Gas Mileage - I Knew We Had The Technology

How does 235 miles per gallon sound? Impossible you say? Think again.

According to Wired.com, VW's new "One Liter" car is bringing new meaning to the term fuel efficiency. The new concept car's body is made entirely of carbon fiber which allows for a total vehicle weight of only 660 pounds.

Originally scheduled to launch in 2012, VW has decided ready the vehicle for market 2 years ahead of schedule. "They'll probably be built in the company's prototype shop, which has the capacity to build as many as 1,000 per year. That's not a lot, but it's enough to help VW get a lot of attention while showing how much light weight and an efficient engine can achieve."

As fuel prices continue to soar this type of vehicle is a welcome addition to the road. The original concept car has a 1 cylinder, 8.5 horsepower engine but VW will probably add another cylinder to the production model which will surely cut fuel economy.





Here's the thing that always annoys me. Fuel economy is going to cost you. The One Liter is going to cost anywhere from $31,750 to $47,622. We need to make fuel efficient vehicles accessible to the masses if we are ever going to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. If only the upper-middle class to upper class can afford the vehicles, that is a small percentage of the cars on the road. But what about the new Smart car you say? Base models start out at about 12 grand. Yeah Ok, I'll give you that. But, you have to wait 9 months to get them. AND they aren't getting that great of gas mileage. 42mpg for the US models? The same cars are getting 70 mpg in Europe.



RJ Adams over at SparrowChat asks, "...why do foreign cars sold in America always produce poorer gas mileage figures than their European or Asian counterparts? The US Smart manages a figure over a third less, from the same 999cc turbo-charged engine?"

Very good question. I did some digging and it's true. Apples to apples Euro cars DO get better mileage. Is this due to the "imperial gallon" or are the cars in the US de-tuned in some way? Is it a conspiracy with the government and big oil? Adams says, "It makes no sense, unless one becomes incredibly cynical and dares to suggest a political element limiting the scope of non-American motor manufacturers?"

What about the EV1 from GM. That was a pretty big controversy. Some even called it a conspiracy. What about the VW 1.8 liter TDI? A car that was getting 50 mpg but they had to take it off the market a year ago to "re-engineer" it to conform to emission standards. No matter how you look at it. We DO have the technology to produce vehicles that get GREAT fuel mileage. Are we choosing NOT to make them? What are your thoughts?

 

Lower Energy Costs

Wow, ask and ye shall receive. It was just yesterday that I asked for guest bloggers. This guest post comes from a reader named Jim Everett. The post is a little more political than I would normally publish but I think the subject is relevant to us all given current gas prices. It is definitely opinionated so I would expect some controversy over this one. At least he didn't bash pizza.

I've intended to write a letter on this subject, that could be forwarded to our representatives in Congress and the Senate, but hadn't gotten it done. Energy prices are hitting everyone's pocketbooks hard on a personal level, and strangling our economy as a whole. It's hard to believe that no action has been taken by our lawmakers. All they have done is drag the oil company executives in to grill them on national TV, about why their companies are making so much money. This deflects the attention away from them(the lawmakers), and their lack of action, by pointing all the blame on the "big, bad, greedy oil companies".

It's true, Exxon does make a lot of money - billions of dollars. But they are also one of the world's largest corporations, with millions of stockholders - including many 401k plans. 1st Quarter 2008 sales were $116.85 billion, with a profit of $10.89 billion. That's a 9.3% profit margin. Microsoft by contrast, had sales in the 1st Quarter of $13.76 billion, with $4.29 billion in profit. That is a 31.2% profit margin!

Why isn't Congress bringing the executives of Microsoft in front of the TV cameras, to chastise them for their "outrageous and unconscionable" profits??? Oil company profit isn't the problem - Congress is!!!

We need both a short term and a long term energy policy. The long term has to pursue alternative energy sources - wind, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. - we can't be dependent on fossil fuels forever. But in the short term, we need relief from the current dilemma we're in. We have many oil fields in this country, and in our coastal waters. The problem is that regulations pushed by extreme environmental groups and enacted by Congress, are severely limiting access to this resource and to the ability of oil companies to be able to build and get permits for new refineries. We're not talking about allowing belching black smokestacks, but a reasonable approach to allow some increased refining capacity.

