cash for clunkers "not so green"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So what? Calculated on different dates.

One is calculated on available dealer data. The other - no one has any idea how it was calculated.

If both are true for the time, a declining efficiency is another concern. $3B in debt should have a real payoff in oil use.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

So what? Calculated on different dates.

One is calculated on available dealer data. The other - no one has any idea how it was calculated.

.

You don't ACTUALLY KNOW how Edmunds calculated theirs, and if their dataset was complete.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

And now it is Obaming

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

Quote

AP:

NY dealers pull out of clunkers program
Aug 19 02:00 PM US/Eastern
By DAN STRUMPF
AP







Car Dealers Will Get Clunkers Money, Transportation Secretary Says

NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government's Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.
The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They're also worried about getting repaid.


"(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers," said Mark Schienberg, the group's president. "This is a cash-dependent business."

The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Schienberg said the group's dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they've made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won't get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don't have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

"The program is a great program in the sense that it's creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven't seen in a long time," he said.

"But it's in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency," he added. "If they don't get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure."

The program is administered by the Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday that dealers will be repaid for the clunkers deals they have completed.

"I know dealers are frustrated. They're going to get their money," LaHood told reporters. He said the Obama administration would soon announce how much longer the $3 billion car incentive program will last.

Through early Wednesday, auto dealers have made clunkers deals worth $1.81 billion, resulting in 435,102 new car sales, according to the DOT.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

the dealer has to pay the manufacturer for the car when sold, waiting 2-3 months for the money from the government could actually cause a struggling dealer to not be able to pay bills and incure costs from fines and late fees.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is
>not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway.

I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I wrote, but if you want to play dumb, I'll rewrite.

"An improvement of 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway."

4mpg is the MINIMUM that qualifies. Apparently the average is 8.2mpg (according to Edmunds).

And that does not conflict in the slightest with my assertion - 4 is not enough to be PART OF the program. 10 should be the minimum.

Where do you get the "10" from? Some kind of analysis?

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Where do you get the "10" from? Some kind of analysis?

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

The 10 was part of the initial proposal talk, driven hardest by Feinstein.

I reject your choices. The best outcome is when the person trades in that 10mpg clunker for one getting 20mpg. My 4x4 truck was 18. If we collectively are going to subsidize this purchase, the recipient should also contribute to the nation's well being.

Yes, your trucker example saves 286 gallons (1000 to 714), but he's consuming more than four times the 166 of the guy in the Prius. Rewarding him for being slightly less inefficient is bad public policy, much like calling a slower rate of budget growth as actual savings.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

Are you going to factor the cost of disposing of the hybrids battery when they die? Are you going to factor in the higher energy cost to build the hybrid?

Quote

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Geez, Ron, you're resurrecting that industry 'study?'

Hint: check the lifespans used and tell me how realistic either are.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

Are you going to factor the cost of disposing of the hybrids battery when they die? Are you going to factor in the higher energy cost to build the hybrid?

Thank you for supporting my point, Ron. It makes MORE sense to get the 10mpg clunker truck replaced with a new truck even if it only gets 14mpg, than to replace a 35mpg subcompact with a hybrid.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Where do you get the "10" from? Some kind of analysis?

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

I reject your choices. .

Of course you do, since the math shows that you're just blowing hot air for the sake of it. You appear unable to grasp that this is a non-linear problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

?

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Geez, Ron, you're resurrecting that industry 'study?'

Hint: check the lifespans used and tell me how realistic either are.

Check to pollution to build them... Do you dispute that?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Thank you for supporting my point, Ron. It makes MORE sense to get the 10mpg clunker truck replaced with a new truck even if it only gets 14mpg, than to replace a 35mpg subcompact with a hybrid.

That has never been your point.... If it was, you communicated it very poorly.

You wrote:

Quote

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

I showed that the Hybrid ADDS more pollution in production than a Hummer.

You have defended this program without data, you have defended this program even when it was clear the data that the Govt DID present was incomplete, you defended this program even when you knew that the method used was not accurate.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[marks2065 0]

That seems to be the problem with the left. the data they use seems to be 1 dementional. when you look at the data from the viewpoint from conception to end of life their numbers usualy don't add up

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Thank you for supporting my point, Ron. It makes MORE sense to get the 10mpg clunker truck replaced with a new truck even if it only gets 14mpg, than to replace a 35mpg subcompact with a hybrid.

That has never been your point.... If it was, you communicated it very poorly.

You wrote:

Quote

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

I showed that the Hybrid ADDS more pollution in production than a Hummer.

Correct, even BEFORE considering the production costs (clearly you didn't do the calculation). That WAS my point.

Quote

You have defended this program without data,

I have more data in support of my position than you have in support of yours that it victimizes "the poor" (since you have no data at all in support of that position).

Quote

you have defended this program even when it was clear the data that the Govt DID present was incomplete, you defended this program even when you knew that the method used was not accurate.

Neither you nor I (nor kelpdiver) know anything of the sort. The same data appear to be presented in different ways, with the govt. providing more detail. That is NOT the same as inaccurate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

?

