Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ford chief sets roadblock for hybrid auto bill
- Thread starter craigdawg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Abstract said:You know how Mac users pay squillions on Mac computers and the hardware is crap, but people like you and I STILL buy it because it provides a better OS? Well, I'm sure that even if these people don't "save" money by buying a hybrid, they're not losing any, or at least not a lot of money by buying one, and the benefit of lessening the harmful effects of operating a car on the environment may be worth the extra $500 or so they'll spend during the lifetime of owning the car. Its like the stress and headache people save by buying into a more expensive computer. For many people, there's no "logical" reason for paying more, but some people don't think so linearly.
If I knew I was paying an extra couple of hundred dollars, or even an extra thousand dollars, over the life of the car because it's a hybrid, I'd still buy one. I'd just save a bit more, or borrow a bit more.
I'm not opposed to hybrids, they are far better than 100% electric cars(those things are a complete joke, as was the legislation that tried to mandate them). If hybrids work for you, great. My point was more along the lines of why legislate a technology with marginal environmental benefits with a fairly stupid piece of legislation when there are far cheaper, simpler and more effective solutions?
The simple truth that Californians and lawmakers seem to ignore is that modern cars do very little to the environment in terms of emissions. Those school busses, out-of-tune(or modified), and pre-emissions(pre-1976 I think) vehicles produce about 90% of the pollution coming from vehicles. Put another way, 5-10% of the vehicles on the road produce 90% of the pollution. A big SUV, which I'm no fan of and has all sorts of other issues, still probably only produces maybe 1/1000th the pollution of one of those school busses. And that cool old muscle car just kills the air. And, in fact, the majority of air pollution does not come from vehicles, it comes from manufacturing and things like those leaf-blowers all the gardners use all over L.A.
Forcing or cajoling people to switch wholesale to hybrids would improve emissions by what, 5%? And since that bill only helps 75,000 hybrid owners, how would that help anything? 75,000 cars out of millions? The state would be better served putting in a vehicle inspection system like say, New Jersey, that actually checked emissions effectively. The Ca. smog check system is a total joke. Or, just legislate getting rid of those gross polluters altogether. Or, ban 2-stroke non-emissions controlled motors. Or, just replacing old gas cans(the little 2 gallons things for lawn mowers) with new better sealed ones.
bousozoku said:
Trucks aren't regulated as stringently as cars, but its mostly in terms of safety. Trucks aren't required to have airbags, 5mph bumpers, door beams, etc.
Your mistaken about an H2 only being somewhat better than a school bus for emissions. Of course, the H2 probably uses just about as much gas...
macidiot said:Trucks aren't regulated as stringently as cars, but its mostly in terms of safety. Trucks aren't required to have airbags, 5mph bumpers, door beams, etc.
Your mistaken about an H2 only being somewhat better than a school bus for emissions. Of course, the H2 probably uses just about as much gas...
Just because you see black smoke doesn't mean that it's any worse than the exhaust gas you cannot see. Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are both invisible and manage to kill plenty of people.
One year ago today, I ordered my Prius....I knew that gas price would flirt around the 3.00 range so I wanted to buy the car to SUPPORT its technology. The technology under the hood is awesome to say the least...It is also my own political protest against our country's dependance on oil...I hope the car makers continue to innovate....Here's to hope.macidiot said:
i thought Tesla already fixed our energy woes... ?
why do we need a society that uses more energy and less brain power?
peace.
why do we need a society that uses more energy and less brain power?
peace.
bousozoku said:Just because you see black smoke doesn't mean that it's any worse than the exhaust gas you cannot see. Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are both invisible and manage to kill plenty of people.
lol, I hope your joking there... I don't think I've ever heard of someone dying from CO2 poisoning from a car. Or death from CO2 in general. Umm...humans exhale and produce CO2 as a byproduct of living. Its not inherently dangerous.
