Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Did somebody mention SUVs? Heh heh.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster73.html

(Usual discaimers)



Top Twelve Reasons To Go to the North American International Auto Show in Detroit

by Karen De Coster

• To show support for the auto industry, gas guzzling, SUV buying, free choice, and irrational exuberance.
  
• To look at the SUVs – particularly the Hummer H2 – and ask yourself if you should trade in your compact roller skate for something with a little more headroom.
  
• To look at all the pitiable, hybrid cars that no one wants to buy, and wonder if special interest causes had anything to do with the production of them.
  
• To make Arianna Huffington absolutely livid.
  
• To look at all the glorious SUVs – in complete tranquility – without having to explain to all the anti-SUV, would-be dictators why you need one.
  
• To produce some reason, any reason that’ll support your posturing for needing an SUV, since that bit of Marxist drivel seems to have become some sort of a prerequisite before buying an SUV.
  
• To do a survey of the anti-SUV public, asking them how they would define need, and then do a follow-up survey asking them if they need everything they own and enjoy, for instance, convertibles, muscle cars, classic cars, sports cars, DVD players, home surround sound units, Sony PlayStation, the $30,000 deck out back, the vacation home on the lake in the woods, the country club membership, and, well, you know. Then close out the latter survey by asking them if it’s okay if others determine their needs on an arbitrary basis. Then flash them a big smile.
  
• To buy a new SUV and help disprove Arianna Huffington’s whacky position, that is, that owning an SUV: directly supports Muslim terrorism, and therefore, makes you a terrorist; is un-American; pits you "against us, and with the enemy"; makes you are a direct threat to national security.
  
• To survey anti-SUV people on this question: If you found out that government decrees, courtesy of its pact with the Greens and various other special interests, were responsible for the modern SUV design that you so despise, would you then support the eradication of government intervention in the free market?
  
• To observe the bemused, oblivious stare of each person who is asked the above question.
  
• If you are a man, and you used to attend the show just to gaze at the scantily-clad, auto show models, for a fleeting look at all the cleavage, skin, and legs or whatever, now you can go to the new, politically correct Auto Show where the women are now rescued from being mere "objects" and are "elevated" to the point of wearing tuxedos, pantsuits, and other apparel that will not only cover the natural beauty of their feminine persuasion, but will make the ugly, misshapen, envious, feminist types very happy.
  
• To pick out the interior color for your next Ford Expedition.

January 11, 2003

uh-buoy.....what a crock of s*%t! I attend auto shows simply because I love cars. The only SUV at the 2002 Columbus Auto Show that I actually liked (though not enough to buy) was the Jeep Liberty, which isn't especially wasteful or menacing as SUVs go.

At auto shows, I tend to spend most of my time checking out near-luxury sporty cars like my own 3-series (which doesn't guzzle gas by the way-- it gets a respectable 24 miles per gallon); as well as similarly equipped sport sedans and wagons such as the Volvo V70 (for my hopefully-family-oriented future).

And I'll admit, the cute models don't hurt either -- even if most are a little too young ;-)

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?
Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

I guess you're arguing that the presence of hydroxyl ions in the upper atmosphere makes all this environmental brouhaha just disappear, or at least makes it all better. OK, let's see how your chemistry is today.

• Why did you post this?

I'll be awaiting your response with bated breath. 8)

From Economist.com comes a tale of how the environmental leftist hags operate:


Bjorn Lomborg

Thought control
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The scourge of the greens is accused of dishonesty

THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week. Readers will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of ?The Skeptical Environmentalist?, which attacks the environmental lobby for systematically exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in furious condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their claims, partly no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the delight of greens everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled on the book as follows: ?Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.?

How odd. Why, in the first place, is a panel with a name such as this investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to be a scientific treatise? ?The Skeptical Environmentalist? is explicitly not concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it measures the ?litany? of environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the planet. The litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The environmental movement was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But since the book was not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a panel concerned with scientific dishonesty?

One might expect to find the answer to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling?but there aren't any. The material assembled by the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles and the editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.) The panel seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms (see www.lomborg.com) are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.

The panel's ruling?objectively speaking?is incompetent and shameful.



Junk science, Mr. Horn, is political science: The truth bent to enforce a belief system, namely collectivism. A belief system wherein the ruling elites, like Mr. Rush, foist their nightmarish visions upon the benighted.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?
Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

I guess you're arguing that the presence of hydroxyl ions in the upper atmosphere makes all this environmental brouhaha just disappear, or at least makes it all better. OK, let's see how your chemistry is today.

