need to sober up and get out of that fog.
So if we cut to the chase. While I do not subscribe to the "addicted ness" that President Bush refers; that is like a Hollywood type saying he kicked the cocaine habit completely by using less OF it!!! ??? Now he would be technically correct if he kicked the FOREIGN cocaine habit if he were using domestically grown and produced cocaine???
I have managed to work it out so I live 6.5 miles to work. Takes 20 minutes! Also, I am getting an electric scooter I can ride to the mass transit then carry on mass transit and ride from there to work. (I cant walk too well)
First let me say I don't consider you part of the PZEV or die Cult. You are much too pragmatic for that kind of nonsense.
My point is the current hybrids have not eliminated the need for oil at all. They are not alternative fuel vehicles, only alternative technology using the same old fuel. Sure they save a bit of gas. At what cost? I would say if you did an honest analysis on all hybrid owners very few have benefited financially by owning a hybrid. I would agree that the person with a long commute can and probably will make out if the car makes it to 200k miles without significant repair bills.
I looked for an electric scooter to haul in the RV. Did not find any light enough to throw in. You rode your motorcycle up the Dalton Highway in Alaska? That is a long trip.
I would not mind a high quality small car. not an Echo. Not much available from what I am seeing. Then you add in license, insurance & maintenance on a second car and it costs as much as gas for a larger vehicle like an SUV or PU truck. I will drive a maximum of 8000 miles a year total in the 4 vehicles we have now. A separate high mileage vehicle for running errands does not make sense financially. I may as well drive the PU truck that I like driving best of our vehicles. As an example the insurance alone on the 2005 Passat I sold will buy gas for my truck all year.
http://www.wheelalternatives.citymax.com/page/page/2939549.htm
Looks like the “flood” may be here sooner than we think.
It was cool until a high school friend and his girlfriend got into a motor bike accident. He literally took up the career as a long term vegetable and the girl, who I was good friends, DIED. One should also look at the NHSTA's motorcycle accident and death rate!!!
A most outstanding point! Still got to use gasoline. FE might be a bit better, but you are still using gasoline.
Did a little research about E85. Turns out that these flex fuel vehicles average about 26% less FE when running on E85. Would be interesting to see how many Prius' would sell if they were E85 compatible and suffered from a similar loss in FE.
So I am sure someone will chime in why anyone could/should/would pay 12,500 more for a Prius when the commute Civic gets 38-41 in my plain jane 104 mile per day commute. I don't even have to run a B/E analysis to know that I (probably, to be PC about it) will NOT B/E. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Math sux alright! The one trick pony is becoming .75 of one.
Another would be what would the mpg be for a 100% ethanol Prius.
In Europe, I found the emissions specs for a Jeep GC with the 3.0L diesel. It is EURO IV compliant. Values are in gm/km
HC: 0.0
CO: 0.019
For a Prius
HC: 0.02
CO: 0.18
So much for the Prius so being green. The Jeep did not have a PM filter and yielded 0.037. If it had the PM filter, the value would be 0.003(based on a MB with the same engine and a PM filter). Again all values are in gm/km.
The way some people ride scares the heck out of me. I myself have been riding since like 1974. No accidents. Lots of miles. One of the things I enjoy about riding a motorcycle is the possibility of death, or worse, dismemberment leading to quadriplegia (of course the same possibility exists in an automobile). Death as an everyday possibility doesnt exist anymore (or apparently doesnt exit anymore) for most people. But our ancestors thrived on it.
What ARE you talking about? I am an environmentalist. I do not want to "get rid of farming in the USA" nor do I want to "not grow domestic energy sources."
I am a member of Audobuon, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy AND NRDC, and I can't think of a single article that has been written in any of their magazines that supports your claim.
Maybe you should be more specific with your claim.
The purpose of the SULEV rating is to prevent misleading claims, just like yours. Selecting only data to fit your needs (intentionally being vague) is just plain wrong.
NOx is the biggest contributor to smog. Levels are far too high from diesel to achieve the SULEV rating. And from biodiesel, the NOx emissions are even higher! Yet, you excluded NOx from your green assertion.
Feeding people only numbers that draw a false picture doesn't help with the lack of actual competition from diesel.
