Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Report: Third-generation Toyota Prius to sport solar panels

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

July 7, 2008, 4:03 PM

When Toyota's popular hybrid gets a makeover in 2010, the car will now harness the power of the sun to operate its own air conditioning.

The first Priuses shipped in 1997 in Japan, and worldwide in 2000. Toyota last redesigned the car in 2003 to make it quicker and more efficient, and automotive analysts have widely expected another revision to come soon with additional enhancements.

Reports from Reuters and Japanese business news service Nikkei indicate that one of these new features would be solar panels from Kyocera. As solar panels small enough to fit on a car's roof cannot produce a great deal of energy, only the air conditioning would be partially powered by the technology.

Toyota is not commenting on these reports, although a company source told the Associated Press that details of the third-generation Prius would be revealed next May.

Solar panels would appear on higher-end models. If true, the Prius would be the first vehicle to include the technology commercially. While scientists have been building solar cars for awhile, the designs are nowhere near practical or fast enough to operate on highways.

Powering the air conditioning with solar energy does have an environmental benefit. No doubt you've already noticed, whenever you run your AC in your vehicle, there's a significant drop in fuel efficiency. In this day of $4-per gallon-gas in the US, any way to save fuel can be seen as a good thing.

Those same gas prices are also contributing to a surge in hybrid sales. Toyota expects to sell a million hybrids per year by 2010, and have a hybrid version of every model in its lineup by 2020. Other companies such as Nissan, Honda, and Ford are also all working towards expanding their hybrid lines.

Toyota is not the first to experiment with solar powering a Prius: Solar technology entrepreneur Greg Johanson is already offering an upgrade to model years from 2004 to 2006 that is said to increase fuel efficiency by up to 29%.

Add a Comment (67 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jpg366

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 8:57 PM

Great idea. Should be a boon for car-washes too.

Score: 0

By mynamehere

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 5:24 PM

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together...SOOO why aren't we focused on that instead of one of the least? Scientific studies are constantly showing that global warming is a farce, based on less the 100 years of data, Google "global warming scam" or "global warming hoax" & you'll find that many scientists conclude that it's just another money making scheme. Ok, if we're just warming up, then why are we sometimes meeting on barely edging out record temps? Wouldn't that seem to say that at some point in time it was just as warm as it is now, bearing out that the earth warms & cools in cycles? Here are a couple interesting articles, http://www.whatreallyhap....com/globalwarming.html and http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/02/ ,but there are many others to be found.

CO2 is a miniscule problem that man has a miniscule contibution to, and as you'll read, there are many more realistic reasons for "global warming". I'm not saying not to do anything, but also, don't be blind sheeple in the Church of Global Warming of Modern Day Idiots who's High Priest is Al Gore.

There's as much if not more scientific evidence that global warming is a farce as there is that it's fact, but it seems the farce side has more solid evidence.

Google "father of climatology" & you'll find that even he says it's a crock!

How about this one? http://newsbusters.org/node/13541

Though this one's more informative:
http://www.topix.com/for...rming/TPJCBRQRRH4GMNJLQ

Sure, there's a lot I don't know, & have probably missed things, but as I see it, the religion of global warming is breaking us with products that are proven to actually be more damaging & costly that what they claim to "fix or replace" in the long run.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 7:35 PM

Bingo its all about the money!

Score: 0

By Khaled

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 3:39 PM

Not a major comment, but actually Mercedes-Benz have some of their car models (E-Class for example) with Panoramic Sunroof equipped with Solar-powered fans that ventilate the interior when parked.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 5:21 PM

They also lead in development of highly efficient and smaller carbon footprint diesel technology as well.

Score: 0

By Marauder

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 10:43 PM

Toyota has done what our government should have subsidized years ago to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, AND, our carbon foot print.

Marauder

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 2:34 PM

I know!

"They" should pass a law that says "they" should solve the problem! LOL!

Hell, it works with everything else! (Not!) And then "we" can sit back and smugly feel like "we" have done something substantial.

ROFLMAO!

So, how many of you erudite oh so feeling folks have made a real effort to reduce the impact of the LARGEST source of energy use and carbon...namely your home!!! ^0% of the source! Cars are less than 20%!!!

But...but...but...why when its so easy to ask when THEY will do something as we sit on our collective @sses?

How many have a garden? Duh!

