Comments Jawfish has made

Not surprising, but ....

I thought the story was kind of fun. Some of the characters reminded me of old-time Southerners ranting about integration. And I have run into some pretty whacko ideas on various motorcycle websites.

I'd like to say though, that for every over-dressed Adolph Coors-loving right-winger who fears the Muslim menace, you can find a hemp-shod semi-literate leftie who thinks every corporation is a conspiracy, and cars can run on water. Just compare the fear of stem-cell carrying embryos with the fear of gm crops. Knee-jerk union-sentimentalists are just as delusional as immigration fence nuts.

Quasimodo predicted all this, or was it Notre-Damus? Me, I am just waiting for the UFOs to come down and clean up this mess.

Jawfish

www.jawfish.net

Safety is Overrated, Reduced Mass is Paramount

I want to take the opposite tack: there IS a trade-off between safety and efficiency, we just don't have any vehicles in that missing category. Here's my point:

I have been researching building myself a very green car, looking at solutions ranging from something a little better than a Prius to fully EV. One side issue I have discovered is the technology is not ready for ultralightweight cars that meet the current DOT standards. Well it's theoretically available, but not for low-cost manufacture. See RMI's hypercar for an example.

However we already have a class of vehicles on the road that has no onerous safety standard - motorcycles. Since most people will burn more gas, and spend a lot more money to get comfort, capacity, and safety, few people ride bikes. Yet, there are a number of microcars available in Europe, the Far East, and Brazil which are true cars, but get better mileage than current hybrids. They can't be imported because of the DOT standard. Some of them are available as EVs.

So here's my pitch- given that I think global warming is a bigger safety and security issue than mandated individual safety, and given that there is a direct trade-off between vehicle mass and efficiency, let's establish a class of vehicles between the 500 lb two-wheelers and the 3000 lb hybrids. Say for instance, anything under 2000 lbs that meets smog standards and 50+ mpg would be federally classified as a motorcycle even though it has four wheels. ( 3-wheelers are motorcycles). That way those of us willing to accept a safety reduction could drive more efficiently, without having to build it at home.

NEVs are a precedent to this idea, they just haven't sold well because they are too restricted in speed and range.

www.jawfish.net

Carbon Tax Gasoline

I read the piece too, in the LAT, and while I can't cite studies on the economics of petroleum, it's pretty clear to me that a slight rise in gas prices has already affected the market.

here's some anecdotal evidence:

More folks showing up on the Electric Vehicles list.
Slumping SUV sales
Increased buzz around alternative vehicles
Lots of follow-me buzz in the media about so-called high gas prices.

It's possible too, that there may be some moral authority inherent in the carbon tax, where the high-status good-guy position is to drive small, instead of big. I worry about the redneck backlash though. I have a lot of racer friends who drive trucks and pull RVs and think their God-given rights are already being assaulted by so-called "eco-nazis." These folks have got to get on board somehow.

Somehow the tax reduction has got to be prominent so folks don't feel that their travel is unfairly targeted, or it's just another government hand in their pocket. For instance, a direct income tax credit for gasoline carbon tax, printed on the receipt at the pump. People will still choose to buy less gas to lower their out of pocket, but might support the tax more readily.

John

www.jawfish.net

Are there any alternatives?

All of the negative points against nukes are well-taken, but I think it is essential that we total up our electrical needs against the possible production of sustainable sources of supply.

I have never seen a projection that we'll be able to supply enough electricity to support the current lifestyle of the first world, let alone the coming usage in China and India, without massive coal and nuclear build-up.

Even allowing for much greater conservation, and a very optimistic schedule for new technology, is there any way we can avoid coal and nukes for the next century? If not, then it's simply unrealistic to fight nukes, we should be regulating them carefully. If so, and there is a viable way to go straight to sustainable power, let's get the word out quickly.On Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses