It will never happen in my lifetime!

[pincushion]

So, having been born at the end of WWII I had the pleasure of growing up with the ever present threat of nuclear war via the MAD doctrine with things such as MIRVs and although it seems to have calmed down a bit most of us will not be truly happy until all nuclear weapons are consigned to the dustbin - a secure one hopefully. I must say that for most of my early life I did not see an end to this stalemate and also did not see apartheid ending in South Africa. Things do change and sometimes quite unexpectedly but what do you see as just not possible in your lifetime or what major changes do you expect to see?

:huh:

 

[MWRed]

it would really be hard to dismiss things with the constant change that we see all the time now.
I never would have had a 2nd thought about not seeing another World War, but now i'm not so sure. I don't think it would be like WWI or II, but I do think, eventually, something will happen. Too much tension almost everywhere that has to be let off somewhere along the line.

I do however think it will be a different kind of warfare. Not really 100% physical/ground + air war. More will have to do with technology in the future.

Other than that, it's really hard to say. technology is moving so fast that anything could happen in the future.
I think major changes in Government, worldwide, are inevitable.

 

[Trucidation]

Every once in a while I'd read an article saying how they've made a breakthrough on "life-extending" procedures. Since the 1990s.

Needless to say, I'm beginning to think I'll die of old age before anything actual comes out of this.

 

[whs]

I would be happy if people would waste less energy in the US - at least get to the European level (which would be cutting the current consumption by about 60%).

And that would be so easy to accomplish. Put an additional $5 tax on each gallon of gas like in Europe (and similar on electricity) - you can get people only by their pocket book. Then use the trillinos the goverment collects to build high speed trains like this one, give money to the people to install sun collectors and insulate their houses and sponsor green energy.

The result would be that the US would have a surplus of oil from their own production. No more oil imports would very positively impact the balance of payment and the US debt situation. The green energy drive would create a whole new industry with a lot of new jobs (as was demonstrated in Germany). The car industry would produce cars that can do 60 or 70MpG (the technology exists and the Eurpean manufacturers build those cars right now) which they could export much better than the current models. Everybody would win.

 

[smarteyeball]

I'd like to see the death of tabloid 'journalism' and replace current 'role models' with those of more substance.


And metro sexuality being cool...


I also don't want to live through a modern day religious crusade.

 

[seekermeister]

I would be happy if people would waste less energy in the US - at least get to the European level (which would be cutting the current consumption by about 60%).

And that would be so easy to accomplish. Put an additional $5 tax on each gallon of gas like in Europe (and similar on electricity) - you can get people only by their pocket book. Then use the trillinos the goverment collects to build high speed trains like this one, give money to the people to install sun collectors and insulate their houses and sponsor green energy.

The result would be that the US would have a surplus of oil from their own production. No more oil imports would very positively impact the balance of payment and the US debt situation. The green energy drive would create a whole new industry with a lot of new jobs (as was demonstrated in Germany). The car industry would produce cars that can do 60 or 70MpG (the technology exists and the Eurpean manufacturers build those cars right now) which they could export much better than the current models. Everybody would win.

I've got a better idea...why don't you drill some oil wells and leave our taxes alone? We already have a number of hybrid autos available, some using no gas at all, but they are quite expensive, and more than many of us can afford.

 

[whs]

People will never save anything if it is cheap. Only expensive resources will be saved. And as for the prices of efficient cars - they cost the same as any cars if you equip them with turbo diesels. They produce much more power than gas engines for half the fuel consumption - especially in heavier cars. Hybrids are not the solution - too complex and too expensive.

 

[seekermeister]

It is not a matter of saving. It is a matter of either having or not having. I guess it doesn't matter to you whether many of us can afford to drive a vehicle, but it definitely does to me, and to a vast number of Americans. It sounds to me that the only savings that you are concerned with is your's.

 

[whs]

You got that all wrong. If you drive a car that does 20MpG at $4 per gallon versus a car that does 60MpG at $8 per gallon, you come out ahead of the game - and those cars do exist. But things will not change unless people do not change - e.g. buy different cars. And that they will do only if it is cheaper for them the going with the old ways. And the industry will follow suit.

I think it is better to change the trend now than to wait until oil will be really scarce and unaffordable. And what do you do if the Arabs decide one day to deliver no more or a lot less oil to the US. China will buy it all up - and they have money, lots of it.

 

[seekermeister]

No, you have it wrong. Before your concept would be applicable, it would mean that everybody would have to buy a new car. Not just any new car, but one with the technology that you described, and that is not something that the majority of American citizens can do.

If that seems like a small thing to you, then you must have so much money that you could afford to donate a new vehicle to someone here, but if that were the case, then you would not be complaining about your cost of fuel.

 

[whs]

Of course you do not implement the tax hike on one day - you do that gradually over a period of 10 years with +50 cents each year. That gives people and the industry enough time to adjust. And believe me, there is no alternative to a change into this direction. Else there will be a rude awakening one day.

 

[The Howling Wolves]

We all should have done that 20 years ago when gas war's were happening.
But NOOOO, the damned Politicians and Oil Monger's were making tons of money and still are.
In the meantime we are bailing out General Motors with tax payers dollars so they can build a piece of crap that the President want us to buy.

WHS
Do I sound bitter and PO'd at what is going on? You bet your sweet bippy I am.
Will quit ranting before I really get carried away so good night all.
THW

 

[seekermeister]

whs,

If you allow 10 years for the transformation, it will happen without taxing the gasoline, because we don't like paying the price as it is. 10 years from now, most vehicles that uses too much gas will probably be in the auto salvage, and vehicles with the tech that you speak of will be commonplace enough that people will naturally go in that direction.

The only thing that additional taxes accomplishes is to line the pockets of the politicians, suppress people and the economy...which we already feel.

 

[DustSailor]

I also think any sudden changes are bad, and people don't like it. However, I am of the mindset that people should be taxed less. Here is why I would think this: The government is filled with corruption and selfish rich people. Does anyone disagree? The government is filled with waste and often spends money where it shouldn't go (ie legislative pork benefiting few people or lawmakers/lawmaker's assets). Anyone disagree here?

So I would therefor think government should be small (Not saying anything about how it protects us), meaning more money is poured into private sectors (and potentially more jobs). There is a limited amount of money to go around. If the government owns it all through taxes and puts it back "into the economy", that is socialistic. America was meant to be taxed minimally, and give more people the ability to become well-off. There was a reason they threw all that tea into the sea (nothing to do with the tea party, just history).

I also think having state of the art technology (60MPG, etc) is awesome, but frankly, that technology doesn't exist in any practical terms. If it does, the vehicles are mostly electric, and very expensive. And long distances, they use just as much gas as any other car. There are not many places to charge up at in the world of today with electric cars, and it would have to be often. You have to think on both ends. Using less fuel is good because it decreases reliance on it, but technology is not quite mature for such a thing. And to tax someone in expectation that technology will mature isn't good either, because if it doesn't mature fast enough, then you are charging people 8$ gas and they are still using very cheap gas guzzlers because they can't afford electric or they travel long distances and need gas. Now they are being charged out the booty because someone thought it would be a good idea. Taxing someone because you don't like how they do something is never the answer. It ends up hurting those who do not do well to begin with financially. You get more poor on the streets, less jobs, and a big cycle that can hurt far more than it ever would help. Additionally, you cannot just enact a law you think is good or sounds good, you MUST do studies about it. Its effects can hurt in the long run. That is America's problem today. The laws come out and no one knows its full potential until they repeal it years down the road when it is too late.

 

[The Howling Wolves]

I also think any sudden changes are bad, and people don't like it. However, I am of the mindset that people should be taxed less. Here is why I would think this: The government is filled with corruption and selfish rich people. Does anyone disagree? The government is filled with waste and often spends money where it shouldn't go (ie legislative pork benefiting few people or lawmakers/lawmaker's assets). Anyone disagree here?

So I would therefor think government should be small (Not saying anything about how it protects us), meaning more money is poured into private sectors (and potentially more jobs). There is a limited amount of money to go around. If the government owns it all through taxes and puts it back "into the economy", that is socialistic. America was meant to be taxed minimally, and give more people the ability to become well-off. There was a reason they threw all that tea into the sea (nothing to do with the tea party, just history).

I also think having state of the art technology (60MPG, etc) is awesome, but frankly, that technology doesn't exist in any practical terms. If it does, the vehicles are mostly electric, and very expensive. And long distances, they use just as much gas as any other car. There are not many places to charge up at in the world of today with electric cars, and it would have to be often. You have to think on both ends. Using less fuel is good because it decreases reliance on it, but technology is not quite mature for such a thing. And to tax someone in expectation that technology will mature isn't good either, because if it doesn't mature fast enough, then you are charging people 8$ gas and they are still using very cheap gas guzzlers because they can't afford electric or they travel long distances and need gas. Now they are being charged out the booty because someone thought it would be a good idea. Taxing someone because you don't like how they do something is never the answer. It ends up hurting those who do not do well to begin with financially. You get more poor on the streets, less jobs, and a big cycle that can hurt far more than it ever would help. Additionally, you cannot just enact a law you think is good or sounds good, you MUST do studies about it. Its effects can hurt in the long run. That is America's problem today. The laws come out and no one knows its full potential until they repeal it years down the road when it is too late.

Dust,
You are spot on but failed to mention in your last sentence.
The laws that come out are NOT READ they are just piles of printed paper justifying their existence in the White House.

 

[whs]

whs,

If you allow 10 years for the transformation, it will happen without taxing the gasoline, because we don't like paying the price as it is. 10 years from now, most vehicles that uses too much gas will probably be in the auto salvage, and vehicles with the tech that you speak of will be commonplace enough that people will naturally go in that direction.