• Why did you post this?

I'll be awaiting your response with bated breath. 8)

From Economist.com comes a tale of how the environmental leftist hags operate:


Bjorn Lomborg

Thought control
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The scourge of the greens is accused of dishonesty

THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week. Readers will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of ?The Skeptical Environmentalist?, which attacks the environmental lobby for systematically exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in furious condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their claims, partly no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the delight of greens everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled on the book as follows: ?Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.?

How odd. Why, in the first place, is a panel with a name such as this investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to be a scientific treatise? ?The Skeptical Environmentalist? is explicitly not concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it measures the ?litany? of environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the planet. The litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The environmental movement was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But since the book was not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a panel concerned with scientific dishonesty?

One might expect to find the answer to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling?but there aren't any. The material assembled by the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles and the editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.) The panel seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms (see www.lomborg.com) are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.

The panel's ruling?objectively speaking?is incompetent and shameful.



Junk science, Mr. Horn, is political science: The truth bent to enforce a belief system, namely collectivism. A belief system wherein the ruling elites, like Mr. Rush, foist their nightmarish visions upon the benighted.

I'm glad you found it amusing, but when you laugh at something that knowledgeable people recognize as quite serious, you run the risk of embarrassing yourself. I suggest you do some studying on the subject of ecology before trying this again. And remember, a mind is like a parachute: it only works when open.

Thanks for the advice. Mea culpa regarding your understanding of the subject matter at hand. I think you've got me in an intellectual headlock. (that little voice you hear coming out of your CPU is me crying "UNCLE!")

While your comments about the water supply seem rational, I'm still not ready to agree that an oil price increase will lead to "catastrophe." Wouldn't a significant increase in cost just spark our entrepreneurial spirits to move faster to develop alternatives?

I'm glad you found it amusing, but when you laugh at something that knowledgeable people recognize as quite serious, you run the risk of embarrassing yourself. I suggest you do some studying on the subject of ecology before trying this again. And remember, a mind is like a parachute: it only works when open.

Thanks for the advice. Mea culpa regarding your understanding of the subject matter at hand. I think you've got me in an intellectual headlock. (that little voice you hear coming out of your CPU is me crying "UNCLE!")

While your comments about the water supply seem rational, I'm still not ready to agree that an oil price increase will lead to "catastrophe." Wouldn't a significant increase in cost just spark our entrepreneurial spirits to move faster to develop alternatives?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Tristan, by any chance do you know of a site which details the cost of this process?

CEP had an article on it recently. (You have to register to see it).

http://www.cepmagazine.org/

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Tristan, by any chance do you know of a site which details the cost of this process?

CEP had an article on it recently. (You have to register to see it).

http://www.cepmagazine.org/

I am not sure what the significance of the hydroxyl article is. This is my understanding.

Ozone (O3), water and sunlight react to form oxygen and hydroxl radical (OH). Water is present in enormous excess and when sunlight is adquate the progress of this reaction should be limited by ozone level. (This is an overall reaction comprising two subreactions).

Carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2) and sunlight react to form carbon dioxide and ozone. This overall reaction consists of three subreactions and is catalyzed by hydroxyl radical. That is, the hydroxyl radical is not consumed (actually it is consumed in one subreaction and regenerated in another for no net consumption).

Hydoxyl radical removes itself from the atmosphere though a third reaction. The rate of its removal depends on its level.

The net effect is the rate of CO removal is dependent on the level of CO and the level of OH. The level of the latter is dependent on the level of O3, which itself is made by CO and so is ultimately dependent on the amount of CO.

What this amounts to is the more CO (pollutants) pumped into the atmosphere the more oxidation (atmospheric cleansing) occurs, and the higher the level of ozone. This is why pollution by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is associated with ozone and why in "ozone non-attainment regions" we see those special gas pumps with the emission controls on them (to reduce the emission of hydrocarbons, the atmospheric cleansing of which creates ozone).

Now methane (other hydrocarbons too?) is a potent greenhouse gas. Were large quantities of methane to get into our upper atmosphere they would serve to significantly exacerbate global warming. But as long as atmospheric cleansing mechanisms are working, CH4 is converted into carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, but much less potent. (The probably explains why all the methane produced by cattle and similar animals hasn't been a global-warming problem)

If something were to effect the level of OH (a marker for the efficiency of atmospheric oxidation reactions) this would imply that more pollutants are leaving the troposhere, which means less ozone (a good thing for public health) but more hydrocarbons moving upstairs (a bad thing for global warming). On the other hand if OH levels aren't falling (which I think is what the article says) then that means we still need to worry about ozone but less about non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

I am not sure what the significance of the hydroxyl article is. This is my understanding.