How dare someone suggest we actually do something within our sphere of influence instead of whining about when "they" will do something! But therein is the fundamental difference between a fiscal/libertarian conservative and a whiny @ssed feel good (right or left wing) liberal whose solution is to pass laws telling OTHERS how THEY should believe and act!

Different subject, and amazingly, the same tired predictable response!

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 4:33 PM

"How many have a garden? Duh!"

Exactly. I removed large sections of grass so there is less grass cut. Which means less time on the mower. Planted a garden and what is extra will be given away.

We are installing new window covers to reduce the heat in the house in the summer so the AC is not needed as much or as long. I also collect rain water for watering. Its the little things that collectively could make a huge impact while not being a crazy tree hugger in the process. It really is simple.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 2:24 PM

nonsense.

The market has done it.And the market has yet to actually demand a more efficient model than the very mediocre hybrid.

In fact, the new efficient diesels can exceed the hybrids in both efficiency and carbon footprint! ...Oh...

The hybrid is at best, an interim step. NOT an endpoint.

There are good reasons that other whiz bang technologies have not assumed the role that so many here seem to think they should! They do not work with the efficiencies and cost that make them practical!

Score: 0

By vgzy

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 12:34 PM

I find it a bit frustrating that people are finding hybrids NOT a solution to soaring gas prices and the green movement. There are soooo many companies and individuals working on more fuel efficient vehicles, and they release reports describing what they're working on, but have we actually SEEN anything like that one the road? No. Anyone can say that they are going to create an ultra-fuel efficient vehicle, but Toyota is the only car company out that that has actually made theory reality.

I'm not saying that hybrid cars are the only solution to these pressing issues, but at least its a start.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 2:28 PM

Anyone can say that they are going to create an ultra-fuel efficient vehicle, but Toyota is the only car company out that that has actually made theory reality.

Efficient?

You're kidding, right?

Energy efficient? Nope. It takes more energy to power the car than a similar sized vehicle running on Gasoline, you're just getting it from somewhere else.

Cost efficient? Nope. It costs more to produce and operate the vehicle in any reasonable estimated vehicle lifespan. Note that a battery replacement for the Prius (about 5 year lifespan) is well over 3 grand.

Environmentally efficient? Strike three. More pollutants are released from the manufacture of the battery and vehicle itself than will be saved by driving it instead of say...a non-hybrid civic.

The Prius is a *prime* example of the lunacy of the green movement.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 2:19 PM

Absolutely and utterly FALSE

As the British auto press has already pointed out, some of the highly efficient new diesels outperform the hybrids in the green category - in terms of both efficiency and pollutants.

When are folks going to start doing a bit more research instead of buying into TV commercial hype.

I bet you still think corn used to produce ethanol is a good choice as well!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 2:31 PM

I bet you still think corn used to produce ethanol is a good choice as well!

Switchgrass, right? (been a while since I've checked...not a big fan of Ethanol.)

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 6:38 PM

Yup!

And cellulosic fermentation is not quite there yet, despite efforts to reduce the multi-step process to a single step process, making it a bit more economical.

Or, as an alternative or potential 'multi-source' option, buying even cheaper sugar cane from Africa and Central America would not only be more cost effective and without the deleterious effects of using corn and other foodstuffs, but it would substantially help ailing economies who need it without simply giving them aid.

Still, natural gas is the cleanest and most easily utilized fuel source for cars. All that needs to be done is to extend the distribution pipelines and augment liquid petroleum tankers and storage pumps at gas stations with that for natural gas

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 10:34 AM

Who would have thought that the go green scare tactics would become a multibillion dollar business.

Everyone seems to forget about the end of life for the cars batteries.

E85 support too isn't that supposed to be worse for the environment? Funny how saving on gas and savig the earth is doing more harm than good.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 12:09 PM

Its tragically hilarious as so many run to buy their green solution in a bottle (and I am not refering to 'Green Stuff') instead of actually changing lifestyles and habits.

And the even bigger fantasy is the preoccupation with cars and that simply buying a hybrid solves a problem!

60% of the problem originates from buildings, yet how many here are dividing their efforts to increase the insulation in their homes (something that shows an immediate return and benefit)???? Nope! Instead we focus on wht the press points us at as we blindly follow them around.

First it was the asinine suggestion that we should use foodstuffs as a source of ethanol instead of cellulosic 'waste' grasses that do NOT require fertilization and incredible water needs, now its hybrid cars that simply shift problems around while solving none of them.