Pricing is based on supply and demand. If we increase our supply of oil and refined oil products from our own country, pricing will go down. We need to let Congress know that they are the problem, and they need to act NOW!

If you agree, the National Association of Manufacturers has an easy way for you to get on a petition that will be sent to Congress. There are over 300,000 signatures already. Please sign yourself, and pass on to everyone you can. Let's show our lawmakers that we want action!!!

Thanks for your help!

Jim Everett

 

Here's An Opinion Fer Ya.

Someone emailed this link to me. Take a few moments to review this video and let me know what you think about it. It seems that you never see anything that could be considered a strong opinion from anyone in the UK. However this gentleman has something to say.

I wonder how many people in the UK share his opinion but we just never hear about it.

Your thoughts?

 

Berkley Doesn't Like The Marines

After you read this I want to hear from you. I will save MY opinion for the comments section.

Berkeley to Marine Corps: You're Not Welcome
BERKELEY, Calif. Local officials in this liberal city say it's time for the U.S. Marines to move out. The City Council has voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests." The measure passed this week by a vote of 8-1.
Source: Fox News

Here is a letter a businessman (Brian Dennard) wrote to the Mayor of Berkeley.
Dear Mayor Bates,
In that you and your city have chosen to gravely insult the brave men and women, who have indeed bought you that right with their blood, I am informing you that my company will no longer do business with any of our current suppliers located in the Berkeley, California metro area.

In that my company is in international resort real estate development, and do business with and am associated with, developers and investors worldwide, I am informing all of my contacts, associates and patrons that we will no longer do any business of any sort with anyone living in the Berkeley area.

In that we/MDG Resorts are currently building a state of the art mega-yacht marina, all of the suppliers of Marina equipment, all owners of Yachts , all suppliers of Yacht materials & supplies, all yacht brokers and all tangential yacht business purveyors will likewise be informed that we will not do any business whatsoever with anyone from the Berkeley area.

Likewise all suppliers of building materials, both interior and exterior, currently associated with any of our several resort developments (Brisamar 300+ villas and 200+ condos: Porto Hussong, www.portohussong.com 500+ condos, 180 slip mega-yacht marina) both of which I might add have international recognition by virtue of glowing reports in Robb Report, Wall Street Journal, Yacht World, Forbes.

I will likewise inform all of our investors, most of whom are very wealthy yacht owners, casino owners, high net worth international businessmen, of our decision to essentially boycott all products and providers located in, or associated with in any way whatsoever, Berkeley, Ca.

Trust me when I say that having been in the real estate development business for over 35 years, our list of contacts and associates is long and very, very impressive. We, and I personally, are going to recomend that they ALL along with us boycott your city, its purveyors, suppliers, and businesses and CHARITIES of every kind.

You have every right to choose to take the obnoxious anti-military stance you have taken, and as stated, that right was bought for you with the blood of better men than you. I too have every right to do all that I can to insure that your city suffers consequences arising from that obnoxious, sickening stance.

Cordially,
Brian G Dennard
Principal
Director
Meridian Development Group, LLC
www.mdgresorts.com
www.portohussong.com

Here is some additional commentary I found on the subject.

"On Jan 31, 2008 I wrote a letter to the Mayor of Berkeley stating my position regarding his and the City Counsel's position on the USMC recruiting station...

...In my wildest dreams I never envisioned the response I have received. I now spend ALL DAY answering my cell phone acknowledging that yes, I really did write "THE" letter, and receiving personal thank yous from Generals, Majors, Colonels, SGTs, PVTs, CEOs, COOs, talk show hosts, and average everyday American Patriots.

Likewise I spend the balance reading emails from the same sort of people.
I am humbled to a degree that is hard to state clearly. I am emotionally overwhelmed with the positive response to my letter and want to thank everyone who has called me or emailed me to state their support.

My intention was never to shine the spotlight on me, it was to cause, to whatever degree I could, great fiscal discomfort to the city of Berkeley in retaliation to their un-American, cowardly and despicable stance that the US Marines are unwelcome, and uninvited intruders in their city.
If in my small way I helped light a fire that now appears to be blazing across the nation, I am proud of that, but I am more proud of the fact that I could, at a time when our heroes are fighting against those who would destroy us, help focus some attention to the vast debt, and undying respect, that we as a nation owe to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces."