Ozone (O3), water and sunlight react to form oxygen and hydroxl radical (OH). Water is present in enormous excess and when sunlight is adquate the progress of this reaction should be limited by ozone level. (This is an overall reaction comprising two subreactions).

Carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2) and sunlight react to form carbon dioxide and ozone. This overall reaction consists of three subreactions and is catalyzed by hydroxyl radical. That is, the hydroxyl radical is not consumed (actually it is consumed in one subreaction and regenerated in another for no net consumption).

Hydoxyl radical removes itself from the atmosphere though a third reaction. The rate of its removal depends on its level.

The net effect is the rate of CO removal is dependent on the level of CO and the level of OH. The level of the latter is dependent on the level of O3, which itself is made by CO and so is ultimately dependent on the amount of CO.

What this amounts to is the more CO (pollutants) pumped into the atmosphere the more oxidation (atmospheric cleansing) occurs, and the higher the level of ozone. This is why pollution by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is associated with ozone and why in "ozone non-attainment regions" we see those special gas pumps with the emission controls on them (to reduce the emission of hydrocarbons, the atmospheric cleansing of which creates ozone).

Now methane (other hydrocarbons too?) is a potent greenhouse gas. Were large quantities of methane to get into our upper atmosphere they would serve to significantly exacerbate global warming. But as long as atmospheric cleansing mechanisms are working, CH4 is converted into carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, but much less potent. (The probably explains why all the methane produced by cattle and similar animals hasn't been a global-warming problem)

If something were to effect the level of OH (a marker for the efficiency of atmospheric oxidation reactions) this would imply that more pollutants are leaving the troposhere, which means less ozone (a good thing for public health) but more hydrocarbons moving upstairs (a bad thing for global warming). On the other hand if OH levels aren't falling (which I think is what the article says) then that means we still need to worry about ozone but less about non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

Suz X:

I'm still not ready to agree that an oil price increase will lead to "catastrophe." Wouldn't a significant increase in cost just spark our entrepreneurial spirits to move faster to develop alternatives?

I guess it just depends on what you mean by "catastrophe." Or what I meant by it, since it was my term.

It isn't necessary to do much development of alternatives, since they're already developed. But as some of the discussion recently has highlighted, hybrid cars don't dominate the markets at this time (SUVs do) and so automakers make a lot more SUVs than hybrids. As for H2 fuel cells, only one company (I think either Toyota or Honda, can't remember which) is making them and only in small numbers, trying to provoke the creation of necessary infrastructure.

We also have available technology to greatly improve energy efficiency in many other areas. Right now, it's hovering just a bit below 10% across the board, i.e. we throw away 9 units of energy for every one that actually does us some good.

What would be necessary would be to produce and distribute this technology on a wide level. This can be done over a period of maybe 10 to 20 years, but not instantly. Suppose the oil peak was to hit this year instead of 7 years from now. (It could, in effect, due to political factors such as the likely war in Iraq.) Most cars on the street are SUVs that get very low mileage. If all those SUV owners were moved by $6 a gallon gasoline (and that in short supply) to purchase hybrids, there would not be nearly enough hybrids in existence to satisfy that demand. All the major automakers would have to retool their production lines to produce fuel-efficient cars. Certainly they would do so: and within a few years, the cars would be available. But what about the gap between the sudden rise in oil price and that transition?

Not to mention the investment in more efficient appliances, better insulation, better building construction techniques, and so on. Within 10 to 20 years, our energy efficiency could increase to maybe 40% instead of 10%, and we'd have an energy surplus and drastically falling prices. But the economy would still suffer a temporary hit of the first magnitude. Not the end of the world, but hard times for a while. Which will mean people scream and demand that the government do something, so the free market isn't going to be allowed to handle the problem on its own.

Suz X:

I'm still not ready to agree that an oil price increase will lead to "catastrophe." Wouldn't a significant increase in cost just spark our entrepreneurial spirits to move faster to develop alternatives?

I guess it just depends on what you mean by "catastrophe." Or what I meant by it, since it was my term.

It isn't necessary to do much development of alternatives, since they're already developed. But as some of the discussion recently has highlighted, hybrid cars don't dominate the markets at this time (SUVs do) and so automakers make a lot more SUVs than hybrids. As for H2 fuel cells, only one company (I think either Toyota or Honda, can't remember which) is making them and only in small numbers, trying to provoke the creation of necessary infrastructure.

