DOT and EPA Announce New Gas Mileage Regulations

[kydsid]

All this tail wagging over a new standard that will force vehciles like an F150 to reach 23-25mpg by 2025, an ecoboost F150 can do 20-22 right now. Gee that's gonna be hard to meet.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2025_CAFE-GHG_Supplemental_NOI07292011.pdf

 

[Daggah]

All this tail wagging over a new standard that will force vehciles like an F150 to reach 23-25mpg by 2025, an ecoboost F150 can do 20-22 right now. Gee that's gonna be hard to meet.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2025_CAFE-GHG_Supplemental_NOI07292011.pdf

Well, we can't exactly let little things like facts and the finer details get in the way of complaining about the government, right? Good catch.

 

[Elios]

If I remember correctly, Hydrogen is a bitch to get purely. Electrolysis is horribly inefficient(As in it takes wayyy too much power in to get Hydrogen). I had a guy from Air Products come to my school and do a presentation on it. They said they had a few stations that used electrolysis and it was like a whole block covered in solar panels but could only fuel 8 cars a day.

Thorium is obviously quite abundant and doesn't seem that dangerous. Although if you crash and break the barrier then it may get a bit dangerous.

if you build LFTR based power stations that isnt an issue any more but yes using solar to get hydrogen from water is insane your better off getting out of natural gas much easier
there are lot of other ways to get H

thing is nuclear power is tainted in the public eye thanks to 3 major accidents with it now
your going to be hard pressed to get people to trust it in a car even if it is safe

your better off fighting that war with it in power plants where it isnt in peoples faces

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

A completely free market does not equal anarchy. Free markets can only exist where people are free to make the choices they want to make, without infringing on the rights of others. This requires the rule of law (like our constitution).

The laws that limit the free market are exactly those that seek to protect the rights of others.

It will always be a battle between being able to do whatever the hell you want in business, and having protections for people.

Every single economic system falls somewhere between those two.

It just depend son how many protections, and for what people you feel you need.

To that point there is neither such a thing as a completely free market, or one that is not free.

That being said, there are things that free market type forces then to lend themselves very well towards, and there are others in which they tend to fail.

Whenever the profit incentive significantly comes in conflict with the well being of people, is when the free market fails. This happens more often than many would be willing to admit.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

If you want to get drunk, go ahead, but if you get into a car and drive then it’s a problem because when you hit someone you are deigning them of their rights to be able to safely drive home.

So what if your individual choice sends money abroad to countries and organizations that hate us, some of which sponsor terrorism, and harms our economy at the same time.

What if your choice results in more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting in greater storm activity and potentially down the line rising sea levels?

Are you not harming the safety, and economic well being of everyone around you with your selfishness?

How is this any different from driving drunk?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Hah! If you think that is a problem, you are most certainly a liberal.

I don't have a problem with peoples wants. Wants are a great thing and they act as an incentive to make people do great things.

My point is that if there is something we know is harmful to our country and the world and we want to ban/reduce it. I am more likely to make an exception for a hardship that can cause a person to not be able to support their family, than I am likely to make an exception for the leisure activities of some spoiled brat.

 

[KarsusTG]

This is such a great rule, because, you know, no one wants sports cars any more.

I feel this is a roundabout(or direct) way of telling me what I can and can't drive.

The US Government needs to stay the hell out of my garage.

Or a light duty pickup capable of hauling more than groceries....

I seriously don't see you towing a 12k lb trailer with a hybrid anytime remotely soon.... lol

 

[Zangmonkey]

The laws that limit the free market are exactly those that seek to protect the rights of others.

And they very often fail to protect rights, making things worse for all participants.

It will always be a battle between being able to do whatever the hell you want in business, and having protections for people.

I find that quite often central-planning actions done "for my best interest" end up worse for me. Particularly when the central-planner becomes a market participant and creates special legal protections and monopolies for their own sponsored enterprise (as in the US).

Every single economic system falls somewhere between those two.

It just depend son how many protections, and for what people you feel you need.

To that point there is neither such a thing as a completely free market, or one that is not free.

Success of a "completely free" market depends on strong-form EMH and informed, rational participants. Therefore it cannot work entirely, but that has been used (inappropriately) as a justification for central-planning participation.

The big problem we face is that we confound the ideas of equitable regulation with central-planner-participation. Even in a "freer market, capitalism" there stands reason for certain regulation to oppose "natural monopolies". This is not the sort of intervention we most often have.

That being said, there are things that free market type forces then to lend themselves very well towards, and there are others in which they tend to fail.

Whenever the profit incentive significantly comes in conflict with the well being of people, is when the free market fails. This happens more often than many would be willing to admit.

This is not a "market error" it is a time-inconsistent-behavior. IMHO, protections against this are the sort of justifiable paternalism which warrant regulation.
But it cannot be overstated that we have central-planner market participation and cronyism, not just regulation.
It is critically important to recognize the difference between these two, as one equally restricts market behavior and the other unequally promotes a preferred, sponsored enterprise.

 

[Daggah]

Neither I nor Zarathustra[H] is advocating a centrally planned economy.

