Bush's new car!

[eclipse525]

Hey, do ya think Bush will allow these puppies in the country??? :shock:

http://www.theaircar.com/models.html#




~e

[Sun Baked]

I think the guy that designed the Tango (4.2MB mpeg) (http://www.commutercars.com/images/theater/marinaAutocross/marina_mpg.html) is still running into some difficulty going into production.

Even though a little commuter car would help with city congestion, and has performance to rival quite a few sports cars (Tango accelerates through the standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds at over 120 mph and travels from 0 to 60 mph in under 4 seconds.)

www.commutercars.com

[Juventuz]

What does the president have to do with allowing cars into the country?

[rainman::|:|]

I think the guy that designed the Tango (4.2MB mpeg) (http://www.commutercars.com/images/theater/marinaAutocross/marina_mpg.html) is still running into some difficulty going into production.

Even though a little commuter car would help with city congestion, and has performance to rival quite a few sports cars (Tango accelerates through the standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds at over 120 mph and travels from 0 to 60 mph in under 4 seconds.)

www.commutercars.com

not bad, but the $85,000 intro pricetag is kind of a turnoff. And you assemble it yourself, which is weird. Last I heard they were shooting for sub $10,000 for the AirCar, less if they can figure out a way to make hemp into body panels. And, it does that cool negative-emissions thing ;)

paul

[pepeleuepe]

Does anyone have any up to date information on this? I scanned there website and didn't really find anything that seemed updated. It's the first time I've seen talk of this technology and it looks very interesting. Although I don't know if I buy the negative emmisions, since you have to throw out the air filter somewhere, the zero emmisions rating is pretty amazing. Just curious if anyone has any other info that they've found.

Thanks

[iMeowbot]

Yeah, the zero emissions thing is hyperbole. Air compressors have to get their energy from somewhere. Also, the manufacturer refers to hybrid pneumatic/IC engines, which is going to be something of a necessity if such a beast is going to sell in suburbia.
What is its maximum range?
The range is dependent on the speed. At 50 km/p/h the range is over 300 km. At 100 kmh it is reduced to one third of that. In an urban environment the car can run for upto 10 hours.
That wouldn't even many people to work and back. (for the metric-impaired: 50km = 31mi, 100km = 62mi, 300km = 186mi; so if you use the highway, don't plan on wandering more than 30mi from home.)

[Thanatoast]

Yeah, the zero emissions thing is hyperbole. Air compressors have to get their energy from somewhere. Also, the manufacturer refers to hybrid pneumatic/IC engines, which is going to be something of a necessity if such a beast is going to sell in suburbia.

That wouldn't even many people to work and back. (for the metric-impaired: 50km = 31mi, 100km = 62mi, 300km = 186mi; so if you use the highway, don't plan on wandering more than 30mi from home.)
Yeah, but it doesn't really sound like they're planning on selling to suburbanites. It's more of an urban solution, so short-hop low-speed trips are what it's primarily designed for. And I don't know about the highways where you are, but during rush hour in Denver, this thing could easily go the full 300km :D

[MongoTheGeek]

Yeah, but it doesn't really sound like they're planning on selling to suburbanites. It's more of an urban solution, so short-hop low-speed trips are what it's primarily designed for. And I don't know about the highways where you are, but during rush hour in Denver, this thing could easily go the full 300km :D

Denver perhaps even further. :)

I think such a thing would be allowed in the country assuming that it meets collision standards. It might be good in retirement communities. If you could recharge at work I can see using it in LA.

I wonder if you could fill it at the tire filling thing at gas stations :) Juice up for free.

[Nik_Doof]

Wow they're nice, in a quirky sorta way :)

[wPod]

yeah, technically compressing the air would create emisions somewhere. . . its just an alternate way of storing energy (as air pressure as apposed to electrical potential in a battery)

the question is could you strap on a gasoline powered air compressor adjust it to run at its most ecinomical level and then drive as long as you want? and would that be more efficient to electric hybrids? my guess is it is not very efficient, you lose a lot of mechanical energy in compressing air, then a lot in the crazy engine. think about the energy lost in an air powered wrench. have they actually designed something more mechanically complex yet ultra efficient?

[blackfox]

I love those cars, have always liked smart cars (as the company) as well, but in the US...I don't know...sadly, a hummer might just run over you like a curb...sub-sub-compacts and Huge SUVs do not play nice...can hope though...gas will not last forever...

[MongoTheGeek]

yeah, technically compressing the air would create emisions somewhere. . . its just an alternate way of storing energy (as air pressure as apposed to electrical potential in a battery)

the question is could you strap on a gasoline powered air compressor adjust it to run at its most ecinomical level and then drive as long as you want? and would that be more efficient to electric hybrids? my guess is it is not very efficient, you lose a lot of mechanical energy in compressing air, then a lot in the crazy engine. think about the energy lost in an air powered wrench. have they actually designed something more mechanically complex yet ultra efficient?

In theory the actions are lossless. The thing is that when you compress a gas its temperature rises. As the temp rises it starts giving off energy as heat. If you perfectly insulate the tank (leaving it at the several hundred degrees it will reach then you can run the car with almost 100% efficiency. You will sacrifice a lot on fuel load though because you will reach the higher pressure faster. I guess if you fill it *REALLY* slowly it will be nearly lossless.

[eclipse525]

What does the president have to do with allowing cars into the country?

That car like many other great inventions is a threat to certain industries in this country that our dear president and many of his constituents is so intrenched in.


~e

[mactastic]

Nice. Kinda small for Dubya's cowboy hat don't you think though? Of course since he has been described as 'all hat and no cattle' perhaps that air pickup would be big enough for use on his ranch... ;)

Seriously, that is a pretty nifty car, but probably fairly impractical for mass adoption here in the States. Much more suited for dense urban areas with good mass-transit systems in place.

[eclipse525]

Seriously, that is a pretty nifty car, but probably fairly impractical for mass adoption here in the States. Much more suited for dense urban areas with good mass-transit systems in place.


For God's sake.....we can put a man on the moon BUT we can't develop an emmisson's free car. Sorry, I don't accept that, I think if any of these major auto makers were to take this Air Car and improve upon it would be outstanding and very practical for the masses. I have faith, I believe we can all evlove as intelligent beings. :D


~e

[wdlove]

Going by the picture it looks like I just might be able to fit in the back seat. My thought is why do car manufacturers always make economical cars for just the shorter in stature.

[ratspg]

we can put a man on the moon and invest in putting another man on the moon really soon again , but zero emission cars? thats a no-no.... if only auto manufacturers would take them and make them look like their other cars. they have begun to do that with hybrids at least !

[Counterfit]

I think the guy that designed the Tango (4.2MB mpeg) (http://www.commutercars.com/images/theater/marinaAutocross/marina_mpg.html) is still running into some difficulty going into production.