We also have available technology to greatly improve energy efficiency in many other areas. Right now, it's hovering just a bit below 10% across the board, i.e. we throw away 9 units of energy for every one that actually does us some good.

What would be necessary would be to produce and distribute this technology on a wide level. This can be done over a period of maybe 10 to 20 years, but not instantly. Suppose the oil peak was to hit this year instead of 7 years from now. (It could, in effect, due to political factors such as the likely war in Iraq.) Most cars on the street are SUVs that get very low mileage. If all those SUV owners were moved by $6 a gallon gasoline (and that in short supply) to purchase hybrids, there would not be nearly enough hybrids in existence to satisfy that demand. All the major automakers would have to retool their production lines to produce fuel-efficient cars. Certainly they would do so: and within a few years, the cars would be available. But what about the gap between the sudden rise in oil price and that transition?

Not to mention the investment in more efficient appliances, better insulation, better building construction techniques, and so on. Within 10 to 20 years, our energy efficiency could increase to maybe 40% instead of 10%, and we'd have an energy surplus and drastically falling prices. But the economy would still suffer a temporary hit of the first magnitude. Not the end of the world, but hard times for a while. Which will mean people scream and demand that the government do something, so the free market isn't going to be allowed to handle the problem on its own.

A couple of points about SUVs.

First, Brian, I must gently correct you. "Most" new vehicles sold are not SUVs. While the top selling car in the US is a light truck (got this either from the MidAtlantic AAA magazine, which has a feature article about SUVs versus small cars or the most current New Republic, which also has a feature on SUVs), the majority of passenger vehicles sold in the US are still sedans. SUVs and light trucks account for about a third of all new vehicle sales.

Second, the AAA article cites many of the problems of SUVs , such as horrendous safety records (not only do SUVs kill occupants of smaller vehicles, but because of their instability, they are more likely to flip over and kill their own occupants), and horrible gas mileage (which adds to pollution and increases our dependence on Middle Eastern oil). The article also touts the improvements in design in small cars.

The fact that an organization like the American Automobile Association is joining the critics of SUVs (not by calling for a ban, but by pointing out their drawbacks) says something, at least in my mind.

A couple of points about SUVs.

First, Brian, I must gently correct you. "Most" new vehicles sold are not SUVs. While the top selling car in the US is a light truck (got this either from the MidAtlantic AAA magazine, which has a feature article about SUVs versus small cars or the most current New Republic, which also has a feature on SUVs), the majority of passenger vehicles sold in the US are still sedans. SUVs and light trucks account for about a third of all new vehicle sales.

Second, the AAA article cites many of the problems of SUVs , such as horrendous safety records (not only do SUVs kill occupants of smaller vehicles, but because of their instability, they are more likely to flip over and kill their own occupants), and horrible gas mileage (which adds to pollution and increases our dependence on Middle Eastern oil). The article also touts the improvements in design in small cars.

The fact that an organization like the American Automobile Association is joining the critics of SUVs (not by calling for a ban, but by pointing out their drawbacks) says something, at least in my mind.

[

quote="Brian Rush"]Suz X:

I'm still not ready to agree that an oil price increase will lead to "catastrophe." Wouldn't a significant increase in cost just spark our entrepreneurial spirits to move faster to develop alternatives?

I guess it just depends on what you mean by "catastrophe." Or what I meant by it, since it was my term.

snip....

Not the end of the world, but hard times for a while. Which will mean people scream and demand that the government do something, so the free market isn't going to be allowed to handle the problem on its own.

The free market is not allowed to handle the problem on its own now, either. Don't forget that the current administration is bought and paid for and that some of the biggest buyers are members of the oil industry. They are interested in protecting their markets, now, and making more than a few bucks, now, on the assets they have now.

We have been paying more for our energy, but that price is not reflected in the price at the pump. That price is rather, paid for by our taxes and by government borrowing to pay for our military presence in the middle east and our diplomacy that protects certain middle eastern regimes. This all costs us money and may soon cost us the blood of our young men and women in the armed services.

None of this is particularly good for us or for the oil producing nations whose regimes we have propped up. If we were further into the crisis, I believe we would be seeing a new approach to victory gardens, scrap metal drives and all the ways that citizens were encouraged to contribute to the war effort in WWII. This approach would deal with patriotic reduction of our use of petroleum by conservation and the use of new technologies even when they are not as immediately cheap as the old ones. I could see bumper stickers that read: "I have reduced my use by 30%, have you?" Don't forget that the successful resolution of a crisis does not happen without real hardship and sacrifice on the part of citizens.