CO on the other hand is definitely dangerous. But people rarely die from CO poisoning from cars anymore. Since they started using catalytic converters in cars...CO emissions are mostly gone. I suppose if you sucked on the tailpipe of a car for a few hours you might die...but not necessarily from CO poisoning...
macidiot said:lol, I hope your joking there... I don't think I've ever heard of someone dying from CO2 poisoning from a car. Or death from CO2 in general. Umm...humans exhale and produce CO2 as a byproduct of living. Its not inherently dangerous.
CO on the other hand is definitely dangerous. But people rarely die from CO poisoning from cars anymore. Since they started using catalytic converters in cars...CO emissions are mostly gone. I suppose if you sucked on the tailpipe of a car for a few hours you might die...but not necessarily from CO poisoning...
I wasn't joking and I wasn't talking about Carbon Dioxide coming from a car. Carbon Dioxide is surprisingly dangerous when it replaces the oxygen which was there.
You'd be surprised how many people exchanged their worn out catalytic converters for plain exhaust pipes in many areas. Some states do emissions testing, many do not.
Abstract said:
Got news for you. Mac hardware is pretty good, and current hybrid cars take MORE energy to make, and MORE energy to use over their lifetime over a standard car. Look it up.
Hybrids are nothing more than a "concept" or let's say a step toward the future when we'd better have an answer when the oil runs out. It's actually WORSE with hydrogen fueled cars. It takes WAY more energy to make hydrogen than a similar unit of gasoline.
macidiot said:lol, I hope your joking there... I don't think I've ever heard of someone dying from CO2 poisoning from a car. Or death from CO2 in general. Umm...humans exhale and produce CO2 as a byproduct of living. Its not inherently dangerous.
CO on the other hand is definitely dangerous. But people rarely die from CO poisoning from cars anymore. Since they started using catalytic converters in cars...CO emissions are mostly gone. I suppose if you sucked on the tailpipe of a car for a few hours you might die...but not necessarily from CO poisoning...
I'll go with bousozoku here...
"Catalytic converters have reduced the output of carbon monoxide in auto emissions from about 9 percent to 1 percent, but lethal doses of carbon monoxide can collect in a closed garage within 10 minutes, says Richard Lichenstein, M.D., F.A.A.P., associate professor of Pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md."
Link: http://atoz.iqhealth.com/Atoz/healthupdate/alert04072000.html
Plus, exhaust systems can rust and leak.
Also, people can and do die from carbon dioxide poisoning (though not from cars AFAIK):
http://www.emedmag.com/html/pre/tox/0500.asp
Also carbon dioxide is now a suspected culprit in the deterioration of coral reefs and shell-forming sealife:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html#main
So I guess "inherently dangerous" depends on your point of view. Sorry to be Mr. Argumentative here.
I would just be happy if Congress would repeal the SUV tax break to self-employed filers, which amounts to a taxpayer subsidy to the car companies.
I think the hope with fuel cells is that future technology will allow us to more efficiently extract hydrogen. I have heard that the current fuel cell technology indeed is not as efficient as more conventional engines.
bousozoku said:
No kidding, CA is trying to find ways to deal with the ozone problem, and ford wants to stick thier 2 cents in and change.. That sucks... Good thing i dont buy thier crap anyways...
As far as the oil, Thats a great idea, cause you know they have other means to inovate, they choose to inovate where the money is.. In gasoline Engines.
2jaded2care said:
Well, based on your link, yes some one can die from CO2. But what that article basically said is that they died from asphyxiation caused by CO2 overexposure. The person died from a lack of oxygen. So, based on that, is water a deadly killer? Or a pillow? Like I said, I don't think CO2 is inherently dangerous. Yes you can die from too much CO2. You can die from eating 200 bottles worth of aspirin. Or drinking too much water. But I wouldn't consider aspirin some deadly killing drug...or water consumption a dangerous activity. And likewise, I don't consider CO2 inherently dangerous. I mean, should we legislate putting CO2 warning labels on Coca-Cola bottles?