 

[Mohonri]

Too late to come up with decent alternatives. The R&D is going to take time. As I said before, the longer we wait, the more painful the transition away from oil will be. But seeing as how America continually refuses to learn its lesson, the pain and cost is well deserved at this point. As I also said before, the '70s should have been a wakeup call. But since oil was still profitable, short-sighted capitalism drove us to hit the snooze button.

There are a couple false assumptions in your thinking here:
1) "too late to come up with decent alternatives"--you assume that we're going to run out of oil suddenly, or that the price will skyrocket suddenly and permanently. That's a false assumption. Sure, there was a spike in fuel prices in the 70's. But it was temporary. The market acted appropriately by not making a permanent change to handle a temporary condition. Again: we are not going to run out of oil. Period. It'll just get more and more expensive, over the course of several decades.

2) "the longer we wait, the more painful the transition will be"--No, it won't. It might be true if 1) our dependence on petroleum were increasing, and 2) there was going to be a sudden and drastic shortage. Neither of those are true. In fact, the longer we wait, the easier the transition will be. After all, as oil becomes less abundant, prices will rise, which will make alternatives more competitive. Which means the transition will be easier.

Government overreaches. Sure. So do corporations. Thing is, profit-driven corporations do so quite often, whenever they think they can get away with it. And at the end of the day, we (should) have more control over our government.

Apples to oranges. The government has force of law--it can say "your cars must have an average fuel economy by date X". Corporations do not. We *should*. But when the legislature delegates regulatory authority to appointed bureaucracies, we lose that control. We actually *have* more control over corporations, because we can vote with our wallets immediately, rather than waiting for the next election cycle.

It's not a world view, it's a fact. As people continue to be wasteful with vehicles they don't need, the consequences of their actions become increasingly far-reaching. Eventually, enough will be enough. If people can't control their own behavior and be responsible with their actions and the consequences those actions have to the rest of their society and the rest of the planet, then something will need to be done to change direction. And it's not going to be the free market that does THAT.

By that same logic, I'll ask you to get rid of your GTX 680 and 27" monitor. You don't NEED them, and they're causing environmental harm through increased power usage. If you can't control your own behavior and be responsible with your own actions and the consequences those actions have to the rest of society and the rest of the planet, then something will need to be done to change direction.

When has unregulated capitalism EVER resulted in the changes that benefit society as a whole rather than te shareholders? Give me ONE example, I dare you.

Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? I rest my case.

Burning oil WILL, however, continue to do damage to the environment. It WILL continue to become more costly to produce. Our reliance on it WILL continue to be a national security risk. American capitalism has already repeatedly proven its lack of foresight on this topic. We showed it in the '70s. We showed it during the price hikes of the last decade. Every single fucking time the price goes back to normal, we get right back into our wasteful trucks and SUVs and we go on as if nothing happened. Car companies are more than happy to sell us wasteful vehicles. The oil companies don't care.

You make a lot of separate claims there. Let me dissect them one at a time:
1) Burning oil harms the environment. And as it become more scarce and more expensive, we'll burn less of it. May I also remind you that the US is not the world's biggest polluter? Last I checked, if we cut our emissions to 0, it would have about a 20% impact on global emissions. That's it.
2) It WILL continue to become more costly to produce Rising prices will drive down consumption and drive innovation, without the government forcing it. That's a good thing, right?
3) Our reliance on it WILL continue to be a national security risk. There are a couple problems with this statement. First of all, with a few temporary exceptions (the embargo of the 70's, for example), such fears have failed to materialize. Secondly, we have lots of our own oil that we're simply not allowed to tap.
4) American capitalism has already repeatedly proven its lack of foresight on this topic. We showed it in the '70s. We showed it during the price hikes of the last decade. You are dead wrong here. The market reacted exactly as it should to a temporary event: by doing nothing. I'd also like to point out that Jimmy Carter's price controls on gasoline contributed mightily to that crisis. It is absurd to think that a market should make a permanent shift to gas-sipping cars because of a temporary spike in gas prices.
5) Car companies are more than happy to sell us wasteful vehicles. Because that's what people are willing to spend their own money on.

Just how many examples do you need of corporations showing time and time again that all they care about is short-term profitability? Earning reports for publicly traded companies are QUARTERLY. That's what the shareholders care about. Corporate executives have proven over and over again that they can and will run a company into the ground if it makes them some more cash. Put down Atlas Shrugged and come join the rest of us in reality, FFS.

Oh, please don't throw me in that briar patch!

What percentage of publicly-traded and privately-owned companies are run responsibly? Sure, there are few bad actors. Ok, now let's compare it to government-owned and government-subsidized companies. You get a much better success rate that way than you do when you compare it to government-controlled entities. BTW, how's that Department of Energy loan program working out?

Doesn't change the fact that the clause as written has become increasingly useful in modern society with much larger scale economies now, does it?

Useful for imposing one political groups world vision on the rest of the population, yes. I hardly count that as a good thing.

 

[Zangmonkey]

Neither I nor Zarathustra[H] is advocating a centrally planned economy.

Perhaps not, but that is the consequence of state paternalism. It is what we have in the real world as a result of justified intervention and apathetic citizens.