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

Quote

Niether until the carbon / energy footprint of production of the vehicle is erased by driving enough miles to offset the production emissions. Although the 25 mpg increase purchase will get there sooner if driving miles are the same as the 4 mpg vehicle. If the the 25 mpg vehicle only gets drivin a couple thousand miles per year it may never save enough to make the purchase an enviromentally friendly one.

Do the calculation Mark. The greatest benefit comes from getting grossly inefficient vehicles off the road even if only a 4mpg increase is involved. Substituting a Prius for an old Civic does not give the same benefit as substituting a new F150 for an old GMC beater truck.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

The point being lost in this type debate is the fact that a governement is trying to dictate what we drive with these kinds of programs.

Another loss of freedom under the guise of what is best for the collective.

Socialism . No different for the health care debated. And both sides support both programs along with the tail wagging left voters

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

The point being lost in this type debate is the fact that a governement is trying to dictate what we drive with these kinds of programs.

Did a G-man with a gun force you to buy a new car under this program, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The point being lost in this type debate is the fact that a governement is trying to dictate what we drive with these kinds of programs.

Did a G-man with a gun force you to buy a new car under this program, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?

I dont worry about your tail.

It was cropped when you got fixed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

?

Consider two drivers who each drive 10,000 miles/year. One trades in a 10mpg clunker truck for a new 14mpg truck, a 4mpg increase. The other trades in a 35mpg clunker subcompact for a new 60mpg hybrid, a 25mpg increase. Which one saves the most oil and pollution?

Quote

Niether until the carbon / energy footprint of production of the vehicle is erased by driving enough miles to offset the production emissions. Although the 25 mpg increase purchase will get there sooner if driving miles are the same as the 4 mpg vehicle. If the the 25 mpg vehicle only gets drivin a couple thousand miles per year it may never save enough to make the purchase an enviromentally friendly one.

Do the calculation Mark. The greatest benefit comes from getting grossly inefficient vehicles off the road even if only a 4mpg increase is involved. Substituting a Prius for an old Civic does not give the same benefit as substituting a new F150 for an old GMC beater truck.

Quote

you would be correct if you don't add in emissions from making the parts for the car, assembly, and fuel and emissions used to ship the parts and vehicle. you also have to add in how the vehicle is used how many miles drivin and how well the car is maintaned. After adding in all those factors alot of these deals are negative on emission and fuel consumption for years and 100,000 plus miles and some will never show positive on those numbers. Also if they really wanted to be green they would have let some of the better traded in cars be used for upgrading the people that are driving the really bad vehicles that could not afford a buying a new car that are the largest poluters and most inefficient. this program is all smoke and mirrors to buy votes for Obama.


edited for spelling and to add, the most ineficient cars are being drivin by those that have the lowest income and worst credit and those people did not buy new cars under this program

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Prius vs Hummer: '...Through a study by CNW Marketing...'

The piece you cut and pasted is a piece of marketing propaganda (note the source) that has been completely discredited, to the point where the conclusions are completely reversed, by more objective analysis such as: http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf. Here's the abstract of that analysis:

"The CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles
From Concept to Disposal” caught the interest of the media and the public with its claim that a
Hummer H3 SUV has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius hybrid. Closer
inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable
assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review. Even the
most cursory look reveals serious biases and flaws: the average Hummer H1 is assumed to travel
379,000 miles and last for 35 years, while the average Prius is assumed to last only 109,000
miles over less than 12 years. These selective and unsupported assumptions distort the final
results. A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions:
the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and
other large SUVs. CNW should either release its full report, including methods, assumptions,
and data, or the public should ignore its conclusions. Unfortunately, “Dust to Dust” has already
distorted the public debate."

Also, although it's true that Sudbury suffered from serious environmental damage 40 years ago, smokestack scrubbers and other environmental controls have almost completely reversed this situation. It's also disingenuous to use outdated information as an attack on nickel production while failing to acknowledge that Detroit to this day remains a significant environmental blight as a result of all the heavy industry, primarily related to auto manufacturing (including Hummers).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

the most ineficient cars are being drivin by those that have the lowest income and worst credit and those people did not buy new cars under this program

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The point being lost in this type debate is the fact that a governement is trying to dictate what we drive with these kinds of programs.

Did a G-man with a gun force you to buy a new car under this program, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?

indeed, both of you seem off the boat on this.

IMO, if the government (read, taxpayers) are going to give you $4500, we can dictate what car you drive, and it should be better than 14mpg. If you don't like it, buy the car yourself.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point being lost in this type debate is the fact that a governement is trying to dictate what we drive with these kinds of programs.

Did a G-man with a gun force you to buy a new car under this program, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?

indeed, both of you seem off the boat on this.

IMO, if the government (read, taxpayers) are going to give you $4500, we can dictate what car you drive, and it should be better than 14mpg. If you don't like it, buy the car yourself.

IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That seems to be the problem with the left. the data they use seems to be 1 dementional

was that spelling intentional? If so, very clever. If not, .....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants