Government Programs

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Cash for Clunkers
On average, cars are driven 12,000 miles per year, according to government statistics. Considering that the traded-in clunkers had an average fuel economy of 15.8 m.p.g. while the new ones deliver 24.9 m.p.g., a swap saved some 278 gallons of gas per year — which would have released almost 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide when burned.

Assuming the clunkers would have been driven four more years, the $4,200 average rebate removed 11.2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere, at a cost of some $375 per ton. If they would have been driven five years, the carbon savings cost $300 per ton. And if drivers drive their sleek new wheels more than they drove their old clunkers, the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere will be even higher.

To put this in perspective, an allowance to emit a ton of CO2 costs about $20 on the European Climate Exchange. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a ton of carbon would be valued at $28 under the cap-and-trade program in the clean energy bill passed by the House in June.

The program might have been more efficient with modifications, like a smaller rebate. But even if the new cars bought under the program had zero emissions, the price of removing the clunkers’ carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would have been nearly $140 per ton.
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

NYTimes
 
It means that someone is only looking at part of the equation. Cash for clunkers is only partially about 'greening up the streets'. It's also about importing less oil, bolstering the American car market and the related markets (parts, repairs and raw materials) as well as increasing the safety on the roads.

Now if someone could do the math for that, perhaps the cash for clunkers would have more appeal.
 
Personally, I'd rather see incentives to upgrade existing cars to newer tech. If I can drop a brand new small block chevy onto the motor mounts of a 30 year old car, why can't i shoehorn a brand new engine into this '93 caravan? All the new economy, clean running and reliability, and half the waste heading for the crusher. Drop a $4500 incentive on that and stand back, coz here comes the stampede.

Wanna know why that doesn't happen? Because the UAW doesn't get to pocket the profits then.
 
taking bishop's point a bit further, we would have to figure in all the costs associated with the decades we've been inserting ourselves into affairs in the middle east as well. i guess that would include clean-up costs from 9/11 too eh?
 
If you're going to drop a new engine into a old car/van..your vehicle has to be in decent condition in order to make the replacement worthwhile. Besides...who do you think will give you that much money for a new engine...get a remanufactured one instead.
mop-201lb.jpg
 
MrBishop said:
If you're going to drop a new engine into a old car/van..your vehicle has to be in decent condition in order to make the replacement worthwhile. Besides...who do you think will give you that much money for a new engine...get a remanufactured one instead.
mop-201lb.jpg
Click to expand...

Way to miss the point. The best reman would still be a 15 year old engine technology. A new engine would be as efficient in my chassis as it would be if I spent the $30k to buy it surrounded with new metal. Get it yet? That brand fucking new motor in a crate would cost the about what the gov't is giving away ... $4500. And all that would have to go to the scrap yard would be the old inefficient motor.

Of course, if 'getting green' was their real goal, this would be obvious. It never was. Attempting to prime the market to sell new cars for their 2 newly acquired auto plants and their new best buddies, the UAW was the real goal.
 
If you want to go green you will get yourself a bio-diesel, or convert to propane, methanol, or electric. That seems to be the best knowledge going, so far as I know....
 
I myself am quite skeptical about electric. What does disposal of all those batteries do every couple of years? If they completely recycle great, but I have no idea....
 
RJ, I'll let you know. We're in contact right now with a guy (salesman for a battery tester for our laptops) who's supposed to try and set us up with a company that recycles li-ion batteries (Trans-canada batteries).
 
Professur said:
Of course, if 'getting green' was their real goal, this would be obvious. It never was. Attempting to prime the market to sell new cars for their 2 newly acquired auto plants and their new best buddies, the UAW was the real goal.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said, eh

Green is the excuse..economy is the primary reason. Use tax money to help support a set of companies that was bought by the GVT with ... tax money.

At the same time, you reduce oil imports and increase the worth of your raw product mines.
 
I'm not sure those last two are supportable. In fact, I'm not accepting that 'green' was even the slightest a consideration in the matter, beyond the marketing phase.
 
randomJACKASS said:
I myself am quite skeptical about electric. What does disposal of all those batteries do every couple of years? If they completely recycle great, but I have no idea....
Click to expand...

Plus, the amount of electricity it takes to charge them. Coal powered energy plants, from horizon to horizon, so we the sheeple can feel less dirty about our energy consumption.

What we need is NEW motive power.
 
Well ethanol is renewable, burns clean and if an engine is designed for it, it works more efficiently than gasoline. Bio-diesel is clean burning and renewable, and interchangeable with standard diesel, in cars designed to handle both. The only difference is that the fry oil has to be heated a bit before it is injected. Why is everyone so hell bent on electric with thes other options?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top