Just like the 70's, the green movement is again a sloganeering campaign of idiots posturing with t shirts telling you how cool they are with their car purchase - just a new image generator driven by consumption!, rather than individuals making real lifestyle changes.

Screw the cars. If you want to make a REAL impact, start by sitting down, planning, and then insulate your house, seal the air leaks, get a few solar powered attic vents and plant a garden!

Like 'green moment' spots during an infotainment commercial during what should be an informative and educational newscast (yeah right, ROFLMAO with that one!) will save the world!

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 4:06 PM

The public is failing to see that smoe industries are getting filthy rich scaring people with claims of the earth is about to die. Politicians, musicians, and actors crying the blues of a planet in distress as they fly all over God's green acres. People are being led like cattle to the slaughter and I am not falling for it. I agree with make the changes at home. My part I compost all yard waste and have banned pesticides in the garden. There are natural solutions that work just as well if not better.

Score: 0

By chovy

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 5:15 AM

Does that mean it will charge the battery when not in use? I hope so...seeing as how most cars are just sitting in the sun during the day while @ work...not harnessing that solar energy would be a waste.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 11:54 AM

In a hybrid, the motor charges the battery via an alternator! Not the sun or a plug!

And as mentioned by another "the hybrid should be considered in another class"? What?

The hybrid is not that big a deal!
And as the British auto press has already done, its not such a green alternative either, as they have shown that an efficient diesel is much greener!

Folks need to do a bit more real research and quit buying into the fanciful hype surrounding this stuff!

And all are going to sh!t when they finally realize the irony that nuclear is perhaps the greenest energy source when the ENTIRE production cycle is considered - and hydrogen perhaps the worst.

Don't know why?????? Then YOU need to do some research!

Score: 0

By mjmbox

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 11:10 PM

Now they need to add E85 Flex Fuel support, LI-ION and plugin.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 2:18 PM

E85 is a joke.

Ethanol is not green. At all.

It takes *far* more energy to create it, transport it, fund it, and create the infrastructure for it that will *ever* be produced by it. (Expends more in it's production than it can possibly produce)

It's a complete and utter waste of energy and resources.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 4:08 PM

But a business segment is getting rich by use falling for the claims. I am not falling for it.The green crowd is getting rich scaring everybody.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 5:15 PM

Sure. The corn growers are being subsidized like crazy. For producing an inferior product used to produce a more wasteful product than the one it is marketed to compete with.

Go figure...

As far as marketing goes, these guys might actually have Apple beat. ;)

Score: 0

By davtx

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 10:38 PM

Why don't they combine it with fuel cell. When car is parked, it can still make energy and use it to generate hydrogen and store it away. Then use the hydrogen to power the electric motor or a/c at night.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 2:15 PM

or a/c at night.

What??

Running the A/C??

...at night, even??!?!

How environmentally objectionable of you!

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 11:46 AM

...Gee, and why not hydrogen power, and fusion, and some mystical as yet undeveloped technique to leverage the gravitational force with anti-matter to provide thrust and direction control???

Why don't they????? Because the technologies do not work in an economically feasible manner! THAT'S WHY!

You are spending too much time reading your Jetsons comics, Elroy...;-)

Score: 0

By LINN-DUS

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 9:51 PM

This is EXCELLENT!!! I got rid of my car 4 years ago, I've been taking the bus ever since and WOW, have I saved a lot! [I mainly stopped to reduce C02 emissions and of course, saving money is a benefit]!

However, with this in mind, I believe this makes a wonderful investment even to the growing environmentalist consumers throughout the world. I would definitely consider buying one!! Sun-powered A/C~nice! Minimal-maintenance~ better!! No gas~The BEST!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 9:26 AM

Of course, you have to completely ignore the fact that creating the batteries for the Prius releases more environmentally damaging pollutants than the car saves with low-MPG.

Score: 0

By glibof

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 9:40 PM

I'd also like to take a second to say that the prius really should fall into a different class than cars like the escape hybrid or whatnot, because its not just an electric motor ontop of a gas engine, the prius has a fundamentally different drive system than any other car on the road, and was designed as a hybrid from the ground up, not as a hybrid conversion of an existing car...