I think that now we are in the phase where we still want to believe that we can get out of this without hardship and sacrifice. Witness the comments of the "You'll take my SUV when you pry my cold, dead hands off the grip" variety. We want the government to do something, anything-- as long as it is not painful. The government is responding by proposing all kinds of political "solutions" that do not address the fundamental issues behind the crisis. This is going to go on for a while until we finally accept that "normal" is not coming back and that we have to work at the problem to build a new kind of normal. Then we will not be arguing over whether these problems exist but rather over the best solutions to them. IMHO the best solutions will be ones that preserve our American values and that allow us to express them in new ways.

These values do not include the right to continue to use a non-renewable resource as if it was renewable. The laws of nature and nature's G-d does not guarantee such a "right." Societies that cannot face such realities have fallen in the past. (Consider Petra).

Does this all have to be an unmitigated disaster? No. But in the immortal words of my 5th grade PE teacher: No pain, no gain. Just the way human beings, are I guess.

[

quote="Brian Rush"]Suz X:

I'm still not ready to agree that an oil price increase will lead to "catastrophe." Wouldn't a significant increase in cost just spark our entrepreneurial spirits to move faster to develop alternatives?

I guess it just depends on what you mean by "catastrophe." Or what I meant by it, since it was my term.

snip....

Not the end of the world, but hard times for a while. Which will mean people scream and demand that the government do something, so the free market isn't going to be allowed to handle the problem on its own.

The free market is not allowed to handle the problem on its own now, either. Don't forget that the current administration is bought and paid for and that some of the biggest buyers are members of the oil industry. They are interested in protecting their markets, now, and making more than a few bucks, now, on the assets they have now.

We have been paying more for our energy, but that price is not reflected in the price at the pump. That price is rather, paid for by our taxes and by government borrowing to pay for our military presence in the middle east and our diplomacy that protects certain middle eastern regimes. This all costs us money and may soon cost us the blood of our young men and women in the armed services.

None of this is particularly good for us or for the oil producing nations whose regimes we have propped up. If we were further into the crisis, I believe we would be seeing a new approach to victory gardens, scrap metal drives and all the ways that citizens were encouraged to contribute to the war effort in WWII. This approach would deal with patriotic reduction of our use of petroleum by conservation and the use of new technologies even when they are not as immediately cheap as the old ones. I could see bumper stickers that read: "I have reduced my use by 30%, have you?" Don't forget that the successful resolution of a crisis does not happen without real hardship and sacrifice on the part of citizens.

I think that now we are in the phase where we still want to believe that we can get out of this without hardship and sacrifice. Witness the comments of the "You'll take my SUV when you pry my cold, dead hands off the grip" variety. We want the government to do something, anything-- as long as it is not painful. The government is responding by proposing all kinds of political "solutions" that do not address the fundamental issues behind the crisis. This is going to go on for a while until we finally accept that "normal" is not coming back and that we have to work at the problem to build a new kind of normal. Then we will not be arguing over whether these problems exist but rather over the best solutions to them. IMHO the best solutions will be ones that preserve our American values and that allow us to express them in new ways.

These values do not include the right to continue to use a non-renewable resource as if it was renewable. The laws of nature and nature's G-d does not guarantee such a "right." Societies that cannot face such realities have fallen in the past. (Consider Petra).

Does this all have to be an unmitigated disaster? No. But in the immortal words of my 5th grade PE teacher: No pain, no gain. Just the way human beings, are I guess.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If all those SUV owners were moved by $6 a gallon gasoline (and that in short supply) to purchase hybrids, there would not be nearly enough hybrids in existence to satisfy that demand.

In Britain now petrol is $6 a gallon, the cars there are small compaired to their US counterparts, even the SUV's. If Petrol prices were that high in the USA, I would think that people would buy smaller SUV's, the sort which are popular in the UK and lesser degree Australia, like Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape or Honda CR-V. SUV buyers find in thse vehicles you can't get in a hybrid car.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If all those SUV owners were moved by $6 a gallon gasoline (and that in short supply) to purchase hybrids, there would not be nearly enough hybrids in existence to satisfy that demand.

In Britain now petrol is $6 a gallon, the cars there are small compaired to their US counterparts, even the SUV's. If Petrol prices were that high in the USA, I would think that people would buy smaller SUV's, the sort which are popular in the UK and lesser degree Australia, like Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape or Honda CR-V. SUV buyers find in thse vehicles you can't get in a hybrid car.

