"Cash for Clunkers" gas savings

[zeitgeist57]

I found this email funny and sad at the same time...

..

.

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a year.

 

So, the average "Cash for Clunkers" transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

 

They claim 700,000 vehicles were "converted"…so that's 224 million gallons of gas saved per year…equates to a bit over 4 million barrels of oil.

 

4 million barrels of oil is about 5 hours' worth of U.S. consumption. More importantly, 4 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $285 million dollars.

 

So…the government paid nearly $3 BILLION of our tax dollars to save $285 million in gasoline. We spent $8.57 in taxes for every dollar saved.

 

How good of a deal was that? They will probably do an even better job with health care though!!!

[87GT]

How much CO2 was NOT released into the atmosphere because of this? Where is that calculation at?

[Bam]

Yep, and this is exactly my argument about hybrid cars as well, that the added initial cost outweighs any MPG benefit.

[OSUGT]

^^^cuz global warming is scary!!!!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE

 

 

My thing about electric cars is how much more coal will we have to burn to plug them into the power grid?

[Hwilli1647545487]

The government knows what is best for you. Don't try and argue it with logic.

[sol740]

The point wasn't necessarily to "save" money/oil with the first wave of "converted vehicles" but to create a push towards having more gas-saving vehicles on the road. Hopefully, this would eventually help lead to more independence from foreign oil.

 

Now whether or not that could be implemented through CAFE standards over time more efficiently is an arguable point.

 

 

My thing about electric cars is how much more coal will we have to burn to plug them into the power grid?

 

Enlighten me, please. Cause I hear this argument often but never have benefited from seeing actual, tangible numbers. I'm not being a dick here, I'm actually curious. Also, we are seeing some headway in the battle for more efficient battery based systems, some of which in the near future, should make todays charge/usage ratios seem mundane.

[87GT]

 

My thing about electric cars is how much more coal will we have to burn to plug them into the power grid?

 

Hopefully less then you think if they allow the cars to put energy back into the grid. This is possible and has been done before. Why not if the car generates more energy then it needs?

[greg1647545532]

The problem with math is that some people suck at it.

 

Problem 1 is that oil is not gasoline, and a barrel of oil makes 19-20 gallons of gas out of 42 gallons of oil, so based on the raw numbers in the email, 224 million gallons of gas is closer to 11.5 million barrels of oil, which, at $70 a barrel, would run just over $800 million.

 

Problem 2 is that's only 1 year of savings. If we can assume that each clunker would have stayed on the road another 5 years, that's $4 billion in savings.

 

 

(note: C4C is still retarded, I didn't support it, the math is indeed crummy which is why it was never about "green" cars really, and most of the clunkers weren't being driven at all, yet alone 12k miles a year. Still, bad math is bad and needs to be pointed out).

[matty2431]

They just patened the technology for kinetic batteries that recharge themselves (or create energy) by simple kinetic motions. Think of the shake-flash-light. You shake it, it generates enough power for itself to run for a few minutes. Essentially you would just need something to get the kinetic motion kick started, and a car could theoretically run forever without any energy requirements.

 

Why won't this ever happen? I think you know the answer. It should've already happened, decades ago.

[OSUGT]

 

 

 

Enlighten me, please. Cause I hear this argument often but never have benefited from seeing actual, tangible numbers. I'm not being a dick here, I'm actually curious. Also, we are seeing some headway in the battle for more efficient battery based systems, some of which in the near future, should make todays charge/usage ratios seem mundane.

 

I dont have numbers...its a worry that has not been addressed. Its just like ethanol. You spend more energy producing it than it generates.

 

Let's say we all start driving electric cars tomorrow? (Especially in CA where they already have scheduled rolling brown outs) Where does the extra power come from?

[greg1647545532]

They just patened the technology for kinetic batteries that recharge themselves (or create energy) by simple kinetic motions. Think of the shake-flash-light. You shake it, it generates enough power for itself to run for a few minutes. Essentially you would just need something to get the kinetic motion kick started, and a car could theoretically run forever without any energy requirements.

 

Why won't this ever happen? I think you know the answer.

 

Newton's laws?

[87GT]

I

Let's say we all start driving electric cars tomorrow? (Especially in CA where they already have scheduled rolling brown outs) Where does the extra power come from?

 

See my previous post plus this. Cars can be charged at night when the demand and price is low.

 

http://www.google.org/recharge/

[ericsarge]

Newton's laws?

 

no man. billions and billions lost cuz we no longer depend on gas/oil/ethanol/ etc

[CRed05]

Newton's laws?

 

Yeah, Shake-n-Drive FTL

 

I am a big fan of diesel cars. Lets say a Hybrid holds 15 gallons of gas, and gets 60mpg(prius). Now lets take a diesel car (vw polo), that also holds 15 gallons, but goes 74mpg. (i'm just guessing on the fuel tank size)

 

They both burned the same amount of fossil fuel (diesel probably less because its less refined), but the diesel went further and doesn't require the energy that was used to create the batteries.