I'm somewhat familiar with the coral reef issue. Unfortunately, little if none of that can be cured through automobile emissions regulation. Again, CO2 is produced everywhere naturally. But, maybe we should consider banning carbonated beverages? Or strenuous exercise? I think it would be a lot more useful for reef conservation to direct energies at stopping fishing of the reefs...usually done with cyanide, dynamite, or dredging with nets. And that article doesn't say anywhere that CO2 is now a suspected culprit in the deterioration of coral reefs. It basically says that the ocean is absorbing CO2 and that in the future something might happen because of it. A lot of speculation, not much in the way of facts or direct causal effect. The whole CO2 greenhouse argument is a little hokey. By that I mean that its hard to determine whether the increase over the past 200 years is due primarily to industrialization or deforestation or a natural trend or some other reason. Its probably some combination, but again, without knowing exactly why, and in what percentages, its hard to point the finger at automobiles.
And regarding CO, like I said, it is definately dangerous. And according to the gov. about 300 people a year die from CO poisioning from auto exhaust. Thats what I could find on the net...it dates back to 1998, but its a 5 year study. I think the numbers are now lower, but I'll go with 300... Anyway, point is...thats essentially zero statistically. 300 out of 280million. Thats about .00001% of Americans. Like I said in my earlier post, people rarely die from CO poisoning from cars anymore. I didn't say that no one died from it, just rarely.
Here are some links you might find interesting:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=10&q=http://www.cpsc.gov/library/co01.pdf&e=7388
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2502&page_number=1
I totally agree with you about the SUV tax break. That SUV incentive is awful. My point from the beginning was that instead of trying to pass new legislation with virtually no benefits, they should actually do things that are beneficial. The bill about hybrids and HOV lanes is stupid. 75000 more hybrids on the road(and driven by single passengers in the HOV lane) isn't going to do squat.
chewbaccapits said:
Hybrids are nice bits of technology. Far better than electric cars, which were a joke. But if you wanted to protest our country's dependence on oil don't you think biodiesel is a better way to go? Biodiesel allows you stop using gasoline altogether. Its cheap to do, it works, and you can fill up at a restaurant. And your exhaust sort of smells like french fries. And you aren't stuck with whole lot of toxic waste in the form of dead batteries.
Of course, that doesn't solve the problem that you still buy goods made of plastic or wrapped in plastic. Which is made from oil. And that the majority of oil in this country goes to manufacturing, NOT gasoline...
Getting back to the subject, craigdawg is right...Ford is trying to alter the bill because they're afraid, rightly so, that the bill will hurt sales of the new Escape Hybrid. The Toyota Prius is making a killing and will benefit from the bill, while Ford's barely launched 2005 Escape (H) will not. Ford doesn't want people cancelling their orders over this HOV bill.
The Escape (H) will certainly still do well for Ford and they will continue to be backordered, but Ford needs to keep their dealer base happy. If the bill takes away some of the Escape (H)'s luster, dealers will not have the flexibility to charge as much markup. Ford wants consumers to view the Prius and Escape (H) as competitive alternatives, but this bill would render that argument null and void.
As stated in the article, Toyota also didn't like the bill as written because it excluded all of the other larger hybrid vehicles that they're preparing to launch, because they too won't meet the 45 MPG standard to drive in the HOV lanes.
While a compromise could be reached, allowing all hybrid vehicles to drive in the HOV lane, I hope it doesn'tas it could cause the HOV lanes to become overburdoned with single-occupant hybrid vehicles.
It's Ford the "Environmentalist" crying sour grapes, but I say keep the bar where it is and let consumer demand drive the automakers to innovate.
The Escape (H) will certainly still do well for Ford and they will continue to be backordered, but Ford needs to keep their dealer base happy. If the bill takes away some of the Escape (H)'s luster, dealers will not have the flexibility to charge as much markup. Ford wants consumers to view the Prius and Escape (H) as competitive alternatives, but this bill would render that argument null and void.