The only thing that additional taxes accomplishes is to line the pockets of the politicians, suppress people and the economy...which we already feel.

I hope you are are right. And with your last sentence you are definitely right. On the other hand, it is 'We the people" who elect those politicians.

 

[whs]

I also think having state of the art technology (60MPG, etc) is awesome, but frankly, that technology doesn't exist in any practical terms

Dusty Sailor, here you are wrong. In Germany I can buy cars like that from many manufacturers - today. They are all turbo diesels that are awsome with a LOT of torque and amazing horsepower (for the sizes of the engines). A 2 liter 4 cylinder diesel has about the same torque as a 5 liter V8. And some 2 liters have close to 200HP.

I have a little Renault van with a gas engine that does only 45MpG. At my age, I do not go very fast any more on the German highways where there are no speed limits in most places. My travel speed is usually around 85MpH. But when someone really whizzes by me, it is one of those little turbo diesels or a big Mercedes (which are mostly turbo diesels too).

In Germany and France, about 70% of all passenger cars are diesel. They consume a lot less gas, are very powerful, last longer and are ultra quiet. In addition, diesel fuel is cheaper than gas in all European countries I am familiar with.

 

[DustSailor]

^ In america (perhaps I should say california, but I'm sure much of America as well), diesel fuel was thought to be bad, and was fazed out, except for The big trucks (there are few places around, but many gas stations no longer offer it). There are very limited places where you can buy diesel, Wolfgang. And if you find one, it is far away. With what we have now, it isn't practical for this tech.

Personally, no matter the cost benefit, I would hate to see a cloud of smelly smoke pour out of my car, unless I am wrong and this doesn't happen. I hate it when I have windows down and other cars do this to me. I live in a city o.o

If this technology was the 'perfect' technology, and cheap too, be sure every car would begin to be equipped with it as demand would rise. The reason it isn't, is because it lacks in many areas still. Believe me when I say technology isn't mature enough to dream of using 50+MPG in a cheap car (that would be worth buying. I don't believe electric cars are worth it yet).

 

[seekermeister]

It should be obvious by now, that the reason that we don't have more energy efficient autos is because the oil industry has long been suppressing them. At one time, we could modify a vehicle to use propane, but then they raised the price of the gas to the point that it wasn't any longer practical. The same happened with diesel. There has been a multitude of stories about people who invented devices to make vehicles more efficient, but then they were bought out by the oil companies and it never reached the market.

The current oil price situation is artificially manufactured by not only the oil companies, but now with the governments in cohorts with them. If everyone was forced to buy a vehicle like whs described, they would simply raise the prices even higher to make up the difference. There is not now, never has been, nor will ever be a true shortage of oil, because contrary to popular concepts, oil is not running short. The Earth does replenish it, but it may be more costly to find and produce it.

 

[whs]

^ In america (perhaps I should say california, but I'm sure much of America as well), diesel fuel was thought to be bad, and was fazed out, except for The big trucks (there are few places around, but many gas stations no longer offer it). There are very limited places where you can buy diesel, Wolfgang. And if you find one, it is far away. With what we have now, it isn't practical for this tech.

Personally, no matter the cost benefit, I would hate to see a cloud of smelly smoke pour out of my car, unless I am wrong and this doesn't happen. I hate it when I have windows down and other cars do this to me. I live in a city o.o

If this technology was the 'perfect' technology, and cheap too, be sure every car would begin to be equipped with it as demand would rise. The reason it isn't, is because it lacks in many areas still. Believe me when I say technology isn't mature enough to dream of using 50+MPG in a cheap car (that would be worth buying. I don't believe electric cars are worth it yet).

In the US, you do have a problem. As far as I understand, there were no new refineries built in the last 30 years. The effect is that you have quasi no supply of modern diesel fuel which has a low water content and no sulfur. This is, however, a requirement for the modern Diesel engines.

As far as the black smoke goes, that is a matter of the past. Modern diesel cars have filters. If you cover the exhaust pipe with a white hanky whilst the engine is running, it stays white. No more fumes.

There is a lot to be done to get the US up to modern technology (and not only in cars). But I have the feeling that the industry and their lobbyists do everything to keep the country at a backlevel so that they can maximize their profits - question is for how long that will work.

Yesterday night I was browsing thru a few webpages of European car manufacturers and easily found about a dozen cars that do 50+MgG. And those are very normal cars that you can buy today. Even some Mercedes and BMWs are in the 40+MpG class. They use a bit more fuel because they are heavy.

In the US, where a lot of pickups are being sold, the turbo diesel would be ideal. The common 2 liter diesel engine that I described could easily replace the common V8s without any loss of driving comfort - especially since those turbo diesels have a lot of torque which gives you fantastic acceleration. Torque is also good for heavy hauling. And the consumption would probably be cut in half.