Even though a little commuter car would help with city congestion, and has performance to rival quite a few sports cars (Tango accelerates through the standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds at over 120 mph and travels from 0 to 60 mph in under 4 seconds.)

www.commutercars.com If you want something that small and with good performance, get a motorcycle, they'd probably handle better too. :rolleyes: Especially at that price! :eek:

"Feel like $85k cars" my butt! :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Top speed: 68.4MPH
Max range: 186Miles
Curb weight: 1650lbs
Max load: 1100lbs

At $85K, that model better come with a supermodel willing to give BJs. :eek:

[eclipse525]

Top speed: 68.4MPH
Max range: 186Miles
Curb weight: 1650lbs
Max load: 1100lbs

At $85K, that model better come with a supermodel willing to give BJs. :eek:

Sorry but the BJ would add emmissions. :D

~e

[tpjunkie]

Sorry but the BJ would add emmissions. :D

~e

yeah, but environmentally friendly emissions. ;)

[DVW86]

we can put a man on the moon and invest in putting another man on the moon really soon again , but zero emission cars? thats a no-no.... if only auto manufacturers would take them and make them look like their other cars. they have begun to do that with hybrids at least !

They say that the so called hybrids are "cutting edge", but they are nothing more than a glorified Geo Metro at twice the price and half the power and range. It is pretty disappointing. When I was in college we had an all electric VW Jetta that would go 50 MPH and had a range of 50 miles. I think that the car companies are just stalling and trying to pacify us with these stupid (and ugly) "hybrids".

[Macmaniac]

I think this kind of car would do better in Japan. I doubt Bush is going to push for super mini-clean cars anytime soon!

[scem0]

Bush cares about the environement?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Anyways, I don't see those becoming popular in America any time soon.

But eventually I could see them being assimilated into the market.

scem0

[kuyu]

They say that the so called hybrids are "cutting edge", but they are nothing more than a glorified Geo Metro at twice the price and half the power and range. It is pretty disappointing. When I was in college we had an all electric VW Jetta that would go 50 MPH and had a range of 50 miles. I think that the car companies are just stalling and trying to pacify us with these stupid (and ugly) "hybrids".

Actually, next year (05) Toyota is releasing a fleet of hybrids. The Four-Runner Hybrid will have 270 horsepower, and get ~30 mpg. My mom works for Toyota, and she's placing an order the day they start accepting them. Oh Yeah, I'm 99% sure it will look exactly the same as the all gas 4-runner.

Also, Mitsubishi's 05 eclipse will have a 275 horsepower gas engine up front, and a 200 hp electric in the back. It will be all wheel drive, and both engines can run simultaneously, giving 475 hp to four wheels!!!

Don't fret, the future of hybrids is <5 years away.

[eclipse525]

They say that the so called hybrids are "cutting edge", but they are nothing more than a glorified Geo Metro at twice the price and half the power and range. It is pretty disappointing. When I was in college we had an all electric VW Jetta that would go 50 MPH and had a range of 50 miles. I think that the car companies are just stalling and trying to pacify us with these stupid (and ugly) "hybrids".

I think that the Toyota Prius is great little car but I do agree that with all the technology advancements the car companies R&D departments haven't gotten it right. Now....all we hear about is Fuel Cells and how they are having trouble getting them right. Hybrids are an excuse. Too much energy on Hybrids when they need to focus on what the next step to a Hybrid is eventually going to evolve to.


~e

[Frohickey]

They say that the so called hybrids are "cutting edge", but they are nothing more than a glorified Geo Metro at twice the price and half the power and range. It is pretty disappointing. When I was in college we had an all electric VW Jetta that would go 50 MPH and had a range of 50 miles. I think that the car companies are just stalling and trying to pacify us with these stupid (and ugly) "hybrids".

Actually, there is nothing GWBush can do about this.

What needs to be done to get this car sold in the United States is for the manufacturer to go through the paperwork to import the car into the country for sale to the general public. That paperwork comes after various safety testing, emissions testing, export compliance from the home country and other rules and regulations put forth by Congress in its power to regulate interstate commerce.

Actually, I'm just glad that there are a few of you buying Honda Insights, Toyota Priuses and other hybrids. I like someone else being the guinea pig/alpha testers. Plus, if you are the one paying for all of the R&D now, I'm fine by that. I get a free ride when I finally get a hybrid, once they are competitive with ICE cars :D

[Frohickey]

I think that the Toyota Prius is great little car but I do agree that with all the technology advancements the car companies R&D departments haven't gotten it right. Now....all we hear about is Fuel Cells and how they are having trouble getting them right. Hybrids are an excuse. Too much energy on Hybrids when they need to focus on what the next step to a Hybrid is eventually going to evolve to.


But that is really the point here.

Small little incremental steps will get you there as well. This is how Microsoft has done their OS development, or applications development. Small little incremental steps, hybrids now, maybe a more efficient hybrid later, maybe a more powerful hybrid later, maybe a longer range hybrid later, pretty soon, you have a large enough hybrid market.

Then you can start tackling Mr.Fusion flying cars next.

[mactastic]

Plus, if you are the one paying for all of the R&D now, I'm fine by that. I get a free ride when I finally get a hybrid, once they are competitive with ICE cars :D

You do know there are about $3,000 worth of combined federal and state tax incentives you could have claimed right about now for buying one of these this past year, making them competitively priced. OH YEAH that's right baby, stealing right out of your pocket for those guinea pigs.
:D

Plus my credit union is offering loans at 3.5% for any new hybrid. Now there regular loans start at 3.75%, but they say there are offering the low rate on hybrids to people even with lower credit scores, making it more attractive for those people to think hybrid.

[DVW86]

Don't fret, the future of hybrids is <5 years away.

I hope you are right, but I'm not holding my breath. So far I am not impressed with what they (large car companies) have turned out. The "commutercars" looked promising (still ugly though).

[Frohickey]

You do know there are about $3,000 worth of combined federal and state tax incentives you could have claimed right about now for buying one of these this past year, making them competitively priced. OH YEAH that's right baby, stealing right out of your pocket for those guinea pigs.
:D

Plus my credit union is offering loans at 3.5% for any new hybrid. Now there regular loans start at 3.75%, but they say there are offering the low rate on hybrids to people even with lower credit scores, making it more attractive for those people to think hybrid.

I could see it now. 10 years from now, it will still be at less than 1% of the market, and its still getting a government subsidy. ;)

So, when were you so much into corporate welfare? I had thought that you were against that?

[mactastic]

So, when were you so much into corporate welfare? I had thought that you were against that?

How is this corporate welfare? The tax breaks are going to citizens.

[Frohickey]

How is this corporate welfare? The tax breaks are going to citizens.

Okay, the tax breaks go to citizens, but where does the money really go?
It goes to the manufacturer of the car.

There is a $3000 rebate to the fancy small and slow car. That means a customer would be willing to buy a car for $X+3000 because of the rebate. What incentive would the car manufacturer have for selling the car at $X? He would make more money if he sold the car for $X+3000. Each car he sells, its like printing $3000.

[MrMacMan]

In my town (and the town next to it) we have an electricity car that runs from your house to the Train Tracks (where there is a place to plug them in)...

It works well, but too mad the electricity is probably coming from some non-renewable energy source... gah.

[Frohickey]

In my town (and the town next to it) we have an electricity car that runs from your house to the Train Tracks (where there is a place to plug them in)...