It is the reason we need to shackle the state, as we are neither willing nor capable of opposing their central planning.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, in the first half of this decade, the economy in the US was growing at 4-5% per year. 6% would be AWESOME. The past quarter's GDP growth just got revised upward to 1.7% annual growth rate yesterday.

Definitely. We are still recovering from the worst recession of our lifetime. This is to be expected.

My statements were referencing the kind of GDP growth we have tended to see prior to our current debacle.

Secondly, there is an unspoken assumption in your post that universal health care (and welfare, to cover the food and shelter) ensure that everyone gets health care, food, and shelter. We can look no further than the UK's much-vaunted NHS for an example of why that kind of system *doesn't* work. Sure, the free market doesn't cover every corner case. But it results in a much larger net benefit to society as a whole.

That is a common misconception in america based on many comments in political circles on the right.

Take a look at this fact sheet. It's also a common misconception that Romneycare is incredibly unpopular in Massachusetts. While nowhere near the level of popularity of the NHS, the overall feeling is not significantly negative either.

It is a misconception that single payer systems routinely leave people without care. They tend to have much better health outcomes that private systems overall. The pre Obamacare U.S. healthcare system was the most expensive in the world by far, but only affords us the 37th best healthcare outcomes in the world, worst in the western industrialized world.

We ranked below Costarica (36), the Dominican Republic (35), Chile (33), Morocco (29), United Arab Emirates (27), Colombia (22), Oman (8) and many others.

France's single payer system ranked first. The U.K's NHS ranked 18th. Canada and their single payer system comes in at 30.

The WHO's list is here for your review.

Maybe it is time to start questioning what you have been hearing on Fox News?

Economic growth *is* everything. Where do you think governments get the money for social welfare?

Economic growth is important, no doubt, but to pursue it at the cost of everything else is folly.

When you allow a market to run too free, removing regulations, and making low cost financing too available, you usually wind up with extremely high growth rates in the short term, but disastrous problems in the long term, with bubbles bursting and violent up and down swings.

The best outcome is to control growth using - among other tools - monetary policy, taxation and regulation. This leads to a lower level of peak growth, but a much steadier system. Fluctuations are not as violent, businesses benefit from greater predictability, mass unemployment during recessions is more or less avoided.

So, if you raise revenues to cover - say - a single payer healthcare system, and this in turn results in slightly lower growth during the boom years, you are actually both the economy and the people you are covering a favor.

If you keep up revenues during the good years, you can pay for your stimulus and monetary policy in the bad years without as much debt, and maintain a steady system.

Pursuing growth at any cost is dangerous, and usually causes more harm than good.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Daggah]

You're going to cite the Industrial Revolution as an example of the free market producing a result good for society? If you're that deluded, then I'm done with this. The Industrial Revolution introduced the need for government regulation in the first place. Child labor, hazardous working conditions, workers that were both overworked and underpaid... You really are blinded by your faith.

 

[wonderfield]

You do realize that older cars are death traps compared to modern cars designed around the concept of a crumple zone, right?

Yeah, I'm not sure he understands the kinds of things that can happen to a person in an older vehicle. In mine, for instance, in a substantial-enough front-end collision, your skull will be crushed in by the steering wheel, at which point, the non-collapsing steering column will probably plunge through your chest. If there are any passengers in the rear seat, well, they're going to go flying through the front windshield, because there aren't any seat belts back there. The sheer mass of it isn't enough to make up for the absence of safety equipment.

Old vehicles do have crumple zones, but are unfortunate in the respect that the crumple zone is generally the occupant's body

 

[okashira]

If I remember correctly, Hydrogen is a bitch to get purely. Electrolysis is horribly inefficient(As in it takes wayyy too much power in to get Hydrogen). I had a guy from Air Products come to my school and do a presentation on it. They said they had a few stations that used electrolysis and it was like a whole block covered in solar panels but could only fuel 8 cars a day.

Thorium is obviously quite abundant and doesn't seem that dangerous. Although if you crash and break the barrier then it may get a bit dangerous.

From what I've read it soesn't produce any weapons grade materials, but yeah, the fear mongers would definitely be throwing around that kind of FUD.

Can't be all that much worse than driving around one of those horribly inefficient hydrogen bombs the gubermint's pushing for.

The article says "A 250 KW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.", so not much different than an average v8. 250 kW = 339.91 hp, so it shouldn't be a total snail. With 8g Thorium being equivalent to 60,000 gal. gasoline, even if it only got the equivalent of 10 mpg it would still go 600,000 miles without refueling, though I'm thinking it should get considerably better than that since the car wouldn't be carrying a tank of gas at just over 6 lbs per gallon.

You guys have not considered that the Thorium thing you linked to isn't a scam. As a mechanical engineer, I read over the article, and it looks 100% like a pump and dump. There's nothing but smoke and mirrors instead of a legitimate descritpion of how they are actually producing energy. This isn't going to happen, sorry guys.

as much as i love Thorium yea thats kinda pipe dream LFTR based power plants that make power to split water in to H and O2 and then the H used for fuelcells is the best plan imo

thorium based reactors are pretty safe but im not sure id want to drive around with one
and it would still be very heavy

I want to address this. Hydrogen is NOT A FUEL. it's an energy storage medium, and a VERY inefficient one. Electrolosis of water is silly inefficient; a huge waste of energy.