Anyone know if any firms are planning to manufacture larger hybrid cars, for people who have to haul stuff (like children or dogs)? My mother, who has an aging Ford Windstar that she needs to replace soon, and lives out in the country with her two large dogs, would love to buy something like a PT Cruiser that runs as a hybrid.

Anyone know if any firms are planning to manufacture larger hybrid cars, for people who have to haul stuff (like children or dogs)? My mother, who has an aging Ford Windstar that she needs to replace soon, and lives out in the country with her two large dogs, would love to buy something like a PT Cruiser that runs as a hybrid.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?
Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

I guess you're arguing that the presence of hydroxyl ions in the upper atmosphere makes all this environmental brouhaha just disappear, or at least makes it all better. OK, let's see how your chemistry is today.

• Why did you post this?

I'll be awaiting your response with bated breath. 8)

From Economist.com comes a tale of how the environmental leftist hags operate: <text deleted>

Junk science, Mr. Horn, is political science: The truth bent to enforce a belief system, namely collectivism. A belief system wherein the ruling elites, like Mr. Rush, foist their nightmarish visions upon the benighted.

OK, but you still didn't answer the hydroxly ion question - nor did the quoted material. In fact, your quoted article consisted of argument by assertion, a particulary poor choice to use when arguing that others fail to support their assertions with sufficient data. :P

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?
Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

I guess you're arguing that the presence of hydroxyl ions in the upper atmosphere makes all this environmental brouhaha just disappear, or at least makes it all better. OK, let's see how your chemistry is today.

• Why did you post this?

I'll be awaiting your response with bated breath. 8)

From Economist.com comes a tale of how the environmental leftist hags operate: <text deleted>

Junk science, Mr. Horn, is political science: The truth bent to enforce a belief system, namely collectivism. A belief system wherein the ruling elites, like Mr. Rush, foist their nightmarish visions upon the benighted.

OK, but you still didn't answer the hydroxly ion question - nor did the quoted material. In fact, your quoted article consisted of argument by assertion, a particulary poor choice to use when arguing that others fail to support their assertions with sufficient data. :P

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I am not sure what the significance of the hydroxyl article is. This is my understanding.

Ozone (O3), water and sunlight react to form oxygen and hydroxl radical (OH). Water is present in enormous excess and when sunlight is adquate the progress of this reaction should be limited by ozone level. (This is an overall reaction comprising two subreactions).

Carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2) and sunlight react to form carbon dioxide and ozone. This overall reaction consists of three subreactions and is catalyzed by hydroxyl radical. That is, the hydroxyl radical is not consumed (actually it is consumed in one subreaction and regenerated in another for no net consumption).

Hydoxyl radical removes itself from the atmosphere though a third reaction. The rate of its removal depends on its level.

The net effect is the rate of CO removal is dependent on the level of CO and the level of OH. The level of the latter is dependent on the level of O3, which itself is made by CO and so is ultimately dependent on the amount of CO.

What this amounts to is the more CO (pollutants) pumped into the atmosphere the more oxidation (atmospheric cleansing) occurs, and the higher the level of ozone. This is why pollution by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is associated with ozone and why in "ozone non-attainment regions" we see those special gas pumps with the emission controls on them (to reduce the emission of hydrocarbons, the atmospheric cleansing of which creates ozone).

Now methane (other hydrocarbons too?) is a potent greenhouse gas. Were large quantities of methane to get into our upper atmosphere they would serve to significantly exacerbate global warming. But as long as atmospheric cleansing mechanisms are working, CH4 is converted into carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, but much less potent. (The probably explains why all the methane produced by cattle and similar animals hasn't been a global-warming problem)

If something were to effect the level of OH (a marker for the efficiency of atmospheric oxidation reactions) this would imply that more pollutants are leaving the troposhere, which means less ozone (a good thing for public health) but more hydrocarbons moving upstairs (a bad thing for global warming). On the other hand if OH levels aren't falling (which I think is what the article says) then that means we still need to worry about ozone but less about non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

Exactly, but far and away from the implied point of Marc's article - that the increased presense of hydroxyl ions somehow is the ultimate ecological palliative.

Unlike politics, science is incapable of comromise. Physics and chemistry are what they are - no more; no less. 8)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I am not sure what the significance of the hydroxyl article is. This is my understanding.

Ozone (O3), water and sunlight react to form oxygen and hydroxl radical (OH). Water is present in enormous excess and when sunlight is adquate the progress of this reaction should be limited by ozone level. (This is an overall reaction comprising two subreactions).

Carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen (O2) and sunlight react to form carbon dioxide and ozone. This overall reaction consists of three subreactions and is catalyzed by hydroxyl radical. That is, the hydroxyl radical is not consumed (actually it is consumed in one subreaction and regenerated in another for no net consumption).

Hydoxyl radical removes itself from the atmosphere though a third reaction. The rate of its removal depends on its level.

The net effect is the rate of CO removal is dependent on the level of CO and the level of OH. The level of the latter is dependent on the level of O3, which itself is made by CO and so is ultimately dependent on the amount of CO.

What this amounts to is the more CO (pollutants) pumped into the atmosphere the more oxidation (atmospheric cleansing) occurs, and the higher the level of ozone. This is why pollution by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is associated with ozone and why in "ozone non-attainment regions" we see those special gas pumps with the emission controls on them (to reduce the emission of hydrocarbons, the atmospheric cleansing of which creates ozone).

Now methane (other hydrocarbons too?) is a potent greenhouse gas. Were large quantities of methane to get into our upper atmosphere they would serve to significantly exacerbate global warming. But as long as atmospheric cleansing mechanisms are working, CH4 is converted into carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, but much less potent. (The probably explains why all the methane produced by cattle and similar animals hasn't been a global-warming problem)

If something were to effect the level of OH (a marker for the efficiency of atmospheric oxidation reactions) this would imply that more pollutants are leaving the troposhere, which means less ozone (a good thing for public health) but more hydrocarbons moving upstairs (a bad thing for global warming). On the other hand if OH levels aren't falling (which I think is what the article says) then that means we still need to worry about ozone but less about non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

Exactly, but far and away from the implied point of Marc's article - that the increased presense of hydroxyl ions somehow is the ultimate ecological palliative.

Unlike politics, science is incapable of comromise. Physics and chemistry are what they are - no more; no less. 8)

For the Wonk:

http://www.autointell.com/news-2000/...l-11-00-p1.htm

Ford Escape to have clean, efficient hybrid-electric powertrain in 2003
.
"We are developing what we believe will be the most fuel efficient and clean-operating sport utility vehicle available anywhere - a hybrid-electric version of the Ford Escape. Ford is committed to bringing this advanced technology to the heart of the American market." - Neil Ressler, vice president, Research and Vehicle Technology, Ford Motor Company.
.

Escape hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) under development for 2003 debut
Fuel-efficient and powerful powertrain: projected to achieve about 40 miles per gallon even in stop-and-go urban driving yet will deliver acceleration comparable to the V-6 Escape
Extremely clean operating: will achieve California SULEV emissions rating; Stage IV in Europe

DEARBORN, MI - A hybrid-electric powered Ford Escape is being designed to be the cleanest, most fuel-efficient sport utility on the planet when it debuts in 2003. Ford is the first automaker to announce production plans for a hybrid-electric powered sport utility vehicle. The Ford Escape HEV will feature an electric drivetrain to augment its fuel-efficient four-cylinder gasoline engine. With regenerative braking and nearly instantaneous start-stop capability, the Escape HEV will be especially fuel efficient in city traffic, delivering about 40 mpg in urban driving. Yet Escape HEV will deliver acceleration performance similar to an Escape equipped with the V-6 engine. The hybrid Escape will be capable of being driven more than 500 miles on a single tank of gasoline.
"The combination of fuel efficient operation, power-on-demand and extended range will make the Escape HEV an attractive choice for Ford customers," says Neil Ressler, vice president, Ford Motor Company Research and Vehicle Technology.

"We're applying advanced hybrid-electric technology to the heart of the American market: the highly popular sport utility vehicle," Ressler says. "The Escape HEV will be fuel efficient and extremely clean. We'll also sell this hybrid-electric SUV in Europe, under the Maverick name, where its nimble driving characteristics and clean, fuel-efficient operation should make it especially appealing to customers."

The Escape HEV will feature an advanced regenerative braking system which recaptures energy in the form of electricity when the vehicle is being braked; the electrical energy is stored in the battery for future use. A sophisticated motor-generator saves fuel by shutting down the engine when the vehicle is coasting or stopped, restarting it almost instantaneously when the driver steps on the accelerator pedal. These and other related technologies have been developed and proven out in Ford's P2000 research program.