It works well, but too mad the electricity is probably coming from some non-renewable energy source... gah.

Too bad your town can't just get a horse and buggy together. Ride fare is $1, and a big carrot for the horsey. :D

[DVW86]

In my town (and the town next to it) we have an electricity car that runs from your house to the Train Tracks (where there is a place to plug them in)...

It works well, but too bad the electricity is probably coming from some non-renewable energy source... gah.

I love hydropower. Here we pay like $.03 a KWH for residential power and $.01 a KWH for the industrial rate. Some people complain about the dams hurting the fish. I am a pretty avid fisherman who practices catch and release on non-hatchery fish, and we have TONS of salmon and other fish in our rivers. The dams do not hurt our fish if we provide hatcheries for them and are responsible. The dams give off ZERO pollutants and the water is renewed every year by Mother Nature. I think we would hurt the environment more by taking the dams down and going to another power source. Sorry for the rant but as a sportsman, electrician, and "true" environmentalist this subject kind of hits a nerve for me. :)

[kylos]

This political nonsense really makes me sick. Keep your politics in the political forum where it belongs. The topic and other posts interspersed throughout only serve to reinforce an ignorant and cynical stereotype of the President as an oil-loving, environment-hating cowboy. This is not the place to debate such issues so don't even bring them up here. Grow up.

To the member who stated that hydroelectric power does not damage the environment: You may be correct in stating that hatcheries protect against fish depletion, but I doubt hatcheries deal with all species of aquatic life in a particular ecosystem. And it also affects the surrounding area with flooding which can damage surrounding wildlife. I don't pretend to be an expert on such matters - to do so would require extensive education and expensive experimation - and I don't think your angling gives you any special insight into this issue.

On the topic of environmentally friendly energy, even wind energy creates hazards for wildlife as birds will find themselves in harm's way often enough. Though it has been said that windows get more birds a year than windmills, I'm pretty sure that would change as we became more dependent on wind energy.

It seems that solar energy has the least impact on our environment. Why? Solar energy is not yet taking part in the energy systems of the earth when it is obtained and thus we are not taking from our environment (unless we cover up plant life with solar panels :D ). Once we try to extract energy from the earth, we change it in some way, some ways obviously more dramatic than others. The complaints against carbon-based energy (this includes most electricity, most of the rest of electric energy is nuclear-powered, even better for the environment) are understandable, but if people were to realize that other energy sources - hydroelectric and wind - would have a serious impact on our wildlife if deployed in quantity. To properly offset these adverse effects would require a substantial outlay of capital, thus negating the benefits, since, with some substantial effort we might manage to reduce the effects of carbon energy on our environment.

So what's the solution? Solar energy would be nice, but it's terribly expensive to produce. Some were mentioning that if we can put men on the moon, then we shouldn't have a problem figuring out energy issues. That's really not true. Energy is so much more complex than the relatively straightforward physical principles that we followed to put men on the moon. We weren't concerned about environmental impact in space programs. You can undertake massive projects by injecting massive amounts of effort (capital, energy, human effort, etc), but to do it with finesse obviously requires more thought. My opinion is that after much time and thought, we'll eventually find better ways to obtain energy, but it simply is not a simple issue. It will take much testing and studying and people should avoid getting impatient with the progress. Maybe solar energy will become cheaper. Maybe we'll be able to neutralize the effects of carbon energy. Maybe we'll find a use for nuclear waste. Whatever, it will take time, but I don't doubt we'll figure it out.

[IJ Reilly]

Solar energy isn't all that expensive, at least not in the parts of the country where the sun shines the better part of the time. The main problem with solar -- and also its main advantage -- is that it doesn't lend itself to producing electricity in centralized power plants, eg, commercial production. But it does lend itself to decentralized generation. If we were to think of every building as its own power station, we'd probably find that solar isn't a very expensive way of generating electricity at all.

[kylos]

Solar energy isn't all that expensive, at least not in the parts of the country where the sun shines the better part of the time. The main problem with solar -- and also its main advantage -- is that it doesn't lend itself to producing electricity in centralized power plants, eg, commercial production. But it does lend itself to decentralized generation. If we were to think of every building as its own power station, we'd probably find that solar isn't a very expensive way of generating electricity at all.

Yeah, it's not really that expensive in the long term, since you pay very little for maintenance, but it isn't very efficient(I think something under 10%) and would require plastering everything in sight with solar panels if it were used as the main energy source. That's not to say I don't think solar energy will be a key player in the future. Actually, I think if we can figure out how to make solar panels more efficient, then it's our best bet. I just feel it will take time to come to an efficient, environment friendly, cheap, energy source.

[mactastic]

Okay, the tax breaks go to citizens, but where does the money really go?
It goes to the manufacturer of the car.

There is a $3000 rebate to the fancy small and slow car. That means a customer would be willing to buy a car for $X+3000 because of the rebate. What incentive would the car manufacturer have for selling the car at $X? He would make more money if he sold the car for $X+3000. Each car he sells, its like printing $3000.

HELLO!!!! The car costs more to make than a regular car! Don't you believe in the market? How would a car manufacturer, who has to COMPETE against other car manufacturers, make any money if their product costs $3K more than their competitions for the same thing? Is all this 'the market is always right' crap just something you say but don't believe? The car manufacturer gets no higher profit margin on a hybrid car than any other. The tax break goes to the END-USER of the car, not the manufacturer, and not the dealer.

I suppose next you'll argue that corporate subsidies actually go to the general public....

[kuyu]

Hybrid/green cars are 1) a luxury good and 2) a highly inelastic good. This means that a tax, even if imposed on the manufacturers, would be paid by the manufacturers. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are highly elastic. Thus any tax imposed on the manufacturer is paid mostly by the end-user.

I may have switched elastic/inelastic, but the point remains the same.

[Backtothemac]

Here are the problems with these cars. 1st top speed, you would die on any major American cities freeway's with a top speed of 68 mph. Second, it is limited to 186 miles. There are plenty of people that travel more than that in a day. I used to when I sold yellow page ads.

Third, they are not practical. Not yet anyway, I think there will be a day when they are, but not now. The Toyota hybrid's are a much better option now.

Also, the truck is a job. Ever lived on a farm? Yea, that truck could not do anything that people need a truck for. Pull a 10,000 pound boat with that truck. How about a horse hauler? Car hauler? Nope,

[mactastic]

Hybrid/green cars are 1) a luxury good and 2) a highly inelastic good. This means that a tax, even if imposed on the manufacturers, would be paid by the manufacturers. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are highly elastic. Thus any tax imposed on the manufacturer is paid mostly by the end-user.

I may have switched elastic/inelastic, but the point remains the same.

No, an H2 is a luxury good. There's a sweet tax exemption for it too. A hybrid is used most often as a second, commuter car although I do know a few people who own a hybrid as their sole vehicle. Maybe if BMW was making a hybrid I'd buy your luxury good item argument. :) Fact is, even a BMW is hardly a luxury. A car is virtually a necessity in our society. A car that can be had for under $25,000 is certainly not a luxury item.

And we're not talking about a tax being imposed on anyone here. The manufacturers certainly aren't being taxed for making a hybrid. Plus they get to use the hybrid's gas mileage to help them keep their fleet average down while still making less efficient larger cars. So I don't see how you can argue that the manufacturerers are being penalized here. No one is forcing Toyota or Honda to offer these cars. The tax rebate goes to the end user who pays the manufacturer a higher price for a more expensive product than s/he otherwise would have bought. The manufacturer and the dealer are making the same profit margin on a hybrid than on a non-hybrid. The government is betting that their $3K will help spark sales, thus lowering the costs of production and eliminating the price barrier between hybrids and ICEs. The government (and society at large) benefits because adoption of this technology can reduce our consumption of foreign oil, and reduce the amount of particulate and gaseous emissions that are linked to health care costs down the line. And without having to upgrade the infrastructure the way we will have to do when we eventually switch to some other form of fuel.

[kuyu]

Mactastic, i see your point. But I meant luxury good in the economic sense. Economists classify everything into two basic types of goods. Normal and luxury goods. Normal goods are the basic offerings available to people, even in the third world. Luxury goods are those that wealthy nations can afford to produce, i.e. a clean factory is a luxury good. While an H2 is a luxury good, so is a hybrid car. I doubt Rwanda has a single hybrid car, or a clean factory.

Any new tech that will clean the environment, help save lives, change societal conditions, etc. is a luxury good.

[mactastic]

Well, that means any car is a luxury right? Not just hybrids.

[Frohickey]

HELLO!!!! The car costs more to make than a regular car! Don't you believe in the market? How would a car manufacturer, who has to COMPETE against other car manufacturers, make any money if their product costs $3K more than their competitions for the same thing? Is all this 'the market is always right' crap just something you say but don't believe? The car manufacturer gets no higher profit margin on a hybrid car than any other. The tax break goes to the END-USER of the car, not the manufacturer, and not the dealer.

I suppose next you'll argue that corporate subsidies actually go to the general public....

So, a car that costs more to make than a regular car, as you said.
What does that mean?
Does it mean that the car manufacturer is taking more profit? Or does it mean that the production of the car is not an efficient use of raw materials and labor?

So, which is it?

Wouldn't you say that efficient use of raw materials and labor is very desired? In fact, wouldn't you say that maximum efficient use of raw materials and labor is paramount to conservation?

[Frohickey]

Solar energy isn't all that expensive, at least not in the parts of the country where the sun shines the better part of the time. The main problem with solar -- and also its main advantage -- is that it doesn't lend itself to producing electricity in centralized power plants, eg, commercial production. But it does lend itself to decentralized generation. If we were to think of every building as its own power station, we'd probably find that solar isn't a very expensive way of generating electricity at all.

Actually, the problem with solar energy is in the power density, or flux, if you will. For a given area or volume, other sources of energy are more 'powerful' than solar energy. Solar energy here being the radiated emission from the strongest gravitational body in this solar system.

To get to a higher power density, on this earth, you have to look at nuclear fission energy. In this solar system, the highest power density would be what is going on in the sun itself, namely nukular :) fusion energy.

Somehow, the public has been hoodwinked into thinking that nuclear fission energy cannot be made safe. This is because of the lack of education in the public. Not enough people are going into the nuclear energy programs because of the public's fear of it. But you need more people going into these programs to educate the public on the underlying science. Typical catch-22, with the environmentalists and anti-nuclear pacifists winning, or at least holding mindshare. That like PC bigots saying that Macs suck, and in turn, you have less people buying Macs, and so the new computer purchaser doesn't even give Macs a first look.

I think that nuclear fission can be made safely, reliably and cheaply. You dig nuclear fissile materials from the ground, chemically purify them, save the non fissile materials, use the fissile materials to make the non fissile materials into fissile materials, and off you go and running. Afterwards, when the concentration of fissile to nonfissile materials in the fuel rods are too low, you haul these fuel rods to get repurified by chemical means, and the non fissile but radioactive materials you go and lock it up in nonporous concrete.

Pitchblende from the ground, vapor-centrifuge separation of U235 and U238, save the U235 for use, turn the U238 (depleted uranium) into Pu238 (fissile plutonium).

Actually, its bad that the Cold War happened. You wouldn't have the emergence of anti-nuclear pacifists that operate mostly on emotion. Too bad Eisenhower didn't let Patton pick a fight with the Russians, like he wanted to. Would have saved a few million Russians. ;)

French and Japanese rely on nuclear for most of their energy production. France has public tours of their nuclear facilities to educate the public, in order to allay their fears. I think they also have an open program for improvements that the public may contribute to. Yes, there was a nuclear scare at a Japanese nuclear reactor a few years ago. Before that, there was Chernobyl. Before that, it was ThreeMile Island. If anything, people can learn from their mistakes.

[mactastic]

So, a car that costs more to make than a regular car, as you said.
What does that mean?
Does it mean that the car manufacturer is taking more profit? Or does it mean that the production of the car is not an efficient use of raw materials and labor?

So, which is it?

Wouldn't you say that efficient use of raw materials and labor is very desired? In fact, wouldn't you say that maximum efficient use of raw materials and labor is paramount to conservation?

How do you not understand this? Do you have an Apple computer? Did it not cost more than a comparably performing PC? Does the Apple cost more because Apple is taking more profit? Or is Apple's production less efficient than Wintels? Is cheaper always better?

And yes, efficiency in use of raw materials and labor is desirable. But I would argue that a more expensive production process that results in a product that uses less of a resource once built and for it's entire service life is more desirable than a streamlined production process that results in a less efficient product.

And what is non-porous concrete? I've never heard of such a thing.

[mactastic]

Yes, there was a nuclear scare at a Japanese nuclear reactor a few years ago. Before that, there was Chernobyl. Before that, it was ThreeMile Island. If anything, people can learn from their mistakes.

Would you, as a free-marketeer, support the repeal of the Price-Anderson Act?

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, the problem with solar energy is in the power density, or flux, if you will. For a given area or volume, other sources of energy are more 'powerful' than solar energy. Solar energy here being the radiated emission from the strongest gravitational body in this solar system.

All of which is pretty much irrelevant to my point. In some settings, solar panels can provide most if not all of the electrical power required for the building on which they are mounted. This is the only criterion that actually matters.

I don't know much about fusion power, but my recollection is that the problems with it are more technical than political.

[Frohickey]

Would you, as a free-marketeer, support the repeal of the Price-Anderson Act?

Ack! I would support a repeal of that act. Plus, if we had a time machine, I would support going back in time, abducting Price and Anderson, holding them for treason and executing them. :eek:

Good that its gone now. New reactors built since Aug 1, 2002 are NOT covered.

[Frohickey]

How do you not understand this? Do you have an Apple computer? Did it not cost more than a comparably performing PC? Does the Apple cost more because Apple is taking more profit? Or is Apple's production less efficient than Wintels? Is cheaper always better?

And yes, efficiency in use of raw materials and labor is desirable. But I would argue that a more expensive production process that results in a product that uses less of a resource once built and for it's entire service life is more desirable than a streamlined production process that results in a less efficient product.