Most hydrogen is made from natural gas by conversion of methane to hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. Actually using this hydrogen as a fuel is just ... I don't under stand it. It's much better and more efficient to just burn the nat gas directly in a car. Better yet to burn it in a 60% efficient and super clean combineed cycle power plant and make use of electricity, and charge a battery powered car. Unfortunatly there are still issues with electric cars (cost...)

In general, it is desireable to centralize the burning of fossil fuels. centralized power plants are magnitures cleaner then distributed burning in millions of automobiles and other engines. This is one advantage of using Hydrogen in cars - it's just that it's SILLY inefficient.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell ---> Silly inefficient, expensive, but can be pretty clean pollution wise
Hydrogen ICE ---> Even more silly inefficient, less expensive, much less clean pollution wise
Gasoline/Diesel ICE ---> ranges from pretty efficient to terriblely inefficient depending on which vehicle you drive. inexpensive, but worst of all pollution wise.
Battery Electric Car ---> Generally pretty efficient, quite expensive, problems with batteries (degredation, control, failure) and cleanest pollution wise (better then hydrogen as it's much more efficient.)

Were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Every tech has significant disadvantages.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yeah, I'm not sure he understands the kinds of things that can happen to a person in an older vehicle. In mine, for instance, in a substantial-enough front-end collision, your skull will be crushed in by the steering wheel, at which point, the non-collapsing steering column will probably plunge through your chest. If there are any passengers in the rear seat, well, they're going to go flying through the front windshield, because there aren't any seat belts back there. The sheer mass of it isn't enough to make up for the absence of safety equipment.

Old vehicles do have crumple zones, but are unfortunate in the respect that the crumple zone is generally the occupant's body

I'm trying to google for it, but failing to find it right now.

In automotive safety literature there is a rather famous example of this.

A guy in a Mercedes C class sedan rear-ends a guy in a H1 hummer at a red light at about 40mph.

The front end of the little 3300lb Mercedes C class is completely caved in, and the airbags have deployed. The car is totaled.

The 7200lb Hummer H1 looks completely untouched. Good as new.

The man driving the Mercedes walks away with only a scratch and some small bruises.

The man driving the Hummer has crippling pain from his injuries for the rest of his life.

The Mercedes squished in and absorbed the energy like as oft pillow. In the H1, all the energy was transferred directly to the passenger due to it being too stiff.

 

[kydsid]

Gasoline/Diesel ICE ---> ranges from pretty efficient to terriblely inefficient depending on which vehicle you drive. inexpensive, but worst of all pollution wise.
Battery Electric Car ---> Generally pretty efficient, quite expensive, problems with batteries (degredation, control, failure) and cleanest pollution wise (better then hydrogen as it's much more efficient.)

Are you accounting for the fact that in the last 2 to 3 years diesel emissions have dropped lower than any other ICE? A common rail diesel with def/and dpf is cleaner than a prius and you are not accounting for the source of the electricity. If I fill up my electric car with energy from a coal plant is that cleaner than a diesel?

Even then emmisions are a minor impact. The GREET model is much better. http://greet.es.anl.gov/

After all lets be green, but strip mine the earth for rare metals for batteries right?

 

[nutzo]

And you're saying they're not? With the highways infested with soccer moms driving empty SUVs and rednecks driving huge trucks with no cargo load, you're seriously going to defend consumer intelligence here?

How do you know they don't NEED that SUV to haul soccer equipment for their kids team on the weekend? Of maybe that redneck needs that truck to pull a trailer or haul stuff a couple times a month?

Most people can't afford to have multiple cars (or have the space to park them) so they try to buy one car to fit all their needs.
I only have 1 kid, so according to you, my wife has no need for a Minivan and should instead be driving a small car. But at least one a week, she picks up a couple extra kids from school. She also drives on field trips with several kids. On the weekends I use the van when I need to pick up bulky items.

You need to quit worrying about other people’s decisions and quit being so judgmental about others believes.

 

[Elios]

You guys have not considered that the Thorium thing you linked to isn't a scam. As a mechanical engineer, I read over the article, and it looks 100% like a pump and dump. There's nothing but smoke and mirrors instead of a legitimate descritpion of how they are actually producing energy. This isn't going to happen, sorry guys.




I want to address this. Hydrogen is NOT A FUEL. it's an energy storage medium, and a VERY inefficient one. Electrolosis of water is silly inefficient; a huge waste of energy.

Most hydrogen is made from natural gas by conversion of methane to hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. Actually using this hydrogen as a fuel is just ... I don't under stand it. It's much better and more efficient to just burn the nat gas directly in a car. Better yet to burn it in a 60% efficient and super clean combineed cycle power plant and make use of electricity, and charge a battery powered car. Unfortunatly there are still issues with electric cars (cost...)

