| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Independent_Voter" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2005 05:58:14 PM |
| Object: |
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries
Oct 07 11:10 AM US/Eastern
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
A new Republican-crafted energy bill, prompted by the hurricane devastation
and high fuel prices, came under sharp attack Friday from Democrats who
called it a sop to rich oil companies that would do little to curb gasoline
or natural gas costs, while hurting the environment.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to spur construction of new
refineries. The House was expected to vote on it later in the day.
In an attempt to ease approval of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas,
removed a particularly contentious provision Friday that would have
implemented clean air regulation changes long sought by the Bush
administration. It would have allowed not only refineries, but also
coal-burning power plants and other industries to expand and make changes
without adding pollution controls even if emissions increase.
Still, Democrats and a few Republicans lambasted the legislation as debate
opened on the House floor.
It does nothing to curb oil use by requiring more fuel efficient cars or
promoting alternative energy sources, said Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass. He
called it "a leave-no-oilman-behind bill."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy
and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP
leaders who strictly limited the ability by lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep. John
Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from
offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources to
drilling.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down more than a dozen refineries and
disrupted natural gas supplies. Gasoline prices soared and huge increases in
heating bills are expected this winter for users of both gas and fuel oil.
Barton says vulnerabilities in the fuel supply system exposed by the
hurricanes show that the country needs to build more refineries, especially
away from the Gulf Coast region. No refineries have been built in the United
States since 1976 as the industry has consolidated to fewer, but larger
facilities.
The GOP legislation also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline
and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a
trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. And
it would give the federal government greater say in siting a refinery and
pipeline. It also calls on the president to designate military bases or
other federal property where a refinery might be built.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a
break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil
prices," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in a letter Thursday to
colleagues.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives
they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.
Barton countered that it will give industry more "certainty" that a refinery
project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on
the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas
prices for Americans."
Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of Cities,
nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups
representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air
requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean
and healthy air.
Environmentalists also have argued that the limit to six gasoline types
could jeopardize the requirement for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The
low-sulfur diesel regulations have been touted by the Bush administration as
one of the Environmental Protection Agency's most significant
accomplishments.
In 1981, the United States had 325 refineries capable of producing 18.6
million barrels a day. Today there are fewer than half that number,
producing 16.9 million barrels daily. Still, refining capacity has been
increasing, though not dramatically, for the last decade. Imports have made
up the difference as demand has continued to increase.
The bill number is H.R. 3893. Additional information can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov
.
|
|
| User: "ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
07 Oct 2005 07:30:57 PM |
|
|
In article <a4D1f.636$RG1.417@trndny08>,
"Independent_Voter" <jdptro@yahoo.com> wrote:
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries
Oct 07 11:10 AM US/Eastern
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
A new Republican-crafted energy bill, prompted by the hurricane devastation
and high fuel prices, came under sharp attack Friday from Democrats who
called it a sop to rich oil companies that would do little to curb gasoline
or natural gas costs, while hurting the environment.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to spur construction of new
refineries. The House was expected to vote on it later in the day.
In an attempt to ease approval of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas,
removed a particularly contentious provision Friday that would have
implemented clean air regulation changes long sought by the Bush
administration. It would have allowed not only refineries, but also
coal-burning power plants and other industries to expand and make changes
without adding pollution controls even if emissions increase.
Still, Democrats and a few Republicans lambasted the legislation as debate
opened on the House floor.
It does nothing to curb oil use by requiring more fuel efficient cars or
promoting alternative energy sources, said Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass. He
called it "a leave-no-oilman-behind bill."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy
and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP
leaders who strictly limited the ability by lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep. John
Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from
offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources to
drilling.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down more than a dozen refineries and
disrupted natural gas supplies. Gasoline prices soared and huge increases in
heating bills are expected this winter for users of both gas and fuel oil.