And what is non-porous concrete? I've never heard of such a thing.

Apple cost more because Apple expects 22% margin, the last time I looked. I don't know what margins the Dells and HPs expect out of their products. Apple's production is pretty efficient, IMHO. Plus, there are some costs incurred by Apple that shows up in the quality of the product as well, costs NOT incurred by the Dells and HPs with their almost non-existent testing cycle. Also, IMO, Apple computers are not comparable to the Dells and HPs. <--- actually, a peripheral issue, and not the issue of corporate subsidies in the form of a taxpayer rebate for the purchase of a hybrid car, Apple, Dell and HP do not get any corporate subsidies to make the products they make.

So, in your opinion, a product that uses less consumables is an better product. Isn't your desire for a more efficient product worth an additional $3000 out of your pocket? Why should government give Toyota/Honda a corporate subsidy of $3000 to market such a product?

[Frohickey]

And what is non-porous concrete? I've never heard of such a thing.

Special concrete. I remember an article about adding superfine particles to cement to make super smooth concrete. Its like pancake batter without clumps. :p

[mactastic]

So, in your opinion, a product that uses less consumables is an better product. Isn't your desire for a more efficient product worth an additional $3000 out of your pocket? Why should government give Toyota/Honda a corporate subsidy of $3000 to market such a product?

Sigh... haven't we established that Honda and Toyota aren't getting a corporate subsidy here? The government is giving the subsidy to the consumer, not the car manufacturer. The fact that the manufacturer recieves $3K more for a vehicle that costs them $3K more to make means that they come out the same whether they sell a hybrid Civic for example versus an ICE Civic. In fact, everything I've read is that they are actually losing money on these cars. However, they make them for two reasons: One is that they are betting that this technology will take off and they will be in the forefront of it. Two is that it helps them meet CAFE requirements fleetwide.

And as to the issue of subsidies, I don't really care here. The savings in gasoline costs alone make these cars worth it to me. Our next car will be a hybrid Civic I'm pretty sure. It will replace our '98 Civic HX which already gets great mileage, but it will still be a 25% improvement. Over five years I figure that will save us about half of the $2000 premium we'll pay for the car. And that's with us moving from a pretty fuel efficient car to a super fuel efficient car. If we were replacing my truck with a Civic hybrid then we'd easily save the $2K over five years. Now imagine that most cars get used for 10 or 15 years at least before they are junked. After five years I can reasonable expect to get half my premium investment back when I sell the car off. However, on principle, the government has a compelling interest in promoting this technology so subsidies to encourage it's adoption are not out of line the way subsidies for an H2 are. Less foreign oil and less pollutants are a compelling government interest.

[mactastic]

Ack! I would support a repeal of that act. Plus, if we had a time machine, I would support going back in time, abducting Price and Anderson, holding them for treason and executing them. :eek:

Good that its gone now. New reactors built since Aug 1, 2002 are NOT covered.

Conservatives are still trying to get it reauthorized it looks like. They hope to extend it's benefits until 2017. Nuclear power isn't the cheap source it looks like once you remove industry liability protection. So how many plants are being built without Price-Anderson? Not a lot. Problem is, the incentive is now to put band-aids on existing plants that still have the protection under P-A. That's a dangerous situation, as the old plants that are past their decomissioning age will continue to be run.

[Neserk]

I want one! Gas is over $2 a gallon now. And even if it wasn't. I'd still want one!

[DVW86]

To the member who stated that hydroelectric power does not damage the environment: You may be correct in stating that hatcheries protect against fish depletion, but I doubt hatcheries deal with all species of aquatic life in a particular ecosystem. And it also affects the surrounding area with flooding which can damage surrounding wildlife. I don't pretend to be an expert on such matters - to do so would require extensive education and expensive expiration - and I don't think your angling gives you any special insight into this issue.

You are right, EVERYTHING is effected by our dams. The dams control the flooding, not cause it. The irrigation canals have provided more spawning areas for non-hatchery fish (like bass in the Columbia Basin). The canals also provide water for the deer who otherwise could not survive around such areas. As an industrial electrician, I know the pros and cons of different power sources. As an angler I have traveled the water ways and seen the effects of the dams. I have lived around and dams and their effects all of my life. I'm not saying that the world is better because of them, but it is not worse either. It's just different. All power sources take from the earth. Water power is in my opinion the least damaging because it gives as much as it takes. Solar panels do not hurt the environment but their production does. There is a factory across the street from where I work that makes the silicon for solar panels. They produce some VERY toxic byproducts. They have even caused a few deaths because of it. You may have read about that plant's release in Reader's Digest. It is a fact that we will use power. My preference is hydro, solar, and then fusion in that order.

[Frohickey]

Conservatives are still trying to get it reauthorized it looks like. They hope to extend it's benefits until 2017. Nuclear power isn't the cheap source it looks like once you remove industry liability protection. So how many plants are being built without Price-Anderson? Not a lot. Problem is, the incentive is now to put band-aids on existing plants that still have the protection under P-A. That's a dangerous situation, as the old plants that are past their decomissioning age will continue to be run.

So, do you actually agree that a government program (P-A Act) has had unintended consequences that have distorted the market, cause a stifling of innovation and harm the environment?

Distorted the market is apparent in that it has subdued the growth of a private insurance industry that would cover nuclear industry liability protection. Heck, if an insurance company can insure Jennifer Lopez' gluteus maximus, why not a nuclear power plant. Both are just as hot. :p

Stifling of innovation is through the halting or slow down of plant improvements that could enhance safety, efficiency, or both.

Harm the environment is through the continued use of coal, petroleum and other alternative sources of energy when a few nuclear power plants could have taken care of these energy demands.

Oh, add to that list, costing the taxpayers more money. It would have been more efficient for a private industry to take care of this. Electricity users would be the ones paying for the liability insurance through their power rates, people living off the grid or the ones that buy from conventional sources only do not. Plus, the private insurance company can be income taxed to, further adding to the treasury, that could pay for your universal health care. ;)

[Frohickey]

As an angler I have traveled the water ways and seen the effects of the dams. I have lived around and dams and their effects all of my life.

My preference is hydro, solar, and then fusion in that order.

Catch and release, or lemon juice and butter?

My preference is hydro/geothermal in the areas you can get it. Nuclear in the areas you can't. I'll pass on fusion, matter-antimatter is better. :p

[DVW86]

Catch and release, or lemon juice and butter?

My preference is hydro/geothermal in the areas you can get it.

Catch and release the non-hatchery fish, lemon juice and butter the rest :)

Hydro/geothermal is really cool too. Too bad most of those are so close to volcanoes :eek:

[Frohickey]

However, they make them for two reasons: One is that they are betting that this technology will take off and they will be in the forefront of it. Two is that it helps them meet CAFE requirements fleetwide.

And as to the issue of subsidies, I don't really care here. The savings in gasoline costs alone make these cars worth it to me. Our next car will be a hybrid Civic I'm pretty sure. It will replace our '98 Civic HX which already gets great mileage, but it will still be a 25% improvement.

1)Why does a company need a subsidy in order to develop this technology? Its still a corporate giveaway, I thought you were against that. Oh, you are against it only if it doesn't suit your purpose, or did I mischaracterize your position. Please clarify.

2)Savings in gasoline costs is commendable. 98 Honda Civic HX with the 115HP engine gets 39/45 or 35/39 mileage depending on the transmission. Why didn't you get the 92 Honda Civic VX with the 92HP engine getting 47/56? I thought you were gasoline cost conscious? ;) (Doesn't feel nice to have someone telling you what to do, eh? Why do the same to SUV drivers? I'm sure that they know how much gasoline they use, and how much they pay for it. Prices on the pump already factor this in. Just put the facts out, don't need to shame them into it. Let them make up their own minds. This brings up the way the pro-lifers try to shame the ones getting abortions, pretty bad, in my book.)

So, I choose to get a 2004 H2 Hummer. What is wrong with that?
Would you castigate me for getting a 2003 H1 Hummer that gets 13/17? (Sorry, I couldn't get the H2 Hummer mileage specs.)

Would you castigate me for getting a 2003 H1 Hummer that gets 13/17 if I had told you that I have owned and used a 92 Honda Civic VX that gets 47/56 for over 12 years?

Just put the facts out, and the EPA has done that in their pamphlets, and the mileage numbers on the factory sticker. You don't need to force people, it shows lack of respect.

[Frohickey]

Catch and release the non-hatchery fish, lemon juice and butter the rest :)

Hydro/geothermal is really cool too. Too bad most of those are so close to volcanoes :eek:

Volcanoes aren't too bad... its just that you have to be willing to sacrifice a virgin every once in a while. :p

[mactastic]

So, do you actually agree that a government program (P-A Act) has had unintended consequences that have distorted the market, cause a stifling of innovation and harm the environment?

Sure, government acts have unintended consequences just as do the acts of people and corporations, as well as inaction by any of those. But you can't let the fear of unintended consequences keep you from acting, otherwise you'd never get out of bed in the morning. The butterfly effect and all, know.

Distorted the market is apparent in that it has subdued the growth of a private insurance industry that would cover nuclear industry liability protection. Heck, if an insurance company can insure Jennifer Lopez' gluteus maximus, why not a nuclear power plant. Both are just as hot. :p

Yeah, it's great to argue with someone who is consistently flip as a debating tactic. You know darn well J-Lo's ass doesn't get anywhere near the temperature of a nuclear reaction, yet you throw it out there as if it's proof for your position. Nice. But let's look at that argument on it's merits since we never know if you are making a serious argument, or just using that amazing sarcastic wit of yours. The reason for P-A Act is precisely because no private insurer would take on the risk of having to pay out on a nuclear disaster. Hell, even the insurer of the WTC is trying to get a court to agree that the attacks that day only constitute a single event to cut their liability in half. Their claim is that the payoff will ruin them financially. So if a company can't afford to pay off for the destruction of a couple acres, what happens if they are required to cover the costs of a few hundred square miles? The premiums on coverage that good would push the costs of the electricity generated to astronomical levels.

Stifling of innovation is through the halting or slow down of plant improvements that could enhance safety, efficiency, or both.

Harm the environment is through the continued use of coal, petroleum and other alternative sources of energy when a few nuclear power plants could have taken care of these energy demands.

Oh yeah that's right, there's nothing bad that comes out of a nuclear reactor. Their just building that hole in the mountain in Nevada for fun huh?

Oh, add to that list, costing the taxpayers more money. It would have been more efficient for a private industry to take care of this. Electricity users would be the ones paying for the liability insurance through their power rates, people living off the grid or the ones that buy from conventional sources only do not. Plus, the private insurance company can be income taxed to, further adding to the treasury, that could pay for your universal health care. ;)

I'd love to see a customer handed a bill for their power after the repeal of P-A. And you tell them the increase is due to the actual cost of nuclear power being passed on to them. Hehe, it would be a perfect time to pitch solar, either passive, active, or both. I bet I could get a ton of work putting solar systems up and designing houses that use less energy to heat/cool. Let's get to work on P-A Frohickey! Get rid of the grandfather clause too.

[DVW86]

Volcanoes aren't too bad... its just that you have to be willing to sacrifice a virgin every once in a while. :p

lol, Small price to pay to keep the gods happy and have cheep power :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

1)Why does a company need a subsidy in order to develop this technology? Its still a corporate giveaway, I thought you were against that. Oh, you are against it only if it doesn't suit your purpose, or did I mischaracterize your position. Please clarify.

I never said I was for them, I just pointed out that they exist when you were ranting about how expensive hybrids are. I think the cars are a good investment if you do a lot of high mileage travel where you don't need to haul much. In that situation they are worth a couple thousand more, you'll get it back over the life of the vehicle. I do see what the government interest is in providing this subsidy though.

2)Savings in gasoline costs is commendable. 98 Honda Civic HX with the 115HP engine gets 39/45 or 35/39 mileage depending on the transmission. Why didn't you get the 92 Honda Civic VX with the 92HP engine getting 47/56? I thought you were gasoline cost conscious? ;) (Doesn't feel nice to have someone telling you what to do, eh? Why do the same to SUV drivers? I'm sure that they know how much gasoline they use, and how much they pay for it. Prices on the pump already factor this in. Just put the facts out, don't need to shame them into it. Let them make up their own minds. This brings up the way the pro-lifers try to shame the ones getting abortions, pretty bad, in my book.)

I bought the Civic from a Budget Car Rental place. Didn't get a lot of choice in year or model. I got a good deal on it, that's all that matters. I only mention the numbers as a base for comparison. I also have a truck that gets considerably less mileage. You can't win them all.

So, I choose to get a 2004 H2 Hummer. What is wrong with that?
Would you castigate me for getting a 2003 H1 Hummer that gets 13/17? (Sorry, I couldn't get the H2 Hummer mileage specs.)

Would you castigate me for getting a 2003 H1 Hummer that gets 13/17 if I had told you that I have owned and used a 92 Honda Civic VX that gets 47/56 for over 12 years?

Just put the facts out, and the EPA has done that in their pamphlets, and the mileage numbers on the factory sticker. You don't need to force people, it shows lack of respect.

Actually I could care less if you want an H2. I was pointing out that the government is offering a generous subsidy there too.

[Frohickey]

The reason for Yucca mountain in Nevada is that the only site that can reprocess uranium fuel rods has been shut down. Recently, it was the government that did the reprocessing, instead of private industry. Remember the NRC, nuclear regulatory commission?

What is needed is let private industry do the reprocessing. Government can lease the existing reprocessing factory to a private company, they can operate it, and keep the profits to themselves. Heck, lease the factory for $1 a year if the private company agrees to spot checks and surprise inspections for safety. Small price to pay for spot checks and surprise inspections, I bet they can make a profit out of that.

All I'm saying is that if a private company can insure a body part, why can't they insure a power reactor. Besides, its probably in business' best interest to run a safe and clean power reactor. Makes sense from a business standpoint since that cuts your costs from liability, and a reactor that is operating at 100% without being shutdown because of unsafe operation is one that keeps generating power (and revenue). So, here, greed works out to make things better.

