I couldnt agree more. The market will decide and it time to quit all the fear mongering about the environment and running out of oil crap.

Somewhere between Chicken Little and the Grasshopper lies an Ant with a clue.

Unfortunately, I encounter very few Ants ....

Al, I'm not even suggesting anything as lofty as fairness, just a longer-term view.

Here's a longer-term view...

Let's just use up all the available resources so that we can get on with the Road Warrior gas scavenging! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool2.gif)

I want the big blower sticking through the hood (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And of course, we wouldn't want to do anything to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, now would we?
Like maybe build some nuclear plants, so we can phase out the use of coil and oil for electricity?
Or drill domestically? Gee there is a thought.
I seem to recall both presidential candidates talking about these things during the campaign.
What happened to those ideas?

no - instead we are throwing billions at solar and wind, that currently contribute less than 2% of our energy demand. That isn't going to make a dent any time soon.

And then leave the free market alone to decide what cars to build.
Of course the government didn't take over 2 of our 3 car companies to let the free market decide anything....

This post has been edited by c4racer: Jun 4 2009, 05:57 AM

What happened? Oil was cheap for a few months. That's all it takes to forget.

Late last year though, I did hear an interesting argument against more drilling ... yet. Do we want to be the first to run out, or the last?

Ideally we'd want to be the first to not require oil! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Good discussion. Lets not forget that oil over $100 was a market phenomenon (and I think it was totally contrived), and was not based the cost to produce and deliver plus a fair profit, just plain old fashioned old fear and greed. The bottom fell out of oil prices because the demand dropped dramatically due to the world wide economic conditions (brought on in part by the high price of energy).

I think it is a litttle known national security strategy to use up the rest of the world's oil before we use up ours. You might recall that when oil was over $100 a barrel, there was big talk about drilling everywhere including the moon and using whale oil shale, and energy producing algae, making cars that get 100 mpg, yada yada.

When the price went below $80 all that stopped all at once. Now we're creeping back as demand slowly increases.

I spent many years in the electric and gas utility industry, and if wind and solar were economically feasible without government subsidy, they would have invested in it 10, 20 & 30 years ago. When oil is over $100 a barrel, the wind and other stuff looks good economically, but not when oil is $40-60.

Your opinion may vary.

bock

I'm still in that industry ... specifically a nuke. But the company I work for has a very diverse enegy generating protfolio ... nuke, dirt, gas, turbine, and wind. Nuke is base load as are the dirt burners. Natural gas and turbine are peaking units, coming on-line when demand requires it.

The wind generation side of the house is an interesting phenomenon. Where sustainable wind is prevelant is also a sparsley populated area. Consequently, there isn't a large infrastructure for delivery. You can generate all the power you want, but if you can't get it to the end user, it does little good.

And guess what ... land owners want huge dollars for 345KV power line easements, even if the property gets less than 10" of rain a year and can only sustain 10 head of cattle per section of land. In other words, the land is all but worthless, except for an easement. right now, the costs are a part of building the wind generators, but I can forsee eminent domain coming into play.

Another piece of that puzzle, is that building renewable energy platforms (wind, solar, geo-thermal) yields global warming credits. So, if a company puts 100 megawatts of renewable energy on-line, it can take credit for 100 coal burning megawtts (or some formula like that) in the eyes of the air quality control world. So the cost of burning coal goes down.

The long range plan is to retire the dirt burners as more alternative energy becomes available and deliverable. But for now, it makes good business sense to spend the 100s of millions of dollars in building renewable sources and taking credits vs investing in scrubber technology to help clean up emmissions on plant due to retire in 10 or 15 years. It might not help much today, but the future is looking cleaner ...

It's an interesting juggling act ...


Me at work ...
(IMG:http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1292/1292871fwls2yt8o1.jpg)

For electric power, I think nuclear and solar are our best alternatives, despite their drawbacks. At this point, oil is almost exclusively used for transportation (include racing in that), and as base stock for all the plastic things we love so much.

Coal is too environmentally dirty (in a lot of ways, not just emissions) for a long term fix.

It just so happens I helped develop an international carbon exchange, and even now I am torn on the wisdom of this approach (the carbon cap and trade thing). Its relies on international government regulation, which I hate. I think energy conservation and alternative energy development is the winning approach long term. To the extent that carbon cap and trade promotes conservation, I am for it. If it is just another money making scheme to suck goverment revenue out of the energy industry, or allow for the poorer planners to buy their way out of modernizing, then no.

But whatever way we go, it still has to meet the fundamental test of economics...at least in my book. I don't think anybody in their right mind believes the oil thing is sustainable long term.