Barton says vulnerabilities in the fuel supply system exposed by the
hurricanes show that the country needs to build more refineries, especially
away from the Gulf Coast region. No refineries have been built in the United
States since 1976 as the industry has consolidated to fewer, but larger
facilities.
The GOP legislation also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline
and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a
trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. And
it would give the federal government greater say in siting a refinery and
pipeline. It also calls on the president to designate military bases or
other federal property where a refinery might be built.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a
break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil
prices," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in a letter Thursday to
colleagues.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives
they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.
Barton countered that it will give industry more "certainty" that a refinery
project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on
the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas
prices for Americans."
Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of Cities,
nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups
representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air
requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean
and healthy air.
Environmentalists also have argued that the limit to six gasoline types
could jeopardize the requirement for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The
low-sulfur diesel regulations have been touted by the Bush administration as
one of the Environmental Protection Agency's most significant
accomplishments.
In 1981, the United States had 325 refineries capable of producing 18.6
million barrels a day. Today there are fewer than half that number,
producing 16.9 million barrels daily. Still, refining capacity has been
increasing, though not dramatically, for the last decade. Imports have made
up the difference as demand has continued to increase.
The bill number is H.R. 3893. Additional information can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov
The funny thing about this is that the argument of Natural Gas was a
topic used by the left not too many years ago. They stressed how
plentiful it was in this country and how clean it burns. Now they
complain about digging up the earth for more. Too is the fact that
Natural Gas (at least up North here) has been skyrocketing for the last
couple years long before the Hurricanes.
It was also an argument by the left decades ago that in making cars with
higher MPG, it would eliminate the need for more fuel in the future.
Well, as we see, it didn't work; it helped, but didn't solve the
problem.
It seems that the arguments made here by the Democrats are the very same
they made many years ago when addressing energy and pollution problems
then. Today, we are low on fuel supply, the pollution is still
unsatisfactory and cars still aren't getting enough MPG. The
Republicans are coming out with different solutions not tried before,
but the liberals reject these new solutions and want to recycle their
own solutions which didn't work in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack A. Lopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
08 Oct 2005 01:05:30 PM |
|
|
In article <xxxrayted-84B511.20305707102005@news.newsguy.com>, ray
<xxxrayted@aol.com> wrote:
In article <a4D1f.636$RG1.417@trndny08>,
"Independent_Voter" <jdptro@yahoo.com> wrote:
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries
Oct 07 11:10 AM US/Eastern
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
A new Republican-crafted energy bill, prompted by the hurricane devastation
and high fuel prices, came under sharp attack Friday from Democrats who
called it a sop to rich oil companies that would do little to curb gasoline
or natural gas costs, while hurting the environment.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to spur construction of new
refineries. The House was expected to vote on it later in the day.
In an attempt to ease approval of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas,
removed a particularly contentious provision Friday that would have
implemented clean air regulation changes long sought by the Bush
administration. It would have allowed not only refineries, but also
coal-burning power plants and other industries to expand and make changes
without adding pollution controls even if emissions increase.
Still, Democrats and a few Republicans lambasted the legislation as debate
opened on the House floor.
It does nothing to curb oil use by requiring more fuel efficient cars or
promoting alternative energy sources, said Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass. He
called it "a leave-no-oilman-behind bill."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy
and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP
leaders who strictly limited the ability by lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep.
John
Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from
offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources
to
drilling.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down more than a dozen refineries and
disrupted natural gas supplies. Gasoline prices soared and huge increases
in
heating bills are expected this winter for users of both gas and fuel oil.
Barton says vulnerabilities in the fuel supply system exposed by the
hurricanes show that the country needs to build more refineries, especially
away from the Gulf Coast region. No refineries have been built in the
United
States since 1976 as the industry has consolidated to fewer, but larger
facilities.
The GOP legislation also would limit to six the different blends of
gasoline
and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a
trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. And
it would give the federal government greater say in siting a refinery and
pipeline. It also calls on the president to designate military bases or
other federal property where a refinery might be built.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a
break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil
prices," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in a letter Thursday to
colleagues.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives
they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.