Respectfully,
Brian G Dennard

 

Mike Huckabee Featuring Chuck Norris

Can someone tell me for sure if this ran on air? Seriously, after that, this guy has my vote. This was a refreshing change to all the droning on that typically occurs in political television commercials. This my friends, is great creative. Look at the demographic this is targeting. I am actually going to venture out and say this kind of political advertising is unprecedented. Someone prove me wrong.

Have a great Turkey Day! AND NO, we won't be having Tofurkey at my house.

 

Taxing The Internet?

Expiring in November, the Internet Tax moratorium is receiving a lot of industry attention. "The current Internet tax moratorium is one policy that Congress has enacted to help make the internet a universally accessible, free, and open platform capable of delivering a rich variety of services to consumers." - From Google's Public Policy Blog

Amazon.com, Yahoo, eBay and Google are joining forces with the crew at Don't Tax Our Web
a group that is dedicated to 3 main principles:

"1. Keeping Internet access services free of all federal, state and local transaction taxes;

2. Preventing the imposition of duplicative and discriminatory taxes on e-commerce; and

3. Avoiding the imposition of hidden taxes on consumers of Internet access."

The moratorium currently in place "...prohibits three things: state and local taxation of Internet access, multiple taxes on a single e-commerce transaction, and taxes that discriminate against online transactions."

Google's public policy blog states: "Keeping Internet access tax-free is also another way that government can help further the growth of the web to all corners of the U.S. At a time when American policymakers are working to increase broadband penetration rates and improve the quality of broadband services to consumers, we believe that increasing barriers to access -- whether they are created by the government or by the private sector -- will only frustrate our common goal of greater access to better broadband for all consumers."

OK, here's my 2 cents worth. Google and all the other major players in the Internet game are all for the surface issues that stir up instant emotions with the general public. Buzzwords like an "internet tax" will sure get the natives restless, especially when they are paying $60.00 a month for broadband service from the only provider they have to choose from.

But wait! Isn't the cost of Internet the big issue here. What about the slow broadband speed America has to endure compared to the rest of the world? Aren't we really talking about Net Neutrality. You can't pick and choose what element of Net Neutrality you're willing to participate in. You have to support the entire package or not at all. If you are going to promote the non-taxation of the Internet, then you need to be out there lobbying for the expansion of broadband access to US consumers.

Remember the $200 million dollars in tax breaks the telecom industry received for the purposes of developing the infrastructure in the US? Ohhh yeah, they pocketed that money as profits. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you only have 2 poor choices of Internet access in most locations. This is why your broadband connection only operates at 3.5 down. One could argue, "...that extending the moratorium should come with conditions to motivate investments in technology that will reach more people, including the rural population, with real broadband service.

To Google, AT&T and all the other big players, I say don't cherry pick what you want to support. Be a part of the solution.

What do you think?

 

What Has George W. Bush Done Wrong?

I know this is a bit off topic but I really want to know. Normally I tend to stay pretty neutral on topics like politics and religion but, for me, this has been a burning question for quite some time. Can someone provide me with specific, and documented, examples of what exactly you feel George W. Bush has done wrong during his term as President of these United States.

This is a sincere question. In light of the poor economy that GWB walked into at the beginning of his term and how the economy is now, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to know the details and the reasons that his approval rating is so low. GWB has went from the highest approval rating (90%) of any president, following the 9/11 attacks, to being tied with Jimmy Carter and having one of the lowest in history, at 28%, according MSNBC. The only President to have a lower "end of term" rating was Nixon at a reported 24%.

I realize that there is a growing division between liberals and conservatives and the issues that divide them seem to be based on morality issues. I can say one thing for sure (this may get me in trouble), and no one can argue to the contrary, that over the last 30 years we have seen a sharp decline in societal morality. I do understand the opposing argument; through whose eyes do we measure or gauge morality.

What do you think about GWB as a man vs. your thoughts of him as the President? Who, in your opinion, was the best President?

Again I know this is not a typical post on the Big Bald Blog, and I have probably opened a HUGE can of worms, but I do want to know what YOU think about all this.

Let me know your comments.




Like this post? Don't miss any updates, subscribe to The Big Bald Blog TODAY!