Score: 0

By glibof

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 9:38 PM

Its not really fair to compare the cost of the prius to the cost of a small 30+ mpg car (lets say a yaris or a focus or something), because the prius actually has a larger interior, and more trunk space. (dont quote me on that, but the point is its really a midsize car). Its also rather fun to drive, and no one really expects a car to cost 10,000$ these days anyway. As for the solution to the energy crisis, I'm not gonna say that hybrid is the be-all end all, but dont forget that hybrid drive systems are steps towards increasing efficiency, and the outcomes of improved hybrid cars can be applied to any fuel source, like natural gas or something. At least its a step in the right direction.

Score: 0

By bousozoku

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 7:50 PM

I thought that the Mazda 929/Luce was the first to use solar panels and that was some years ago. It merely ran fans to exhaust hot air from the cabin as the car would sit in the hot sun but it's not like Toyota are the first at anything.

Still, using solar panels to reduce the cost of air con is a great idea because leaving the windows open hurts fuel consumption also.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 6:49 PM

I have to take a pass on hybrids, the odds are very high that they are simply a passing oddity in automotive history. If I recall correctly, depreciation on hybrids is horrible except on a select few models, like the Prius. This being the result of it's current popularity as an automotive status symbol for the green movement.
I'm not trying to deride it, I just don't see this as a real solution to anything.

Score: 0

By aicohn

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 9:46 PM

Hardly a day goes by that I don't get some entreaty from a dealer to buy my 2004 toyota prius.

But I pass every time. I don't care what the depreciation is. With $4 gas, I chuckle every time I fill up.

I may replace it if they put the solar panels on, but my plan had been to drive it til it dies.

Score: 0

By Atrius

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 9:31 AM

If you chuckle every time you buy gas in the US, you'd have a hard attack in Europe. Because people there pay almost $10/gallon.

Gas might be more expensive than before, but still far cheaper than in many other countries.

Score: 0

By EIdriver

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 9:17 PM

As an owner of a Kia van and a 2004 Prius, I can feel the difference between the MPG (19 MPG vs. 47 MPG) every time I fill up. Coupled with the ability to use the HOV lane as a single driver, makes the Prius more valuable when you include the 1 HR+ extra time that I save in commuting time which I can spend with my family every day.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 4:54 PM

As it takes 10 years plus to recoup the pricce differential of the Prius over any of the 30+ mpg alternatives, its at most interesting.

Such a move is potentially possible on ANY existing vehicle to power the AC and any number of auxiliary systems.

And while site appropriate alternative sources are the answer in every situation, one must also consider long term maintenance and secondary costs.

When the Prius is available for $10-15K with a reliability record and long term maintenance costs are under control and less than conventional vehicles, call me.

Until them, compressed (abundant) natural gas makes a more sensible immediate fuel for cars instead of simply shifting the energy source from gas to electrical generation facilities with the exorbitant distribution losses.

Out of sight is not exactly out of mind. And simply shifting the production to someone elses back yard is not the answer.

Score: 0

By atab0y

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 9:40 PM

The savings quickness is deternined by how far your drive in shortest amount of time. I work with quite a few people who drive over a hundred even hundreds of miles a day. They would recoup their costs much faster than i would. Wouldn't take them ten years. one guy recovered the price difference in two years. he also saves over two hours a day in the car pool lane.

Score: 0

By champ

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 6:35 AM

While pruis may be a low C02 Emmissions Vehicle it is by no means a low fuel consumption vehicle for those use for Inter-urban use as opposed to intra-urban.

Hybrid fuel ecomnomy benifits an only be reaped for low speed driving within the city.At high speeds a prius is no better than the average Sedan. So when some say "you'd have to do long daily drives to recoup the investment to buy a prius" I can only laugh!

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 10:48 PM

And someone in construction pulling a trailer wouldn't. So what?
Citing anomalous examples proves little.

And they would recoup a ~$10,000 difference over the price any of the many 30+mpg $10-13000 cars on the market in 2 years?

And 'no one expect a car to cost $10-14,000'!? OK. Gee, I don't expect any car to have lesser performance than a Porsche GT3 and cost less than $100K. LOL! The fact that YOU may not means what? Not much, considering there are plenty of cars that do.

Score: 0

By bnut

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 5:53 PM

I don't know. I've seen some data that suggests the time to recoup costs is nowhere near 10 years.

http://green.yahoo.com/b...ost-of-hybrid-cars.html

Either way, is it really just about the money? Isn't there some incentive to be part of the solution? In all likelihood, as you've suggested, the hybrid cars of this generation have not yet achieved their maximum potential. I think that the market will react favorably along with greater interest in the technology. Naysayers notwithstanding.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 8:29 PM

This analysis has been cited both in Road and Track and on the PBS Motorweek.

Comparing the cost savings between which model hybrid you buy is a bit silly.

This analysis assumes one buys a new hybrid in order to save money if one already has a small moderate gas mileage vehicle.

Spending a allot of money with the premise that you will save money is not necessarily valid! You are better off holding onto your existing small moderate mileage car.

Likewise, if you are looking at a hybrid model that costs ~$10,000 more than a new moderate priced 30+ mpg car, the ten year payback comparison is likewise valid.

And I would pretty much forget the federal tax breaks - they are all but gone, as they applied only to the first 60,000 vehicles of a model and they are long gone.

Score: 0

By bousozoku

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 7:55 PM

I'm interested in hybrids but the cost, even with government rebates, is rather substantial. My 1999 VW Golf gets around 30 mpg no matter what and I can't imagine buying a car I don't like just to save on fuel.

If someone were to make an interesting hybrid that wasn't a fortune, I'd definitely consider it.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 5:37 PM

As Top Gear proved so well (using a Ferrari and a Prius - ragging the Prius with the Ferrari following = Ferrari using less petrol):

It's not what you drive; it's how you drive.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 8:18 PM

Even if it's a Rover?

Score: 0

By tom438

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 10:43 PM

I drive a big car because i have a large family. I don't believe in man made global warming as even the so called experts now admit we are in a cooling period. It is a political issue not a scientific one. CO2 is not a pollutant I don't care what algore says. The answer is simple drill now which will immediately impact futures prices and at the same time work on alternative energy sources. We need a two pronged strategy in order to successfully address high energy prices.

Score: 0

By gferko5

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 3:35 AM

Tom,

Man made Global warming is neither a myth nor has it ever been played off as a fact. It is a scientific theory that needs to be explored.

If you were mildly informed you would know we are likely in a cooling period because of the relation between sun-spot cycle length and global temperature.

I want you to remember that no one thing can ever have total control over climate change. What I am saying here is that it is stupid and ignorant for any person to say I don't believe in man made global warming because it is viewed as a possible consequence to the greenhouse gas emissions we produce.

Ask yourself; If I had control over all the world's industry and all the world's pollution, would I continue to pollute the planet until the exact effects of that pollution are evident, or would I invest in renewable energy which has the potential to be the cheapest and most efficient in the long run?

P.S. This effort should not be two-pronged. It should be as many prongs as it takes.

Score: 0

By Patd265

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 3:36 AM

'CO2 is not a pollutant' and 'I don't believe in man made global warming'. How stupid and ignorant can one be?

Score: 0

By NunjaBusiness

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 12:47 AM

Tom's is the most sensible comment so far. Global warming and cooling is a scientifically-documented normal occurrence. US reluctance to tap into our own known (enormous) deposits is the reason we depend so much on foreign oil.

What I want to know is: Why, in 1986, was I able to buy a Honda Civic (HF) that got 51 mpg and the 2008 Civic Hybrid gets less? For crying out loud, 22 years of research gets us a net loss in efficiency?

That sucks.

Score: 0

By arise23

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 1:06 AM

Wow, both of you really don't know what your are talking about do you? The Global Cooling is a result of the Global Warming! When you melt the ice caps in the north, you force tons of cold water into the gulf stream, that stops the gulf stream. When that happens you prevent the warm water from going up the east coast of the US and to Europe. And you have an instant ice age, it happened twice before, and both of those were due to HUGE geological and extraterrestrial ( read asteroid not martian) events. We (humans) are now that big event. Yes there are cycles. But humans are pushing the current cycle to the edge. And sides, whats the problem with trying to reduce, reuse and recycle? It will only help us in the end. Lets worry about the planet for the future generations rather than our wallets in the current one. Don't be duped by government/big business, use common sense.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 4:19 PM

I guess the polar caps melting has managed to works its way to sun and extingush solar flares. This is being said to have impact on the cooling that we are presently seeing.

Instead of people pointing the finger of blame at the US lets look at China with its massive pollution machines. Green alge covering the oceans. America is rich so we are the blame look else where please.

Worry about our wallets please. Pollution is bad yes but you can not force industry to install pollution control devises that would in the end drive them out of business. More companies would move to China where they for teh most part can do what they want. The hippie scare tactics no longer work with me.