Barton countered that it will give industry more "certainty" that a
refinery
project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on
the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas
prices for Americans."
Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of
Cities,
nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups
representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air
requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean
and healthy air.
Environmentalists also have argued that the limit to six gasoline types
could jeopardize the requirement for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The
low-sulfur diesel regulations have been touted by the Bush administration
as
one of the Environmental Protection Agency's most significant
accomplishments.
In 1981, the United States had 325 refineries capable of producing 18.6
million barrels a day. Today there are fewer than half that number,
producing 16.9 million barrels daily. Still, refining capacity has been
increasing, though not dramatically, for the last decade. Imports have made
up the difference as demand has continued to increase.
The bill number is H.R. 3893. Additional information can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov
The funny thing about this is that the argument of Natural Gas was a
topic used by the left not too many years ago. They stressed how
plentiful it was in this country and how clean it burns. Now they
complain about digging up the earth for more. Too is the fact that
Natural Gas (at least up North here) has been skyrocketing for the last
couple years long before the Hurricanes.
It was also an argument by the left decades ago that in making cars with
higher MPG, it would eliminate the need for more fuel in the future.
Well, as we see, it didn't work; it helped, but didn't solve the
problem.
Um, no. We didn't make more efficient vehicles. Well, we did for a
couple years, but average MPG now is actually worse than it was in the
80s. By now it is probably too late for vehicle efficiency to matter
much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
08 Oct 2005 02:52:12 PM |
|
|
In article <081020051405302108%hunk@burninglove.com>,
"Jack A. Lopes" <hunk@burninglove.com> wrote:
In article <xxxrayted-84B511.20305707102005@news.newsguy.com>, ray
<xxxrayted@aol.com> wrote:
In article <a4D1f.636$RG1.417@trndny08>,
"Independent_Voter" <jdptro@yahoo.com> wrote:
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries
Oct 07 11:10 AM US/Eastern
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
A new Republican-crafted energy bill, prompted by the hurricane
devastation
and high fuel prices, came under sharp attack Friday from Democrats who
called it a sop to rich oil companies that would do little to curb
gasoline
or natural gas costs, while hurting the environment.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to spur construction of new
refineries. The House was expected to vote on it later in the day.
In an attempt to ease approval of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas,
removed a particularly contentious provision Friday that would have
implemented clean air regulation changes long sought by the Bush
administration. It would have allowed not only refineries, but also
coal-burning power plants and other industries to expand and make changes
without adding pollution controls even if emissions increase.
Still, Democrats and a few Republicans lambasted the legislation as
debate
opened on the House floor.
It does nothing to curb oil use by requiring more fuel efficient cars or
promoting alternative energy sources, said Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass.
He
called it "a leave-no-oilman-behind bill."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel
economy
and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP
leaders who strictly limited the ability by lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep.
John
Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from
offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources
to
drilling.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down more than a dozen refineries and
disrupted natural gas supplies. Gasoline prices soared and huge increases
in
heating bills are expected this winter for users of both gas and fuel
oil.
Barton says vulnerabilities in the fuel supply system exposed by the
hurricanes show that the country needs to build more refineries,
especially
away from the Gulf Coast region. No refineries have been built in the
United
States since 1976 as the industry has consolidated to fewer, but larger
facilities.
The GOP legislation also would limit to six the different blends of
gasoline
and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a
trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands.
And
it would give the federal government greater say in siting a refinery and
pipeline. It also calls on the president to designate military bases or
other federal property where a refinery might be built.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives
a
break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect
oil
prices," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in a letter Thursday to
colleagues.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and
incentives
they need to build new refineries" without government help, he
maintained.
Barton countered that it will give industry more "certainty" that a
refinery
project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now
on
the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas
prices for Americans."
Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of
Cities,
nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups
representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air
requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure
clean
and healthy air.
Environmentalists also have argued that the limit to six gasoline types
could jeopardize the requirement for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The
low-sulfur diesel regulations have been touted by the Bush administration
as
one of the Environmental Protection Agency's most significant
accomplishments.
In 1981, the United States had 325 refineries capable of producing 18.6
million barrels a day. Today there are fewer than half that number,
producing 16.9 million barrels daily. Still, refining capacity has been
increasing, though not dramatically, for the last decade. Imports have
made
up the difference as demand has continued to increase.
The bill number is H.R. 3893. Additional information can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov
The funny thing about this is that the argument of Natural Gas was a
topic used by the left not too many years ago. They stressed how
plentiful it was in this country and how clean it burns. Now they
complain about digging up the earth for more. Too is the fact that
Natural Gas (at least up North here) has been skyrocketing for the last
couple years long before the Hurricanes.
It was also an argument by the left decades ago that in making cars with
higher MPG, it would eliminate the need for more fuel in the future.
Well, as we see, it didn't work; it helped, but didn't solve the
problem.
Um, no. We didn't make more efficient vehicles. Well, we did for a
couple years, but average MPG now is actually worse than it was in the
80s. By now it is probably too late for vehicle efficiency to matter
much.
In 1978 I owned a 1969 Malibu that got 12 MPG. Today I have a 99 Malibu
that gets 28 MPG. With the advancement of fuel injection engines came
better milage. I remember back in 1983 when a coworker purchased a new
mini van. I hated it. The entire dashboard was plastic and I thought
it looked like hell. The plastic was part of the design to make more
fuel efficient vehicles. And since then, you could never find a new
vehicle with a padded dashboard and real wood finish.
But back in the 70's you could tell cars apart unlike today. I don't
know how many times I went to another persons car and tried to get in
because I thought it was mine. They are all aerodynamic with fuel
injection and fiberglass or ultra thin metal. All this in effort to get
higher MPG.
The truth is, you can't have a growing population and not have a growing
fuel supply. It just won't work. The people today who complain about
Bush and the Iraq war are the very same who complain when we want to
build refineries or drill for oil in this country. You can't stay out
of the middle east and not have fuel resources in this country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack A. Lopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
10 Oct 2005 03:16:13 PM |
|
|
In article <xxxrayted-7C23FE.15521208102005@news.newsguy.com>, ray
<xxxrayted@aol.com> wrote:
In article <081020051405302108%hunk@burninglove.com>,
"Jack A. Lopes" <hunk@burninglove.com> wrote:
In article <xxxrayted-84B511.20305707102005@news.newsguy.com>, ray
<xxxrayted@aol.com> wrote:
In article <a4D1f.636$RG1.417@trndny08>,
"Independent_Voter" <jdptro@yahoo.com> wrote:
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries
Oct 07 11:10 AM US/Eastern
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
A new Republican-crafted energy bill, prompted by the hurricane
devastation
and high fuel prices, came under sharp attack Friday from Democrats who
called it a sop to rich oil companies that would do little to curb
gasoline
or natural gas costs, while hurting the environment.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to spur construction of new
refineries. The House was expected to vote on it later in the day.
In an attempt to ease approval of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas,
removed a particularly contentious provision Friday that would have
implemented clean air regulation changes long sought by the Bush
administration. It would have allowed not only refineries, but also
coal-burning power plants and other industries to expand and make
changes
without adding pollution controls even if emissions increase.
Still, Democrats and a few Republicans lambasted the legislation as
debate
opened on the House floor.
It does nothing to curb oil use by requiring more fuel efficient cars
or
promoting alternative energy sources, said Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass.
He
called it "a leave-no-oilman-behind bill."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel
economy
and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP
leaders who strictly limited the ability by lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep.
John
Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from
offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas
resources
to
drilling.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down more than a dozen refineries and
disrupted natural gas supplies. Gasoline prices soared and huge
increases
in
heating bills are expected this winter for users of both gas and fuel
oil.