In general, it is desireable to centralize the burning of fossil fuels. centralized power plants are magnitures cleaner then distributed burning in millions of automobiles and other engines. This is one advantage of using Hydrogen in cars - it's just that it's SILLY inefficient.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell ---> Silly inefficient, expensive, but can be pretty clean pollution wise
Hydrogen ICE ---> Even more silly inefficient, less expensive, much less clean pollution wise
Gasoline/Diesel ICE ---> ranges from pretty efficient to terriblely inefficient depending on which vehicle you drive. inexpensive, but worst of all pollution wise.
Battery Electric Car ---> Generally pretty efficient, quite expensive, problems with batteries (degredation, control, failure) and cleanest pollution wise (better then hydrogen as it's much more efficient.)

Were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Every tech has significant disadvantages.

wow Fuel cells are crazy efficient compared to say ICE and solar
i dont know where your getting your info from but its wrong
batteries are VERY dirty as you need rare earths to make them
solar is just as bad

Fuel cells have come a long way in the last 20 years and are basically very good batteries with the chemicals stored external only issue is weight really
once you get clean power from things like LFTR there no issue in getting H from water

the real issue is your still burning fuel your way ether in the car or at power plant
LFTR based power plants + fuel cells is the way to go in the long run

 

[nutzo]

[Citation very much needed]

Do you really think the use of heavier materials in car construction makes cars safer? If this is little more than a "they don't make them like they used to" post, then you are completely and utterly wrong. You do realize that older cars are death traps compared to modern cars designed around the concept of a crumple zone, right?

If we made heavier cars with crumple zones and airbags and other modern safety designs, they would be even safer than today's cars.

 

[Daggah]

How do you know they don't NEED that SUV to haul soccer equipment for their kids team on the weekend? Of maybe that redneck needs that truck to pull a trailer or haul stuff a couple times a month?

Most people can't afford to have multiple cars (or have the space to park them) so they try to buy one car to fit all their needs.
I only have 1 kid, so according to you, my wife has no need for a Minivan and should instead be driving a small car. But at least one a week, she picks up a couple extra kids from school. She also drives on field trips with several kids. On the weekends I use the van when I need to pick up bulky items.

You need to quit worrying about other people’s decisions and quit being so judgmental about others believes.

Seems like compact cars, sedans, and wagons work just fine in...well, I was about to say Europe, but the reality is, it's not Europe. It's just the rest of the entire civilized world.

 

[Daggah]

If we made heavier cars with crumple zones and airbags and other modern safety designs, they would be even safer than today's cars.

Not to the people on the other end of the equation they wouldn't.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Not to the people on the other end of the equation they wouldn't.

The highway arms race...

 

[nutzo]

So what if your individual choice sends money abroad to countries and organizations that hate us, some of which sponsor terrorism, and harms our economy at the same time.

Then maybe we should drill for more of our own oil, but we can't because the governemtn is stopping much of the oil drilling in our own country.

What if your choice results in more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting in greater storm activity and potentially down the line rising sea levels?

CO2 is NOT a problem. You may want to believe all the lies about global warming, but that doesn't make them true.
CO2 is a natural occurring gas, we (along with animals/insects/etc.) exhale CO2. Plants need CO2 to grow, if fact they grow better if you increase CO2 Levels.

Are you not harming the safety, and economic well being of everyone around you with your selfishness?
How is this any different from driving drunk?

Are you not harming my family's safety and economic well being by forcing me to spend thousands more for a less safe small car?

See, two can play at this game.......

 

[okashira]

wow Fuel cells are crazy efficient compared to say ICE and solar
i dont know where your getting your info from but its wrong
batteries are VERY dirty as you need rare earths to make them
solar is just as bad

Fuel cells have come a long way in the last 20 years and are basically very good batteries with the chemicals stored external only issue is weight really
once you get clean power from things like LFTR there no issue in getting H from water

the real issue is your still burning fuel your way ether in the car or at power plant
LFTR based power plants + fuel cells is the way to go in the long run

My "info" is based on actual understanding of the sources of energy and processes involved. Just stating fuel cell efficiency alone is flat out irresponsible.
Let's start with this, which I googled for you. The numbers are pretty accurate:

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E04.pdf

30% losses for water make-up and electrolysis: factor 0.70
10% losses for compression of hydrogen: factor 0.90
10% losses for distribution of gaseous hydrogen: factor 0.90
3% losses for hydrogen transfer: factor 0.97
50% for conversion to electricity in fuel cells: factor 0.50
10% parasitic losses for the hydrogen fuel cell system: factor 0.90​

10% electric losses in the drive-train between battery and wheels: factor 0.90

That comes to 22% efficient. But that doesn't even include the efficiency of generating the electricity to do the electrolosis in the first place.

Considering burning it in a combined cycle plant, a best case scenario, you're looking at 55% . That brings the effiency to 12.1%.

Burn that natural gas directly in an ICE, and you're looking at 30%+, or THREE FOLD better efficiency.

One thing we can agree on is the use of nuclear power to generate electricity. The pollution from nucluear is so negligible it's silly when comparted to fossil fuels.

 

[Elios]

right so if you can make power from nuclear then all the other "losses" are meaning less
the one thing fuelcell has is range you cant get much range from pure batteries atm
short term yes Natural gas powered cars are the way to go
im looking long term
in the long run we cant keep using hydrocarbons

LFTR bases reactors are VERY safe and have near 0 waste
next step after that is fusion which is getting close finally
once you can do that making hydrogen from water even with losses is trivial

 

[wonderfield]

CO2 is a natural occurring gas

So is carbon monoxide.