Race while you can....conserve what you can

bock

I think the most chilling view into the future of the automobile industry post the 39mpg CAFE standard is in the latest C&D. There is an article comparing a 1998 metro to two new hybrids.
HP ranged from 55-98
0-60 range from 10sec to 15 sec
1/4mi took 18-20sec with trap speeds in the 60's to 80's
and the MPG?
with normal driving they got 38-42
Which is right around the AVERAGE of this new CAFE standard.

So what does that tell you?

What it tells me is we can kiss goodbye any and all performance cars in this country that get below 25mpg.

Nothing like a 550i, GTG8, E550, no AMG or M cars whatsoever, no 911's, no Evos or WRXs, no Mustangs or Camaros with V8s, no RX8, no GTR, no corvette.
Pretty much any and all of the cars that we care about will be gone.

this has to be the biggest F-U to the american people ever in terms of a pure assault on our freedoms and liberty.
And for us car guys, it hits home pretty hard.

I cannot even put into words how this makes me feel - it is simply devastating to me, because cars have been one of the biggest joys and passions in my life for 20+ years. And now the government is taking that away from me. I am not a happy camper. We need to do something about this - make our voices heard. I don't think too many people on here are very supportive of this policy and what it will do to one of our favorite industries. I do not intend to take this quietly.

I'm not as much in the "Doom & Gloom" camp as c4racer..

Prior to the cam, but with 4.10 gears and a full compliment of bolt-ons, my T/A could pull down 25mpg on a road trip. My friend (who drives like a EPA tester) averaged close to 30 driving it from NC to PA.
Or, look a the C6 'vette - rated at 26mpg.

This reminds me of the dawn of Electronic Fuel Injection - "Say good bye to hot-rodding forever!" - and now look at us... it's second nature now...and offers us unprecedented control over the engine... 505hp that will last 100,000 miles, while knocking down 24mpg on the highway.. unheard of!

What it'll take is an advancement in engine design...

Eskimo - That was part of the reason that I started this post. I was wondering if it weren't 1973 again and it is going to take decades to get back to significant performance vehicles - that's the optimistic view. Or, we've finally challenged engineers with an impractical problem to solve and real performance will be relegated to what is already in existence.

It is possible to come up with a requirement that will permenantly kill (from the perspective of my lifetime) performance cars. If we make CAFE 100mpg, I think that is out of reach. The current values proposed are lower but are they going too far? Time will tell. One thing I am certain of is that we are going to see some wonderful modern versions of things like the K-car, Fairmont, Chevette, and (1975) Civic. I am just wondering for how long or have we really killed it this time.

I see alot of turds in my future.

This post has been edited by KeithO: Jun 4 2009, 07:16 PM

I see a lot of auto parts in my future, but no new cars.

I have come to view a lot of things from a more parental perspective, though. How do "you" lose freedoms? By not (collectively) using them responsibly.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Jun 4 2009, 11:27 PM

I used to feel like you guys....ie they will kill our hobby. I grew up in the 8 mpg era for performance cars...and that was highway mileage!

I think technology will overcome a lot of our concerns...but it might not look like something we are familiar with today. EFI scared the hell out of me when i first looked at it. Now...well its old hat.

My 383 powered Z28 puts 450hp to the wheels at WOT, but got 26mpg driving home from the races. This was unheard of prior to 1990. Impossible they said at the time.

I think we have a lot to look forward to.

bock

The glass is half full
The glass is half empty
The stuff in the glass is piss (Mitch)

10yrs from now we'll be talking about ultra-capacitors, enabling higher currents, modifying motor controlllers, super-cooling brushless motors...and probably accelerating faster than our cars can today.

There is something good that comes from mpg - lightweight cars. It's about dang time again, too. And don't forget the best thing those lightweight cars are good for: engine swaps. Also don't forget crate motors. Yes, we may be entering a period of fewer cars that are fast right off the showroom floor, but that doesn't mean the hobby is dead.

Frankly, things haven't been headed in a direction I'm interested in anyway. What I want is economical 2+2 almost-Vettes, not almost-Impalas.

Batteries and capacitors are heavy, so are big electric motors. Comparing energy storage, the energy density of gasoline is 46 mJ/kg. Good lithium ion batteries are around .45 mJ/kg. That's right, two orders of magnitude of difference, and some of the new lithium ion batteries (like A123's) are very good but don't hold a candle to gasoline in terms o energy storage. Ultra capacitors are even worse, with the best coming in at .1 mJ/kg, with many at .05 mJ/kg. That's 3 orders of magnitude worse.

For going fast, I still want gasoline. Energy storage and electric motors are getting lighter, but gasoline is good, good stuff.

And I'll make sure you have a dose in your fuel tank at Hallett ...