Barton says vulnerabilities in the fuel supply system exposed by the
hurricanes show that the country needs to build more refineries,
especially
away from the Gulf Coast region. No refineries have been built in the
United
States since 1976 as the industry has consolidated to fewer, but larger
facilities.
The GOP legislation also would limit to six the different blends of
gasoline
and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a
trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands.
And
it would give the federal government greater say in siting a refinery
and
pipeline. It also calls on the president to designate military bases or
other federal property where a refinery might be built.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and
gives
a
break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect
oil
prices," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in a letter Thursday to
colleagues.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and
incentives
they need to build new refineries" without government help, he
maintained.
Barton countered that it will give industry more "certainty" that a
refinery
project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law
now
on
the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering
gas
prices for Americans."
Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of
Cities,
nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and
groups
representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean
air
requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure
clean
and healthy air.
Environmentalists also have argued that the limit to six gasoline types
could jeopardize the requirement for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The
low-sulfur diesel regulations have been touted by the Bush
administration
as
one of the Environmental Protection Agency's most significant
accomplishments.
In 1981, the United States had 325 refineries capable of producing 18.6
million barrels a day. Today there are fewer than half that number,
producing 16.9 million barrels daily. Still, refining capacity has been
increasing, though not dramatically, for the last decade. Imports have
made
up the difference as demand has continued to increase.
The bill number is H.R. 3893. Additional information can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov
The funny thing about this is that the argument of Natural Gas was a
topic used by the left not too many years ago. They stressed how
plentiful it was in this country and how clean it burns. Now they
complain about digging up the earth for more. Too is the fact that
Natural Gas (at least up North here) has been skyrocketing for the last
couple years long before the Hurricanes.
It was also an argument by the left decades ago that in making cars with
higher MPG, it would eliminate the need for more fuel in the future.
Well, as we see, it didn't work; it helped, but didn't solve the
problem.
Um, no. We didn't make more efficient vehicles. Well, we did for a
couple years, but average MPG now is actually worse than it was in the
80s. By now it is probably too late for vehicle efficiency to matter
much.
In 1978 I owned a 1969 Malibu that got 12 MPG. Today I have a 99 Malibu
that gets 28 MPG. With the advancement of fuel injection engines came
better milage. I remember back in 1983 when a coworker purchased a new
mini van. I hated it. The entire dashboard was plastic and I thought
it looked like hell. The plastic was part of the design to make more
fuel efficient vehicles. And since then, you could never find a new
vehicle with a padded dashboard and real wood finish.
But back in the 70's you could tell cars apart unlike today. I don't
know how many times I went to another persons car and tried to get in
because I thought it was mine. They are all aerodynamic with fuel
injection and fiberglass or ultra thin metal. All this in effort to get
higher MPG.
I think the look has been as much of a marketing thing as an attempt at
better fuel efficency. You would think with all that plastic and aero
shaping, the overall everage MPG would not have been moving downward in
over the last 20 years.
Note the graph here:
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/transportation.h
tm
You would think with all the technological advances we could have
something like a 68 Road Runner getting about 30 mpg by now. Instead,
we have econoboxes that are no really no better than an 83 Chevette,
and an increase in the popularity of larger less efficient vehicles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
10 Oct 2005 05:35:25 PM |
|
|
In article <101020051616137055%hunk@burninlove.com>,
"Jack A. Lopes" <hunk@burninlove.com> wrote:
Um, no. We didn't make more efficient vehicles. Well, we did for a
couple years, but average MPG now is actually worse than it was in the
80s. By now it is probably too late for vehicle efficiency to matter
much.
In 1978 I owned a 1969 Malibu that got 12 MPG. Today I have a 99 Malibu
that gets 28 MPG. With the advancement of fuel injection engines came
better milage. I remember back in 1983 when a coworker purchased a new
mini van. I hated it. The entire dashboard was plastic and I thought
it looked like hell. The plastic was part of the design to make more
fuel efficient vehicles. And since then, you could never find a new
vehicle with a padded dashboard and real wood finish.