[mactastic]

The reason for Yucca mountain in Nevada is that the only site that can reprocess uranium fuel rods has been shut down. Recently, it was the government that did the reprocessing, instead of private industry. Remember the NRC, nuclear regulatory commission?

And who is building and going to operate the facility at Yucca Mountain? Not private industry.

What is needed is let private industry do the reprocessing. Government can lease the existing reprocessing factory to a private company, they can operate it, and keep the profits to themselves. Heck, lease the factory for $1 a year if the private company agrees to spot checks and surprise inspections for safety. Small price to pay for spot checks and surprise inspections, I bet they can make a profit out of that.

Now that sounds an awful lot like one of those subsidies you are so against. If private industry can't make a profit on it's own, why are you suddenly in favor of subsidizing them? Are you only in favor of subsidies when they suit your ideological agenda?

All I'm saying is that if a private company can insure a body part, why can't they insure a power reactor. Besides, its probably in business' best interest to run a safe and clean power reactor. Makes sense from a business standpoint since that cuts your costs from liability, and a reactor that is operating at 100% without being shutdown because of unsafe operation is one that keeps generating power (and revenue). So, here, greed works out to make things better.

And what I'm saying is that a company can afford to pay out on J-Lo's ass or Julie Andrews vocal cords. How much could all of J-Lo's future earnings be? $100,000,000? Double that? The leaseholder of the WTC is looking for a $7 billion payout from his insurer, the insurer only wants to cough up $3.5 billion. That's for a couple acres. Now imagine most of lower Manhattan had been doused with radiation from a breach in a reactor. How much do you suppose lower Manhattan is worth? More than J-Lo's ass I guarantee. A lot more. So how does a company make sure they can cover their payout in a situation like that? By charging premiums that get them the financial reserves to afford it. That would cost the end user so much that there is no way a nuclear reactor would be profitable. Solar would be cheaper at that rate.

[Frohickey]

What subsidy for buying a Hummer H2? There is definitely a subsidy for buying a hybrid car.

Also, as far as emissions go, here (http://www.autorepair.ca.gov/stdPAge.asp?Menu=/includes/Menu_GenInfo.htm&Body=/Geninfo/Publications/TSI_Cutpoints_Table-Apr_1997.htm) are the numbers of emissions that a particular vehicle has to go through in order to pass the smog check.

Depending on your driving style, you could go through 2500RPM most of the time or not. The SUVs and trucks that I have driven usually have so much torque at the low end that they are usually driven at below 2500RPM. Whereas cars, their torque curve is not as broad, and usually you drive them at higher than 2500RPM. Sure, this is a dubious justification, but that is my experience with trucks/SUVs vs cars.

Sounds like some people just like to point fingers at other people because their value judgement was different from theirs. I used to be against SUVs as well. When I started driving my small econobox geo, I was always mad at SUV drivers going 60MPH in the fast lane, or taking forever to accelerate, and blocking my view, etc. But the more I thought about it, they have as much right to the road (public resource) as I do. They paid for that in their gasoline taxes, same as me. Besides, they are grown people, and I'm not their mommy. I could get a SUV too, and I would not like anyone telling me what I can and cannot buy.

When my Geo was getting long in the tooth, I started looking at the hybrids, and they did not seem to want to sell them, at least not the way they were priced. The Geo ran about $8000 brand new, the Civics were $12K. The Insights ran close to $20K, pretty pricey. Here, I think the consumers were sold a bill of goods. You had normally aspirated cars like the Civic VX running in the low tens of K, they had good mileage, pretty comparable to the hybrids, but they did not sell as much. Now, you have hybrids that do not accelerate as fast, cost much more, have slightly higher mileage, costs a subsidy from the government and they are selling. Sounds like a failure of an advertising campaign, why didn't the eco-conscious people latch on these kinds of cars instead of the hybrids?

I'm thinking that maybe I should have bought two of my econoboxes. This way, when the current one is going bad, I can drive the other one, and turn the Honda Civic into a ricemobile, complete with V8 and exhaust tips. :D

[mactastic]

What subsidy for buying a Hummer H2? There is definitely a subsidy for buying a hybrid car.


Link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml)
But some people have a more practical reason for laying down $50,000 to $60,000 to buy an H2: a federal tax deduction of nearly $38,000.
Her group estimates that the tax incentive's application to SUVs cost the federal treasury $840 million to $987 million last year.

[Frohickey]

Now that sounds an awful lot like one of those subsidies you are so against. If private industry can't make a profit on it's own, why are you suddenly in favor of subsidizing them? Are you only in favor of subsidies when they suit your ideological agenda?

And what I'm saying is that a company can afford to pay out on J-Lo's ass or Julie Andrews vocal cords. How much could all of J-Lo's future earnings be? $100,000,000? Double that? The leaseholder of the WTC is looking for a $7 billion payout from his insurer, the insurer only wants to cough up $3.5 billion. That's for a couple acres. Now imagine most of lower Manhattan had been doused with radiation from a breach in a reactor. How much do you suppose lower Manhattan is worth? More than J-Lo's ass I guarantee. A lot more. So how does a company make sure they can cover their payout in a situation like that? By charging premiums that get them the financial reserves to afford it. That would cost the end user so much that there is no way a nuclear reactor would be profitable. Solar would be cheaper at that rate.

Maybe solar would be cheaper at that rate, maybe not. Maybe an insurance company would be able to figure out how to insure a nuclear power reactor, where it doesn't add too much to the cost of power. The way it is now, the taxpayer pays for it all. Let nuclear succeed or fail on its own merits.

Back to your first contention about subsidies, there is no subsidy for the reprocessing plant. The government already built it, they are shutting it down, and mothballing it. So, a private company decides to get into the business of reprocessing. They can ask to buy the factory outright from the government. Maybe the government doesn't want to lose the power of regulation on the industry, so they don't want to sell it. But if the govt is the only one that is allowed to reprocess, how is that good with lots of wasted fuel rods that can be recycled to make more power after reprocessing. So, have the govt cut a deal with the private company. They can operate it, the govt owns the factory, but the govt is still worried that a private company might take shortcuts or that they are going to lose regulatory power from the reprocessing industry. So, a compromise is the govt to lease it at a lower cost, to offset the cost to the private company for the surprise visits and whatnot.

Recycling is good. Why not allow the recycling of fuel rods.

Leasing is good, better than mothballing. Mothballing, you let the factory idle/fall apart. You lease it, the govt gets leasing fees, plus income taxes from the workers in the factory, and income taxes from the govt inspectors.

Leasing for a paltry amount is good too. Govt gets a leasing fee, plus income taxes from the workers in the factory, and more income taxes from the govt inspectors from working more hours.

Back to the WTC incident, sounds like the leaseholder needs to haul the insurer off to court. Loser pays court costs.

[mactastic]

Maybe solar would be cheaper at that rate, maybe not. Maybe an insurance company would be able to figure out how to insure a nuclear power reactor, where it doesn't add too much to the cost of power. The way it is now, the taxpayer pays for it all. Let nuclear succeed or fail on its own merits.