 

I hate it when people say "well a hybrid is half electric, so it burns less fuel"

[greg1647545532]

no man. billions and billions lost cuz we no longer depend on gas/oil/ethanol/ etc

 

Well, yeah, I meant that plus, you know, the unbendable rules of physics.

[Berto]

They just patened the technology for kinetic batteries that recharge themselves (or create energy) by simple kinetic motions. Think of the shake-flash-light. You shake it, it generates enough power for itself to run for a few minutes. Essentially you would just need something to get the kinetic motion kick started, and a car could theoretically run forever without any energy requirements.

 

Why won't this ever happen? I think you know the answer. It should've already happened, decades ago.

 

Because every time you convert energy you lose some. If a car ran forever without re-fueling you would have discovered a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible.

 

 

I thought cash for clunkers was more designed to help out the automotive industry with sales, the gas savings were just a side.

[Trouble Maker]

My thing about electric cars is how much more coal will we have to burn to plug them into the power grid?

 

ICE engines as currently applied in automobiles are incredible inefficient overall converting something like 20-25% of the energy that's contained in the fuel into drive energy. That number is MUCH greater with electricity regardless of source because when you scale an engine up it's easier (and more cost effective) to make it more efficient. Making our energy from Coal is another issue altogether.

 

Our energy independence must come two fold. Greatly increasing energy efficiency (this is from source to use) AND using renewable energy sources.

 

To the OP, this was a lot more about jump starting our economy than anything having to do with being green. Argue that point if you are going to argue one.

[Scotty2Hotty]

I will wait for my nuclear powered truck.

[gillbot]

It had nothing to do with gas savings, it was a front to pump money into the failing auto industry without looking like another flat bailout.

 

Also, it was to get people to spend money when they didn't really need to. It got people to get loans when most were cutting back spending and reducing debt.

[Crossle]

How much CO2 was NOT released into the atmosphere because of this? Where is that calculation at?

 

A study shows that people who drive hybrid cars tend to drive more frequently because they are saving money, but what they don't realize is that they are polluting just as much as their old car because they are driving more frequently.

 

I don't know when hybrid car people will realize that they only thing they are saving by driving one is their own money because of the better fuel economy. Until people understand this hybrid cars and the processes it takes to create them will harm the environment far more than a petrol car.

 

Just a bunch of environmentalist wackos, I love how half of the people praising hybrid cars don't even drive one.....

[87GT]

I will wait for my nuclear powered truck.

 

What happens when you get rear ended by a woman talking on a cell phone. Does it go boom real loud like?

[Trouble Maker]

A study shows that people who drive hybrid cars tend to drive more frequently because they are saving money, but what they don't realize is that they are polluting just as much as their old car because they are driving more frequently.

 

Correlation and causation. I'm sure glad you aren't a statistician. It didn't even try to say why that was. Quite possibly people are being economical about the situation and won't buy a hybrid if they only drive a little so those who drive more are the ones who buy hybrids.

[unfunnyryan]

If you want a green car you convert your existing car to run on propane or ethanol. Both are locally sourced fuels as well.

[Crossle]

Quite possibly people are being economical about the situation and won't buy a hybrid if they only drive a little so those who drive more are the ones who buy hybrids.

 

Negatory, both people who drive often and people who drive little have equal incentives to buying the cars which is saving money for themselves. Older people don't have to fill their tanks for months at a time, and everyone else feels like they can take more road trips instead of flying for vacation because it is "cheaper".

[Crossle]

How much CO2 was NOT released into the atmosphere because of this? Where is that calculation at?

 

Oh and secondly on this comment because it is so fucking stupid this was not an effort to prove how much the environment was saved it was an effort using factual numbers to prove how FUCKING STUPID OUR GOVERNMENT IS and HOW MUCH MONEY IT IS WASTING THAT WE DONT HAVE!!!!! HOW FUCKING BLIND CAN YOU PEOPLE BE? WOW....I don't even follow politics that closely and it pisses me off. How is that not our government fucking up? All of you people saying "oh, why do we keep blaming Obama, when he hasn't messed up yet" WHAT THE FUCK IS MESSING UP? Jesus, does he have to drop a nuclear bomb on your house accidentally or what?

 

/rant

flamesuit on, all you obama worshipers are not going to change my opinions nor are you going to twist this view to make it look like obama is God who can do nothing wrong, along with his posse aka the government.

 

Let's be for real the government as it sits can pass anything they want including health care, the only reason health care has not passed is because they are too fucking scared that it will blow up in their face and they will be the only ones blamed. If they are SOOOOO sure it is the end all plan then fucking pass it w/o republican support and take the blame for once! Then they can get back to writing their own personal health care plan that is way better than ours.