 

[Daggah]

Then maybe we should drill for more of our own oil, but we can't because the governemtn is stopping much of the oil drilling in our own country.

It would devastate the local environment to drill quite a bit of that oil.

CO2 is NOT a problem. You may want to believe all the lies about global warming, but that doesn't make them true.
CO2 is a natural occurring gas, we (along with animals/insects/etc.) exhale CO2. Plants need CO2 to grow, if fact they grow better if you increase CO2 Levels.

Why am I not surprised to see the free market cultist buying into the pseudoscientific global warming denial movement too?

 

[Elios]

It would devastate the local environment to drill quite a bit of that oil.



Why am I not surprised to see the free market cultist buying into the pseudoscientific global warming denial movement too?

i dont deny that climate change is happening i dont think we have much influence on it
the planet is going to do what it wants and we are just long for the ride

most of human history has been in a fairly stable point in earths climate that has been fairly cool to start with
most of EARTHS history has been MUCH hotter then it is now and MUCH colder

 

[Daggah]

i dont deny that climate change is happening i dont think we have much influence on it
the planet is going to do what it wants and we are just long for the ride

most of human history has been in a fairly stable point in earths climate that has been fairly cool to start with
most of EARTHS history has been MUCH hotter then it is now and MUCH colder

The great thing about facts is that they don't change just because you don't like 'em. The planet is warming, and it's doing so relatively quickly compared to other periods in the Earth's history.

 

[AnonymousUser]

The great thing about facts is that they don't change just because you don't like 'em. The planet is warming, and it's doing so relatively quickly compared to other periods in the Earth's history.

The sun consumed something bad and feels under the weather, and has gas!

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Seems like compact cars, sedans, and wagons work just fine in...well, I was about to say Europe, but the reality is, it's not Europe. It's just the rest of the entire civilized world.

When I was a kid living in Sweden, I was one of four siblings.

We toured Europe in a white Volvo 740 station wagon with the rearward facing kid seat option in the back, and a roof box on the roof for all our stuff.

I've ridden in many of the supposedly larger SUV's. They don't really feel much bigger on the inside than our 740 did, and they are a lot worse on gas, and handle much worse...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

CO2 is NOT a problem. You may want to believe all the lies about global warming, but that doesn't make them true.
CO2 is a natural occurring gas, we (along with animals/insects/etc.) exhale CO2. Plants need CO2 to grow, if fact they grow better if you increase CO2 Levels.

Really?

I'm sorry, but if you have taken sides with the climate change deniers, then it is pretty clear I am arguing with someone who has no respect for proven fact and science.

The earth is warming: Pretty much 100% undeniably proven fact.
This is caused by human activity resulting in greenhouse gases: Like 98.5% certainty

The only part that is still debatable is what impact this will have on earth and its people.

Some impacts we have already seen, in strange (and sometimes counter-intuitive) weather patterns, like more extreme storms, and heavy snowfall in areas not used to it, as well as receding icecaps.

To what level this can be reversed, and to what level it will be catastrophic if it goes unchecked is unknown. How much will water levels rise? It may be insignificant, or a huge deal. No one knows. How much will an increase in extreme weather impact human populations? How will a warming climate impact our food production? These things are still unknown.

It may just wind up that the Earth is warming, and that's just dandy and fine, and nothing bad will come out of it. We don't know.

What is undeniable at this point - however - is that the earth is warming, and that it's caused by human activity.

Not believing this, is pretty much like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALA, I can't hear you!

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Why am I not surprised to see the free market cultist buying into the pseudoscientific global warming denial movement too?

Well, his name IS Nutzo

 

[JustinCorrigible]

CO2 is a natural occurring gas, we (along with animals/insects/etc.) exhale CO2. Plants need CO2 to grow, if fact they grow better if you increase CO2 Levels.

Deforestation means most of them don't grow at all.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

CO2 is a natural occurring gas, we (along with animals/insects/etc.) exhale CO2. Plants need CO2 to grow, if fact they grow better if you increase CO2 Levels.

Deforestation means most of them don't grow at all.

Good points, both.

Yes, there has been some evidence from tree ring studies that at the same time CO2 levels have been increasing, trees have been growing much faster.

It is conceivable that on a virgin planet, this may have been a great self balancing tool. If CO2 levels got too high, the trees would grow faster until it was consumed and the levels wen't back to normal again.

This doesn't seem to be happening though.

We are seeing CO2 levels rise, and trees growing faster, but CO2 levels seem to just be continuing to rise.

Presumably the increase in CO2 levels has just been too great for this old defense mechanism to work properly. This is further exacerbated by the massive deforestation we are responsible for.

The areas left for trees to grow, are not large enough to compensate for the areas we have deforested, accelerated growth, or not.

 

[Mohonri]

Definitely. We are still recovering from the worst recession of our lifetime. This is to be expected.

My statements were referencing the kind of GDP growth we have tended to see prior to our current debacle.

It has also been the slowest recovery since the great depression. As you yourself agree, regulation comes at the cost of economic growth. Even in those exceptional years from 2003-2007ish, we weren't meeting the 6% you state. By your own logic, then, we were over-regulated even *before* Obamacare was enacted!

That is a common misconception in america based on many comments in political circles on the right.

Take a look at this fact sheet. It's also a common misconception that Romneycare is incredibly unpopular in Massachusetts. While nowhere near the level of popularity of the NHS, the overall feeling is not significantly negative either.

It is a misconception that single payer systems routinely leave people without care. They tend to have much better health outcomes that private systems overall. The pre Obamacare U.S. healthcare system was the most expensive in the world by far, but only affords us the 37th best healthcare outcomes in the world, worst in the western industrialized world.

...

The WHO's list is here for your review.

I've seen that chart before. If you actually dig into that report, you'll find that it uses a set of metrics that (surprise!) is based on one particular world view. Three of the metrics are "Distribution of Health", "Distribution of Financing", and "Fairness of financial contribution." It's obvious that such metrics are going to penalize a market-based system vs. a tightly-regulated one (or nationalized one).

Massachusetts is also experiencing a severe shortage of doctors that started after MassCare was enacted.

Why do the British love NHS? I don't know. I'm sure it's in part due to the fact that it's the only thing they've known, and they've never been exposed to other systems (similar, I admit, to me in the US). For some things, it works. BTW, did you know their dental system is nationalized, too? How well is that working out for them? lol

BTW, I don't watch Fox News. And I dislike listening to Hannity, Rush, et al.

Economic growth is important, no doubt, but to pursue it at the cost of everything else is folly.

When you allow a market to run too free, removing regulations, and making low cost financing too available, you usually wind up with extremely high growth rates in the short term, but disastrous problems in the long term, with bubbles bursting and violent up and down swings.

<snip>Keynesian economics here </snip>

You're describing Keynesian economics. While it sounds good in theory, it's a disaster in practice. Why? Because, as we've seen time and time again, the spending never slows down during the good times.

Do you have an example of when a market was allowed to run free, and it faceplanted? I don't.

You're going to cite the Industrial Revolution as an example of the free market producing a result good for society? If you're that deluded, then I'm done with this. The Industrial Revolution introduced the need for government regulation in the first place. Child labor, hazardous working conditions, workers that were both overworked and underpaid... You really are blinded by your faith.

You're forgetting two key things here, though: context and alternatives. Context: In the Industrial Revolution, people weren't forced to work in factories. They chose to work there because it made their lives better. Forcing one's children to work in a factory, sure, I don't like the idea of that. But nobody was forcing parents to do that. Blame the parents, not the free market system. The alternative for many of these families was to return to scratching out a living as farmers. Those factories which seem so dangerous and unpleasant to us represented an improvement in the quality of life for people living back then.

It would devastate the local environment to drill quite a bit of that oil.

It's apparent to me that you have never seen an oil well in your life. You probably think an oil well looks like this, spewing Texas Tea all over the landscape. In actuality, an oil well looks like this.

 

[JustinCorrigible]

It's apparent to me that you have never seen an oil well in your life. You probably think an oil well looks like this, spewing Texas Tea all over the landscape. In actuality, an oil well looks like this.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/index.html

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/ph20.html

It's not that they're spewing oil.

 

[Daggah]

You're forgetting two key things here, though: context and alternatives. Context: In the Industrial Revolution, people weren't forced to work in factories. They chose to work there because it made their lives better. Forcing one's children to work in a factory, sure, I don't like the idea of that. But nobody was forcing parents to do that. Blame the parents, not the free market system. The alternative for many of these families was to return to scratching out a living as farmers. Those factories which seem so dangerous and unpleasant to us represented an improvement in the quality of life for people living back then.

For all you libertarians bleat about freedom, you sure don't seem to understand the concept. People weren't forced to work in factories, it's not like they HAD to work. I mean, they were perfectly FREE to not work and let their families starve, right? They totally could have renegotiated with their employers for better hours, better wages, and safer work environments. And who can blame the good, saintly factory owners for hiring kids? I mean, that's between them and the kid's families, right? It wasn't like the previously mentioned low wages left families able to afford life without forcing children to work in dangerous, dirty factories instead of going to school and building foundations for real careers later in their lives, right? As long as it's not the government treating people like slaves, they're free!

Enough sarcasm. I'm going to be serious here. It's a damn good thing America finally removed head from ass and stepped in to regulate these things. You are totally kidding yourself if you think we as a nation would be better off today if we hadn't done something about the huge labor abuses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It's a perfect example of your utter delusion and blind faith that you think that the Industrial Revolution portrays a positive example of free market capitalism at work.

"Freedom" isn't just a measure of your rights with respect to your government. If you have no choice but to work or starve, that's not freedom. If one serious illness is all that stands between you and financial destitution, that's not freedom. An economic system and infrastructure that allows the rich to hoard money and power while letting the vast majority of society fight and beg for the scraps is not freedom. And it's not what the founding fathers ever intended for America.

Make no mistake, the wealthy can only keep the poor distracted with their "bread and circuses" for so long. It's better in the long run - for everyone - if we abandon dogmatic views of free market capitalism and focus on policies that promote the creation and empowerment of a STRONG middle class.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

It has also been the slowest recovery since the great depression. As you yourself agree, regulation comes at the cost of economic growth. Even in those exceptional years from 2003-2007ish, we weren't meeting the 6% you state. By your own logic, then, we were over-regulated even *before* Obamacare was enacted!