Score: 0

By arise23

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 5:09 PM

We certainly can force industry to do things. We forced them to take the lead out of the gas, we have imposed safety measures to dispose of hazardous waste, and I could go on and on. ALL of that is for the better of the environment, not to improve profit margins. So don't dare say we CAN'T. Its just that we don't have the will to do it.
Companies going overseas? Isn't that a response to cheaper labor? and no Unions?
And globalization in general will help the US economy (and yes I am a democrat saying that).

Back to topic. People are arguing that this green-movement is a bad thing and having these hybrids is passing fad. I don't believe it is. My father worked for the largest oil company in the world (ARAMCO) for 17 years. His job was more secure the higher the price of oil got.
He now is on the waiting list to get a Prius and is all about outfitting house with solar panels and solar heaters. He sees the writing on the wall...

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 7:40 PM

If you force emission regulations that cost billions of dollars which it will the companies will leave to countries that don't have the standards. Go ahead and force crazy pollution regulations then don't b**** that you lose your job when the company you work for leaves. Thinking that they won't is very naive.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 9, 2008 - 8:56 AM

If you force emission regulations that cost billions of dollars

...and create an artificial market for tiny, unsafe, styrofoam cars (Put any 1990 or newer care against any 1970 or earlier car and tell me which one will more likely survive a 40mph impact.)

Thanks CAFE standards....

Score: 0

By arise23

edited Jul 9, 2008 - 11:29 AM

hmmm I seem to remember things such as improved roll cages and air bags coming in between those dates somewhere...those aren't safety improvements? My car is damn safe, i would bet has similar safety specs as any 70's car. and it was built in 1998. I would put money on it too.

And rather than skimp on saftey, a better thing would be to stop making GIANT cars. How about we stop making the Hummer and the Escalades. Start making smaller 4 door cars. take that extra metal and 'stuff' and put it towards that corolla and make the structure better. Americans think bigger is better. Sometimes it is not.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 9, 2008 - 12:22 PM

*LAUGHS*

Safety improvements!=safer than anything else, just safer with than without them. (A civic with safety improvements is safer than one without, but has zero bearing on comparisons with other vehicles)

My car is damn safe, i would bet has similar safety specs as any 70's car...I would put money on it too.

Go for it. I have a 78 Thunderbird that I am betting will total your car without much more than a dent at 30MPH.

Put the exact same "safety features" in a 1970 car that are currently in a civic and see which one fares better in collisions.

stop making GIANT cars

...it always comes back to that. I *want* to drive a GIANT car. Try and stop me. They make them because there is a demand for them.

Americans think bigger is better. Sometimes it is not.

Never implied anything of the sort, at the very least, not in anywhere near as general a way as you imply.

Score: 0

By arise23

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 10:18 PM

Companies didn't leave when we forced proper disposal of chemicals! Research didn't leave when we forced EH&S (Environmental Health and Safety) on them. We don't dump chemicals in rivers do we? NO! we dispose of them properly, spending money to get rid of them. Same thing here we need to dispose of the emissions properly, its not liquid or solid waste it is gaseous waste. Lets look at it that way. If we dispose of solid and liquid waste properly, why not gas? Certain companies make a by product that is salt. Water has salt in it. Do we dump this salt into the ocean, lakes or rivers? No, we dispose of it in a way that won't disrupt the balance.
We think because we can't see it, it can't hurt us. We have to get over that thought process.

Score: 0

By fugatz

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 11:39 PM

Drilling for more oil will have little or no practical impact. With China and India doubling their fossil fuel consumption, and a billion people emerging out of poverty, oil prices will continue to climb. How about $200 a barrel. Even if new American reserves equal all of our domestic consumption for the next 20 years, Oil is a world wide commodity sold to the highest bidder. Drive as big of a car as you want, just be prepared to have $250 fill ups. Enjoy your Escalade!

Score: 0

By gferko5

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 3:45 AM

fugatz,

Either you really know what your talking about or you are just blindly repeating something that someone else who is really well informed said.

It is in fact true that drilling in the United States will not reduce the price of a barrel of oil and it certainly will have no effect at the gas pump. There are two obvious reasons for this.

One, American oil companies already don't drill in 80% of the domestic oil reserves they have permission to.

Two, the global oil market is far to large for our oil production to make any serious changes. If you want proof of this you can watch as Saudi Oil companies increase their production and the prices still go up.