As stated in the article, Toyota also didn't like the bill as written because it excluded all of the other larger hybrid vehicles that they're preparing to launch, because they too won't meet the 45 MPG standard to drive in the HOV lanes.
While a compromise could be reached, allowing all hybrid vehicles to drive in the HOV lane, I hope it doesn'tas it could cause the HOV lanes to become overburdoned with single-occupant hybrid vehicles.
It's Ford the "Environmentalist" crying sour grapes, but I say keep the bar where it is and let consumer demand drive the automakers to innovate.
Macidiot, many of your points are taken. Sorry, Mr. Devil's Advocate did get a little carried away there. I guess I got my panties in a wad when you seemed to minimize the threat posed by CO, which, although car emissions may kill proportionately few people (boat emissions and those from gas-operated leaf blowers may kill more), I thought that "a few hours" was a bit overstated.
In my defense on CO2, the Nat'l Geo article did state that the changing ocean chemistry "has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain." I will cede your other, valid points regarding this and your other good suggestions re: 2-stroke engines, etc. Some had occurred to me, others had not. Also, thanks for the Car and Driver link, although I'll feel better if I seek confirmation of the stats elsewhere.
Les Kern, I can't find anything about hybrids using more energy to manufacture and operate than conventional vehicles. Link, please.
I guess what Ford is trying to do makes sense from a business standpoint, but I hope the legislators don't fall for the argument that it's a "buy Japanese" bill. It sets a standard, and any manufacturer who meets it can benefit. I doubt the standard was set intentionally to shut out FMC. Besides, wasn't Ford's hybrid technology bought from Toyota? Who's "buying Japanese" here?
In my defense on CO2, the Nat'l Geo article did state that the changing ocean chemistry "has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain." I will cede your other, valid points regarding this and your other good suggestions re: 2-stroke engines, etc. Some had occurred to me, others had not. Also, thanks for the Car and Driver link, although I'll feel better if I seek confirmation of the stats elsewhere.
Les Kern, I can't find anything about hybrids using more energy to manufacture and operate than conventional vehicles. Link, please.
I guess what Ford is trying to do makes sense from a business standpoint, but I hope the legislators don't fall for the argument that it's a "buy Japanese" bill. It sets a standard, and any manufacturer who meets it can benefit. I doubt the standard was set intentionally to shut out FMC. Besides, wasn't Ford's hybrid technology bought from Toyota? Who's "buying Japanese" here?
macidiot said:
Tell me more about this - isn't there a problem with supply? I mean, do we generate millions of gallons of french fry grease every day? Solutions need to be accessable to large numbers of people to make any kind of difference. Is there a way for biodiesal to become in the huge quantities necessary?
A world that smells like french fries? That could be a description of heaven.
OldManJimbo said:
I mean, do we generate millions of gallons of french fry grease every day?
yes.
there is a college that is curently using biodesiel to power it's lawnmowers and such... there's a plan to use it school-wide. it is collected by dudes on bikes. the process seems easy enough, but it requires quite a bit of restaraunt fried-oil waste.
it may not work on a large scale, but it's a great project from some college guys.
peace.
neut said:i like the sound of that.
wonder if they have alternative energy war machines?
peace.
They would have to go back to the dark ages and joust on bicycles!
2jaded2care said:
Hey, its cool...we're just discussing here. Thing is, I consider myself an environmentalist. I just don't like misinformation about environmental issues. I hate the smog here in L.A. and the polluted oceans. The problem is that much of what is being proposed is misguided at best and harmful at worst. 4 years ago, everyone was up in arms about getting electric cars on the road. Even though every expert in the field said it was unworkable and doesn't actually help the environment. Of course, the activists failed to tell anyone that...similar thing seems to happen with every activist environmental cause. Sort of like "it doesn't matter if it works or not, as long as we are doing something."