I actually didn't bother to look up figures. Those numbers were picked as examples only.

Instead use these as examples. Our 90s average rate of 4%, compared to a completely randomly picked 3% if we decided to fund healthcare, and I don't even think the impact would be that huge.

I've seen that chart before. If you actually dig into that report, you'll find that it uses a set of metrics that (surprise!) is based on one particular world view. Three of the metrics are "Distribution of Health", "Distribution of Financing", and "Fairness of financial contribution." It's obvious that such metrics are going to penalize a market-based system vs. a tightly-regulated one (or nationalized one).

So its not an important measure, that in the U.S., the extremely wealthy (or those lucky enough to be on a government health plan) can get fantastic healthcare, but everyone else get so-so coverage, and pays through the nose for it, while the poor have healthcare on the level of a third world nation?

Of course coverage and economic aspects should be part of a healthcare outcome assessment. That's kind of the point.

According to article 25 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the U.S. voted ratification) access to healthcare is a universal human right. There are many people in our private system which currently are not able to access healthcare, either due to their financial circumstances or something else. We are technically human rights violators with this system...

Massachusetts is also experiencing a severe shortage of doctors that started after MassCare was enacted.

Yes, Massachusetts has a shortfall of doctors, but it did not start after universal coverage was enacted. Massachusetts has had a shortfall of doctors for a long long time.

The main reason for this is that many of the prestigious medicine teaching organizations are very active in the state. Doctors offices and hospitals are usually associated with one of these, and because of this pay less, as they somehow feel the prestige associated with their name should compensate for lower pay.

For decades it has been common practice for doctors to complete their residency here, and then move elsewhere where the pay is higher. That has not changed with the healthcare law.

We have some of the best research specialists in the world here, but at the same time we have a shortage of family medicine / primary care physicians.

Why do the British love NHS? I don't know. I'm sure it's in part due to the fact that it's the only thing they've known, and they've never been exposed to other systems (similar, I admit, to me in the US). For some things, it works. BTW, did you know their dental system is nationalized, too? How well is that working out for them? lol

The "british people have bad teeth" thing is a bit of a stereotype, you know?

I can tell you. I have experienced both style of systems.

Growing up in Sweden, whenever we had to go to the doctor there was a copay to be seen, and that was it, everything was taken care of. There were no long lines or people being turned down for care as the U.S. misinformation would have you believe. They also had every bit as advanced equipment and knowledgeable physicians as we do here.

There were never any surprise bills after seeing the doctor (lab fees, fees for this, fees for that, that seem to come raining into my mailbox for six months after visiting the doctor)

I never had a claim rejected, like when I went to the ER with meningitis symptoms here in the U.S., and my insurance company turned down my claim, calling it a unnecessary ER visit, and sending me a $20k bill, for which I had to fight daily on the phone for almost 6 months to get reversed, and then off of my credit rating as it went delinquent, and I had no way of paying $20k

People didn't find themselves with health insurance all their lives, and then getting cancer, and surprise surprise, health insurance canceled, like we have happening here, having people who thought they were covered losing their homes to try to fight their illnesses, or people with chronic illnesses meeting lifetime maximums and having their plans canceled.

We also never had anyone denied coverage due to preexisting conditions outside their control, and essentially receiving a death sentence.

The healthcare system in the U.S. really is the worst in the industrialized world, it is unethical, immoral and has poor outcomes, unless you happen to be one of the lucky few...

You're describing Keynesian economics. While it sounds good in theory, it's a disaster in practice. Why? Because, as we've seen time and time again, the spending never slows down during the good times.

Keynsian Economics works. It has been proven empirically.

The free market concepts of the Austrian School on the other hand reject empiricism, and are just fanciful theory that have never been proven. Many of which fail any scientific testing all together.

In the 1990's under Clinton we almost completely eliminated the national debt. People were actually worried what would happen to the economic system, seeing how important U.S. treasury bonds are in establishing the risk free rate for investment calculations.

Now there is little consensus of who can be credited with this, the Republican congress, or the Clinton administration (personally I give partial credit to both), but the takeway is that it IS possible to execute classic Keynsian economics and save during the good years to cover the bad...

But then George W. Bush and the neocons came along and enacted the biggest unfunded tax cut in history for the wealthy, which despite massive sums being spent on bailouts and two wars, remains the largest contributor to the national debt.

Do you have an example of when a market was allowed to run free, and it faceplanted? I don't.

1873, 1893, 1929 and 2007 are a few.

2007 doesn't quite qualify the same way, as markets were more reigned in than in the first three instances, but its no coincidence that the financial crisis followed massive deregulation during the Bush years allowing for sketchier and sketchier deals, finally resulting in collapse.

It's apparent to me that you have never seen an oil well in your life. You probably think an oil well looks like this, spewing Texas Tea all over the landscape. In actuality, an oil well looks like this.

Not to mention that wonderful Fracking that's happening all over the place, making peoples drinking water flammable...