Escape HEV also will incorporate technologies developed by Volvo in its Dual Hybrid Electric System for Increased Efficiency and Economy (DESIREE) program. Volvo developed two hybrid-electric concept vehicles under the DESIREE program. Ford's Research and Vehicle Development engineers are continuing work on these cars and incorporating technologies and lessons learned into the corporation's overall HEV strategy. Ford Motor Company acquired Volvo in 1999 and has been consolidating research and development efforts throughout the corporation.

The Escape HEV is being designed to operate more cleanly than government regulations require. In fact, it will qualify as a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) under California standards. It also will meet Stage IV emissions requirements in Europe before they become mandatory in the 2005 model year.

While a few automakers have introduced small, low-volume hybrid-electric cars, Ford is introducing its first HEV in a family-sized sport utility to increase mass customer appeal. The hybrid-electric powertrain also has been developed with additional applications and vehicles in mind to expand the potential impact of the environmentally responsible technology. Today's new Ford Escape is an ideal vehicle for the first application of Ford's hybrid-electric powertrains.

(April 7, 2000)

*************************

The Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue comes out in April. If possible, wait until then to start looking.

For the Wonk:

http://www.autointell.com/news-2000/...l-11-00-p1.htm

Ford Escape to have clean, efficient hybrid-electric powertrain in 2003
.
"We are developing what we believe will be the most fuel efficient and clean-operating sport utility vehicle available anywhere - a hybrid-electric version of the Ford Escape. Ford is committed to bringing this advanced technology to the heart of the American market." - Neil Ressler, vice president, Research and Vehicle Technology, Ford Motor Company.
.

Escape hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) under development for 2003 debut
Fuel-efficient and powerful powertrain: projected to achieve about 40 miles per gallon even in stop-and-go urban driving yet will deliver acceleration comparable to the V-6 Escape
Extremely clean operating: will achieve California SULEV emissions rating; Stage IV in Europe

DEARBORN, MI - A hybrid-electric powered Ford Escape is being designed to be the cleanest, most fuel-efficient sport utility on the planet when it debuts in 2003. Ford is the first automaker to announce production plans for a hybrid-electric powered sport utility vehicle. The Ford Escape HEV will feature an electric drivetrain to augment its fuel-efficient four-cylinder gasoline engine. With regenerative braking and nearly instantaneous start-stop capability, the Escape HEV will be especially fuel efficient in city traffic, delivering about 40 mpg in urban driving. Yet Escape HEV will deliver acceleration performance similar to an Escape equipped with the V-6 engine. The hybrid Escape will be capable of being driven more than 500 miles on a single tank of gasoline.
"The combination of fuel efficient operation, power-on-demand and extended range will make the Escape HEV an attractive choice for Ford customers," says Neil Ressler, vice president, Ford Motor Company Research and Vehicle Technology.

"We're applying advanced hybrid-electric technology to the heart of the American market: the highly popular sport utility vehicle," Ressler says. "The Escape HEV will be fuel efficient and extremely clean. We'll also sell this hybrid-electric SUV in Europe, under the Maverick name, where its nimble driving characteristics and clean, fuel-efficient operation should make it especially appealing to customers."

The Escape HEV will feature an advanced regenerative braking system which recaptures energy in the form of electricity when the vehicle is being braked; the electrical energy is stored in the battery for future use. A sophisticated motor-generator saves fuel by shutting down the engine when the vehicle is coasting or stopped, restarting it almost instantaneously when the driver steps on the accelerator pedal. These and other related technologies have been developed and proven out in Ford's P2000 research program.

Escape HEV also will incorporate technologies developed by Volvo in its Dual Hybrid Electric System for Increased Efficiency and Economy (DESIREE) program. Volvo developed two hybrid-electric concept vehicles under the DESIREE program. Ford's Research and Vehicle Development engineers are continuing work on these cars and incorporating technologies and lessons learned into the corporation's overall HEV strategy. Ford Motor Company acquired Volvo in 1999 and has been consolidating research and development efforts throughout the corporation.

The Escape HEV is being designed to operate more cleanly than government regulations require. In fact, it will qualify as a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) under California standards. It also will meet Stage IV emissions requirements in Europe before they become mandatory in the 2005 model year.

While a few automakers have introduced small, low-volume hybrid-electric cars, Ford is introducing its first HEV in a family-sized sport utility to increase mass customer appeal. The hybrid-electric powertrain also has been developed with additional applications and vehicles in mind to expand the potential impact of the environmentally responsible technology. Today's new Ford Escape is an ideal vehicle for the first application of Ford's hybrid-electric powertrains.

(April 7, 2000)

*************************

The Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue comes out in April. If possible, wait until then to start looking.