As for the bill, one does have to wonder why it has an mpg limit on it...if Pavley was in favor of hybrids, shouldn't all hybrids be considered? Again, I'm no fan of that bill or hybrids, but that Escape hybrid is more fuel efficient than a regular Escape. And its a whole lot better than a Hummer. And isn't that the point? Maybe Ford has reason to be angry...
OldManJimbo said:
Well I'm no expert on this. But I know that you can convert a diesel car to run on biodiesel, for a small amount of money(something like 3-500 I think). After the conversion you can run it on vegetable oil. But there is actually a specific type of oil that you can use.
Also, while it would definitely take you off of big oil's customer list, I'm not sure what the environmental effect is. I'm pretty sure that it will still throw off hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, that is the reality of burning any organic matter. But for sure, the resource is renewable, and a far better use for corn than making America the fattest country in the world from corn syrup consumption.
And I like the smell of french fries too, but I always get hungry when I'm riding around in my friends car...
Anyway, here are some links:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
http://www.biodiesel.org/
Two words: Mr. FusionOldManJimbo said:
http://www.millionaireplayboy.com/images/bttf/2mrfusion.jpg
http://www.millionaireplayboy.com/toys/bttfwelly.php
Hybrids are not worth it
Like it was said above, hybrids are not that efficient over the life of the car and by no means are they an answer to the impending energy crisis. While Suburbans and H2s guzzle, more than 50% of US Oil is used to power 30% of US power plants. Cars, trucks, boats, airplanes use less than 40% of US fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells work, they can be made light, and you could make a sports car, SUV, or compact. The problem is preparing the hydrogen takes massive amounts of energy, which as the current infastructure exists would generate far more emisions than everyone driving an H2. Tax dollars need to be spent on clean sources of power and we need to return to nuclear sources of energy. Subsidies for hybrid cars don't help anything. Look at the Navy, the new carier class due to begin construction 2007-2010 will be able to power the entire Los Angeles area, almost the entire New York metropolitan area, while producing less radioactive waste than any of the reactors generating power in the US currently do. (What the Navy wants to do with all that extra power is anyone's guess, and I'll leave that question for another day)
Like it was said above, hybrids are not that efficient over the life of the car and by no means are they an answer to the impending energy crisis. While Suburbans and H2s guzzle, more than 50% of US Oil is used to power 30% of US power plants. Cars, trucks, boats, airplanes use less than 40% of US fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells work, they can be made light, and you could make a sports car, SUV, or compact. The problem is preparing the hydrogen takes massive amounts of energy, which as the current infastructure exists would generate far more emisions than everyone driving an H2. Tax dollars need to be spent on clean sources of power and we need to return to nuclear sources of energy. Subsidies for hybrid cars don't help anything. Look at the Navy, the new carier class due to begin construction 2007-2010 will be able to power the entire Los Angeles area, almost the entire New York metropolitan area, while producing less radioactive waste than any of the reactors generating power in the US currently do. (What the Navy wants to do with all that extra power is anyone's guess, and I'll leave that question for another day)
drayab said:
Coal is an excellent power source for power plants and is plentiful and cheap and would solve that problem. I thought that W missed a great opportunity after september 11th to make the US energy independent. There was the will at the time. Yes there would still be imported oil but it would have to be matched by exported. Shut down the oil and NG power plants. Use the oil and NG for fuel. Tax credits for converting home heating to electric or where appropriate coal. It could have been phased in over 5 years.
drayab said:
drayab said:
During the california power crisis I wondered if it would have helped to have a couple of aircraft carriers running generators for California.
As for what they need the power for.
1) Pushing a big ship through the water at 45 mph.
2) Steam for catapult launches
3) Powerful phased array radar, the type where you can zorch avionics from half a mile away.
And future uses.
1) High powered Lasers/Directed energy Weapons.
2) Railguns