But back in the 70's you could tell cars apart unlike today. I don't
know how many times I went to another persons car and tried to get in
because I thought it was mine. They are all aerodynamic with fuel
injection and fiberglass or ultra thin metal. All this in effort to get
higher MPG.
I think the look has been as much of a marketing thing as an attempt at
better fuel efficency. You would think with all that plastic and aero
shaping, the overall everage MPG would not have been moving downward in
over the last 20 years.
Note the graph here:
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/transportation.h
tm
You would think with all the technological advances we could have
something like a 68 Road Runner getting about 30 mpg by now. Instead,
we have econoboxes that are no really no better than an 83 Chevette,
and an increase in the popularity of larger less efficient vehicles.
Well people are (were) choosing SUV's more than they were years ago, but
the econo cars get 30 MPG. And with the introduction and popularity of
the Hybird type vehicles, the average milage will increase. BTW, that
site you posted was "Not Found."
But I disagree with the body styles. They do make them for better
milage. With the exception of something like the PT Cruiser, they all
pretty much look alike. The days of great looking cars are gone
forever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack A. Lopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
11 Oct 2005 08:34:57 AM |
|
|
In article <xxxrayted-10E302.18352410102005@news.newsguy.com>, ray
<xxxrayted@aol.com> wrote:
In article <101020051616137055%hunk@burninlove.com>,
"Jack A. Lopes" <hunk@burninlove.com> wrote:
Um, no. We didn't make more efficient vehicles. Well, we did for a
couple years, but average MPG now is actually worse than it was in the
80s. By now it is probably too late for vehicle efficiency to matter
much.
In 1978 I owned a 1969 Malibu that got 12 MPG. Today I have a 99 Malibu
that gets 28 MPG. With the advancement of fuel injection engines came
better milage. I remember back in 1983 when a coworker purchased a new
mini van. I hated it. The entire dashboard was plastic and I thought
it looked like hell. The plastic was part of the design to make more
fuel efficient vehicles. And since then, you could never find a new
vehicle with a padded dashboard and real wood finish.
But back in the 70's you could tell cars apart unlike today. I don't
know how many times I went to another persons car and tried to get in
because I thought it was mine. They are all aerodynamic with fuel
injection and fiberglass or ultra thin metal. All this in effort to get
higher MPG.
I think the look has been as much of a marketing thing as an attempt at
better fuel efficency. You would think with all that plastic and aero
shaping, the overall everage MPG would not have been moving downward in
over the last 20 years.
Note the graph here:
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/transportation.h
tm
You would think with all the technological advances we could have
something like a 68 Road Runner getting about 30 mpg by now. Instead,
we have econoboxes that are no really no better than an 83 Chevette,
and an increase in the popularity of larger less efficient vehicles.
Well people are (were) choosing SUV's more than they were years ago, but
the econo cars get 30 MPG. And with the introduction and popularity of
the Hybird type vehicles, the average milage will increase. BTW, that
site you posted was "Not Found."
OK for the cut and paste challenged:
http://tinyurl.com/d42du
Even the economy cars (not counting hybrids) are not working
significantly better than 20 years ago. As I said, it is a little late
now, but more efficient vehicles could have been made. They were not.
But I disagree with the body styles. They do make them for better
milage.
Then they are failing miserably, or else the aerodynamic efficiency is
being offset by less efficient engines.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries |
09 Oct 2005 12:57:42 PM |
|
|
WHICH political party is keeping America from drilling for more
American Oil??
WHICH political party is keeping America from building more
Refineries??
WHICH political party is keeping America from developing more of our
OWN Oil, thereby making America DEPENDENT on Foreign Oil??
Now, WHICH political party is responsible for Higher Gas Prices??
It's pretty simple, Kids
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