Where is a diesel car to compete (both emissions & efficiency) with Prius and Camry-Hybrid?
JOHN
In some states, enviromental activists are attempting to have farms covered as superfund cleanup sites (because of the manure). Apparently, the Superfund legistaion (meant to clean up industrial waste sites) failed to specifically exclude manure as a toxic substance.
This would expose the possibility of massive penalties on any farm that has livestock.
http://tinyurl.com/ep7bl
Why, oh WHY, do we have to go over this same point again and again and again?
oh, I know - it's because certain posters keep bringing it up as a red herring, because they are anti-hybrid
saving money is NOT the only reason people buy hybrids
in FACT, if you are using ANY financial analysis for your car purchase, you will certain buy a USED car, and not a NEW anything
Many people don't care about the financial argument when buying a car. In fact, EVERY new car purchase is a BAD financial decision. [of course, some people can ONLY get financing on a new car, and those people don't really have the luxury of making good financial decisions]
Many hybrid buyers buy hybrids because they want to contribute less to the air pollution where they live.
Many people like the gizmos on hybirds.
Many people just want to use less gasoline.
They don't care about the money.
Why are you on your propaganda campaign?
Is it against Edmunds rules to be paid to post on these forums? Does anyone at Edmunds ever police this issue? If you look back over the years, there are people who are here saying the same things, for YEARS. No person would do that if they weren't getting paid.
second, I am fairly certain that there is more to this manure issue than you have posted. Could it be that the manure is contaminating water supplies? Creeks?
Perhaps you don't know this, but there are beaches in California that are routinely shut down because of the bacteria from cows that graze near creeks. Of course, you will refute this and note that seagulls also poop. No duh. Does that mean grazing should not be regulated, to keep the cow poop off the beaches?
and just because ONE group takes a position, that is a reason to skewer ALL "environmentalists"??? Stop painting with such a broad brush.
We use to have a (I used to call it high tech slaughter house) in San Jose off of Montaque Expressway, but predictably that got shot in the head. I don't think I need to bore you with the REST OF THE STORY.
Gilroy which incidently is another farming community is going through something similar. They want the "pastoral rural nature" preserved but there is absolutely NO spread sheet sense in doing ANY farming in those areas labeled as such!!! If farm equipment used Highway 152 and did not go 60-75 mph the urban commuters would bust a gut with complaints!!!
So what you are feeding the world is just as tilted. Also in smog there is ozone. There are many more gassers on the road that dump more unburned HC into the air spite of being SULEV or PZEV. A Prius dumps ten times more unburned HC into the air as does a Jeep GC CRD (in European form sans Bluetec).
As to NOx, let us wait until Bluetec arrives. We are looking at a 90% drop in NOx so the Jeep GC CRD will emit 0.029 gm/km of NOx or about twice as much as the Prius. That is my green statement on NOx.
LOL
You think Sierra Club wouldn't favor farming here over strip malls?
At least now I understand where your objectivity coes from.
I guess farmers should not be responsible for the chemicals they put into streams, groundwater, the air. They should get a free pass.
So lets try an interesting one. Do you think the government shoould pay say $ 1 M per acre for a farmer who farms 40,000 acres NOT to farm?
another brilliant statement from the folks who want to destroy the air we breathe, the water we drink......
I would say I don't have enough information to judge that.
You, on the other hand, based on almost no information, would say, "hell no."
I hardly think this is the place for such a debate.
and you have done nothing to support your claim, which I challenged.
so, if a regulation is "uneconomical" then the regulation should not be enforced? What if the regulator is directly causing death? "Nah, that regulation is expensive, so don't implement it" ?? That is what you are saying?
If you can't run your business legally, then get out of the business. No community needs businesses that cause harm. Period. Take responsibility for your own actions. Isn't that what they say? But you want to let people throw their garbage into the creek, so the downstream folks have to deal with it. That's a good lesson in personal responsibility.
I know the environ folks dont like being told they are a shrill for big oil!! But you don't hear them pressuring congress to require the big oil companies to build better and greater refining capacity in the USA are you? As a matter of fact it is darn near impossible to do so. So you have to ask the logic question why should they given the impossible climate? Of course massive dollar and not % profits don't hurt much at all.
The debate centers around less dependence on foreign oil. As it works in reality it is just a mantra saying and nothing more. If we do not DOMESTICALLY ramp up, then where else are we going to get this stuff??
Before I forget, my usual diesel filling station is now selling ULSD at ten cents less per gallon than unleaded regular. Bought eighteen plus gallons worth. Put a little on my fingers to smell. Had less diesel fuel odor than before. Felt just as oily. After I washed my hands, the residual smell that one would normally have from S500 was not there.
Judging by the number of new and old strip malls vs old and new farms... I'd say that is an absolute no brainer.
No one is is seriously suggesting catalytic converters on cows.
no, it was YOU who blames "environmentalists"
see your post that I was replying to
I am not sure that YOU get to define what the "debate centers around" - MY debate does not center around less dependence on foreign oil. As far as I am concerned, oiul is a commodity like any other. I could care less where it comes from. If an Arab country wants to destroy a particular ecosystem, I can say "that's bad," but it's not my business, as much as an ecosystem in California or even Alaska (being a citizen of California and the U.S.)
The debate, here, is "Hybrids and Diesels - Deals or Duds" not "Decreased dependence on foreign oil - how do we get there"
I am all for using less oil in whatever we do, but that's mostly because of the health effect from all the ICEs in every metro area. Maybe if the government paid for medical care, we'd see more attention paid to improving air quality. (we do all know it would just result in lesser health care, but that is a whole nuther debate)
it seemed that you were "piling on" on top of ruking's comments criticizing all environmentalists
Actually that issue came up during the Kerry for President Campaign. Senator Kerry's wife's holdings include manufacturing plants, which is owned by an Amercian Corporation but the majority of the plants were in fact not in the USA!! I believe (dont quote me) it was 59/75 plants for a majority of 79% were OFF SHORE or foreign plants.
..."The debate, here, is "Hybrids and Diesels - Deals or Duds" not "Decreased dependence on foreign oil - how do we get there" "...
Pretty simple, hybrid advocates claim this is so. Or more to the point some to most of the hybrid advocates say it will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. As I and Gagrice and a few others have pointed out, it is not true.
As an aside, Senator Kerry also at the time drove an SUV (FORD I believe). Let me say unequivocally this is fine to me. However when asked if he owned or drove an SUV, he said it belonged to his wife.
The lack of good oversight in environmental control is part of the problem. We need more refineries, no two bones about it, but they need to be built and run in a very responsible manner.
Look at it this way. Im not going to double my cost of transportation to drive a less polluting vehicle. Or for any other reason for that matter. The manufacturers are just going to have to come up with something better than that. I dont want hybrids to catch on because I dont consider giving my money to Toyota instead of Exxon a solution. So Im going to beat you with that stick until the cows come home. As it is my ECHO gets 40 mpg driving it 6.5 miles to work. If you made the engine smaller, reduced the horsepower 25% (like the Prius does), reduced the weight by 250 pounds and added a few gidget gadgets like engine stop/start it would probably get BETTER mileage than a Prius. (after all, the Prius is carrying around 800 pounds more than an ECHO) As far as pollution goes, theres no reason in the world you couldnt make the ECHO engine as clean as a Prius engine. (not thats its terribly dirty as it is).
So take your beating like a man!
This thread is for debating whether it is worthwhile to own a diesel or a hybrid. My contention is that the biggest percentage of hybrid owners DO NOT come out ahead financially. When that is proven folks throw in the money isn't important argument. I got news for those folks Money is important to people that don't have it or don't want to throw it down the toilet. When that gets all argued out we get the emissions is more important than anything argument. I got news for all the hybrid owners that bought a hybrid just to be cleaner than their neighbors. There are at least 30 non-hybrid cars on the market that are PZEV rated. And they don't cost $2000-$10,000 more to buy. So you can be as green or greener without spending additional money for a hybrid. You may even get better mileage than some get with their hybrids.
The Sierra Club and the Audubon Society of which I am a member, both have pending lawsuits against segments of the Mega Agri corporations, with a special emphasis on the pollution from ethanol plants. I read my magazines each month when I get them.