However, we are in a time of some economic concerns to say the least. The last thing we need right now are restrictions on the very companies that keep our country alive. There comes a time when the American people have to decide between allowing oil rigs to be put up off of our coasts and watching the Dollar drop to worthless. Of course this doesn't only apply to the oil industry. There is far to much government involvement in many of our major industries here in America. And don't think for a second that the people working for big industries don't care about the environment. They do, and they will protect it just as any level headed American should.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 9:20 AM

Heh...

You've only been told half the story...

One, American oil companies already don't drill in 80% of the domestic oil reserves they have permission to.

What's the point of drilling for it if you cannot refine it?

US companies or forbidden to build any more refineries and *all* of our existing refines at over 96% utilization. (4% leeway for maintenance and planned downtime) Some are over that limit. (To the point where they are risking safety)

You are right that gas prices won't drop if we increase drilling. All that would do is raise prices due to added warehousing costs. We need a greater capacity to refine what we currently drill before we even *think* about expanding our drilling.

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 12:44 AM

Drilling would of course have an impact. More supply to meet the demand.

But, why not just head for a hydrogen society? Jobs, technology, and hydrogen provides twice the power (range) as gasoline.

Naaah, let's listen to the wind/solar/cutback crowd instead.

Enjoy your 1880s lifestyle.

Score: 0

By SGD

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 4:26 PM

"why not just head for a hydrogen society"

You do know that we would need to build more nuclear power plants to produce the electricity to make the hydrogen. People are opposed to more refiners and nuclear power plants so that will not happen. The problem is the peoples refusal to allow for energy processing expansion. Like it or not this has to happen in someones backyard or the price of energy will keep going up.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 9:22 AM

Drilling doesn't increase the supply. The bottleneck is in refining.

But, why not just head for a hydrogen society?

Because it takes more energy to separate from water hydrogen than the hydrogen generates and none of the other methods come even close?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 11:49 AM

Be careful!!!

You're only going to confuse them with facts that should be readily understood by everyone here (but sadly are known to but a few!)

Score: 0

By arise23

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 1:10 AM

But you fail to realize that we have a glut of oil right now. It is NOT the supply its the refining capacity of the US. We are grossly behind in keeping up with our current growth rate. After the 70's gas crisis we sat on our rears and did nothing to address the issue. Now we a reaping the failures of the past administrations (yes both sides) to fix the problem. First would have been to create more refineries, second would have been to go to other energy sources (Nuclear or Coal). We wouldn't be in this mess!!
Oh and ghammer, I wouldn't mind living in the 1880's where you could walk outside and not breath in tons of fumes from car exhaust. I wouldn't mind getting back to that aspect of that century.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 9:24 AM

It is NOT the supply its the refining capacity of the US.

*ding*!

We have a winner, folks.

Now we a reaping the failures of the past administrations (yes both sides) to fix the problem.

Read: Enviro-fascists.

Oh and ghammer, I wouldn't mind living in the 1880's where you could walk outside and not breath in tons of fumes from car exhaust. I wouldn't mind getting back to that aspect of that century.

We had our first smog warning in 1984 in Minneapolis suburbia. You'd have to go back a bit farther...or get farther away from the city.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 8, 2008 - 4:28 PM

Your off a hundred years there tool.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jul 8, 2008 - 5:12 PM

Grrr.

Damnit.

I hate it when that happens. ;)

Score: 0

Nov 21 - 6:51 PM ET Coalition urges better laws for e-mail and cell phone privacy

Nov 21 - 6:42 PM ET How is Internet advertising faring in this bad economy?

Nov 21 - 6:15 PM ET From out of the Amazon Cloud, an AWS winner emerges

Nov 21 - 5:20 PM ET Mufin music finder enters public beta, adds widgets

Nov 21 - 5:01 PM ET Google launches its SearchWiki semantics plug-in

Nov 21 - 4:57 PM ET Asus previews a slimmer, less costly Eee PC

Nov 21 - 4:32 PM ET New Adobe Media Player ushers in AIR 1.5

Nov 21 - 2:11 PM ET AT&T to add Pantech's low-cost C630 phone to 3G lineup

Nov 21 - 1:11 PM ET iPhone gets firmware 2.2 update

Nov 21 - 11:51 AM ET The Dell surprise: Higher earnings on lower revenue