I'm down with the nuclear industry living or dying on it's own merits. I doubt an insurance company will figure out a way to pull that off though, short of accepting payment and hoping they never have to pay out on a worst-case scenario.

Back to your first contention about subsidies, there is no subsidy for the reprocessing plant. The government already built it, they are shutting it down, and mothballing it. So, a private company decides to get into the business of reprocessing. They can ask to buy the factory outright from the government. Maybe the government doesn't want to lose the power of regulation on the industry, so they don't want to sell it. But if the govt is the only one that is allowed to reprocess, how is that good with lots of wasted fuel rods that can be recycled to make more power after reprocessing. So, have the govt cut a deal with the private company. They can operate it, the govt owns the factory, but the govt is still worried that a private company might take shortcuts or that they are going to lose regulatory power from the reprocessing industry. So, a compromise is the govt to lease it at a lower cost, to offset the cost to the private company for the surprise visits and whatnot.

So giving a good deal to jumpstart efforts to produce hybrid vehicles is not ok, but giving a good deal to jumpstart nuclear reprocessing is? How do you come up with that one?

Recycling is good. Why not allow the recycling of fuel rods.

If there was a market for that (ie. if it was profitable) wouldn't there be facilities? My understanding is that the raw materials (uranium ore) have actually declined in adjusted dollard over the last 20 years. Thus there is little impetus to spend more money to reprocess the material. Now, normally this wouldn't deter me from wanting to recycle anyway just on principle, but there are also significant risks associated with fuel reprocessing such as the plutonium by-product falling into the wrong hands as well as the risks of transporting highly radioactive material to and from the reprocessing facility.

Leasing is good, better than mothballing. Mothballing, you let the factory idle/fall apart. You lease it, the govt gets leasing fees, plus income taxes from the workers in the factory, and income taxes from the govt inspectors.

Leasing for a paltry amount is good too. Govt gets a leasing fee, plus income taxes from the workers in the factory, and more income taxes from the govt inspectors from working more hours.

Since when did the concept of doing good enter into your view of how business should be run? Your starting to sound like an enviro-liberal! But why is it ok for the government to lease or sell these facilities off at a fraction of their value? Doesn't that contribute to the inefficiency in government that you hate? Shouldn't you want the facility sold/leased for market value? Why don't we just give our public lands away for a dollar an acre to developers? Oh yeah, cause that would be getting ripped off.

Back to the WTC incident, sounds like the leaseholder needs to haul the insurer off to court. Loser pays court costs.

They are in court right now. I don't know the court cost arrangements.

[pseudobrit]

2)Savings in gasoline costs is commendable. 98 Honda Civic HX with the 115HP engine gets 39/45 or 35/39 mileage depending on the transmission. Why didn't you get the 92 Honda Civic VX with the 92HP engine getting 47/56? I thought you were gasoline cost conscious? ;) (Doesn't feel nice to have someone telling you what to do, eh? Why do the same to SUV drivers? I'm sure that they know how much gasoline they use, and how much they pay for it. Prices on the pump already factor this in. Just put the facts out, don't need to shame them into it. Let them make up their own minds...

(Sorry, I couldn't get the H2 Hummer mileage specs.)

Irony at work, folks...

The H2 is classified in a truck category where the mileage is not required to be placed on the sticker, so in essesence, the facts are not out and they can't make up their own minds.

8/10 by the way. That's 8 in the city and 10 on the highway for the H2.

Which is less than 20% the economy my non-hybrid, non-econobox, turbocharged car gets turning at low RPM, BTW.

[Frohickey]

So giving a good deal to jumpstart efforts to produce hybrid vehicles is not ok, but giving a good deal to jumpstart nuclear reprocessing is? How do you come up with that one?

Since when did the concept of doing good enter into your view of how business should be run? Your starting to sound like an enviro-liberal! But why is it ok for the government to lease or sell these facilities off at a fraction of their value? Doesn't that contribute to the inefficiency in government that you hate? Shouldn't you want the facility sold/leased for market value? Why don't we just give our public lands away for a dollar an acre to developers? Oh yeah, cause that would be getting ripped off.


Its mothballed now. So, there is no gain to be gotten from the taxpayer investment in the reprocessing facility. Leasing it would add to taxpayer returns. Its like selling your empty bottles and cans instead of throwing it in the trash.

Selling or leasing the facilities at a fraction of the cost is better than letting it idle and not do a thing with it. That is the waste. The Feds have spent all of this money to do reprocessing, and its not doing any reprocessing. At least get some money back for it. Sure, selling the facility at market value would be preferred, that way the taxpayers get what they paid for, or much closer to it. I think a buyer that buys it at market value would NOT subject themselves to undue regulation that the Feds might want to impose, so the carrot for the stick of undue regulation would be a lower than market value lease price or sale price. This way, the taxpayer gets a return, and less is wasted.

[Frohickey]

Irony at work, folks...

The H2 is classified in a truck category where the mileage is not required to be placed on the sticker, so in essesence, the facts are not out and they can't make up their own minds.

8/10 by the way. That's 8 in the city and 10 on the highway for the H2.

Which is less than 20% the economy my non-hybrid, non-econobox, turbocharged car gets turning at low RPM, BTW.

Nonetheless, the mileage is available on the EPA brochure that they have at the auto dealerships. So, the information on mileage is still available for consumers to decide on their purchase.

[mactastic]

Its mothballed now. So, there is no gain to be gotten from the taxpayer investment in the reprocessing facility. Leasing it would add to taxpayer returns. Its like selling your empty bottles and cans instead of throwing it in the trash.

Selling or leasing the facilities at a fraction of the cost is better than letting it idle and not do a thing with it. That is the waste. The Feds have spent all of this money to do reprocessing, and its not doing any reprocessing. At least get some money back for it. Sure, selling the facility at market value would be preferred, that way the taxpayers get what they paid for, or much closer to it. I think a buyer that buys it at market value would NOT subject themselves to undue regulation that the Feds might want to impose, so the carrot for the stick of undue regulation would be a lower than market value lease price or sale price. This way, the taxpayer gets a return, and less is wasted.

But how do you expect an industry to survive if they are relying on government largess to keep them profitable?

And I'm sorry, but no one gets a nuclear reprocessing facility without meeting some stringent security/inspection regulation whether they buy it at full price or have it given to them. Perhaps the reason no one has offered to buy the facility is that no one has figured out how to make it profitable? Maybe you should get into the nuclear reprocessing field if you are so sure you can make it work where others cannot.

[pseudobrit]

Nonetheless, the mileage is available on the EPA brochure that they have at the auto dealerships. So, the information on mileage is still available for consumers to decide on their purchase.

No, it's not.

[Sun Baked]

Nonetheless, the mileage is available on the EPA brochure that they have at the auto dealerships. So, the information on mileage is still available for consumers to decide on their purchase.If a vehicle is classified as a truck above a certain weight, they are exempt from the EPA mileage posting guidelines.

Since the 3500 series trucks and large SUVs have become more popular, quite a bit of this info is available on fansites.