lolwhat

[solarbird]

Data from Yahoo! Finance, chart from The Mess that Greenspan Made,
pointed out to me by cow

Comments

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

Alas, my 1997 Dodge Stratus was too fuel efficient to be considered a clunker.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

What are they doing with these cars? Does this mean there's going to be a whole lot of cheap Ford Explorers for sale?

[gfish.livejournal.com]

No, they're getting junked. That's the whole point, to remove older, less fuel efficient vehicles from the road. It wouldn't be my first choice, since people are still driving afterwards, but it's looking to be one of the simplest, fastest, and most voter-friendly carbon reduction schemes ever tried on a mass scale. Woot!

[whip-lash.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be my first choice, since people are still driving afterwards, but it's looking to be one of the simplest, fastest, and most voter-friendly carbon reduction schemes ever tried on a mass scale.

I guess this depends on whether you look at the carbon necessary to produce a new car as a sunk cost or not. I heard a bit on NPR the other day suggesting that the amount of time it would take for fuel efficiency gains to make up for production carbon cost would in the majority cases exceed the lifetime of the car, making the program a net CO2 emitter.

It seems to me that those cars would have been produced regardless (car inventories were already high) but I'm not sure whether that's the way to look at it.

[gfish.livejournal.com]

Eh, I've mostly decided to worry about issues like that when we finally come up with a standard way of measuring them. But we can't even come up with a solid number for the carbon footprint of cheese, much less something as complicated as a car. Until then, I'm going to say getting people into more fuel efficient cars is a win.

[whip-lash.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[solarbird]

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE!

[sarakate.livejournal.com]

CO2 isn't the sole environmental issue, either. You're also reducing fuel consumption, and significantly reducing emissions of NOX and particulates, levels of which are major issues for a lot of cities. Obviously one could also achieve similar ends by things like improving mass transit options, thus getting people out of their individual cars altogether, but this is a step, and one that's short-term effective instead of just long-term effective.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

The engines have to be destroyed; most common technique is to fill the crankcase with a goo that hardens into a ceramic, and run the engine until it seizes. That renders the engine block and major components unusable; it's theoretically possible to undo the damage to some components, but it would never be cost-effective for an old engine.

The *rest* of the vehicle can still be solid for scrap (windows, suspension bits, drivetrain, etc). I believe the origonal 'cash for clunkers' bill called for the transmission to be destroyed too (probably by replacing the transmission fluid with the same goo) but that was deleted due to pressure from used-car-parts dealers, on the grounds that those are the only parts of an old car worth much.

Technically, though, it makes a bit of sense: if you wreck so much of the vehicle that they loose money disposing of the remains, junk dealers won't take them. You'll either have to pay the dealers to dispose of the remains, or worry about them dumping the hulks in the nearest lake (or worse, both).

[shadesofmauve]

Thanks for the explanation! I was wondering what would happen with them.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

how is this better than re-tooling the engines for use in different vehicls (tractors or something), or even just melting them down and re-using the metal?
one of the reasons i will never buy a new car is because i *aapprove* of used cars - the best way to recycle is to reuse, ya know?
i figured that the engines would be retooled to be more effecient...
just. wow.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

The destroyed engines (with the ceramic goo) generally *are* melted down for the scrap iron; the ceramic would float to the top of the melt and be skimmed off as part of the normal iron-making process. Scrap iron isn't worth much these days, with industrial activity being so low.

There isn't much of a market for a old vehicle engine as anything other than as a replacement engine for a similar vehicle. If you have an old engine from a 1985 Ford Bronco, about the only way to make money with it is to put it in another mid-80's Ford Bronco (or possibly some other Ford truck of the same era that used the same engine) whose origional engine has failed.

Turning them into tractor engines is a neat idea, but it would not really work. Trying to rebuild an old auto engine for another purpose is going to take almost as much energy and effort as building a new one, particularly given that nobody knows in advance what the old engines will be, and it probably will be less efficient than a new one designed for whatever it is you want the engine for (And you can always use the melted scrap as the raw materials for the new one). Amateur gearheads will do things with old engines (mainly put them in cheap race cars) but that's an insignificant market.

The whole "cash-for-clunkers" thing has two main goals: reduce emissions by getting older vehicles off the road, and to increase employment as new cars need to be built to replace the junked old ones. Both goals are circumvented if the old engines are used to repair a similar car; you might as well have kept the original one around. The goals are partially circumvented because the old cars are not completely destroyed, but that was part of the political trade-offs made to allow the program to exist.

Feel free to agree or disagree with those goals or how suitable 'cash-for-clunkers' is at accomplishing them; that's politics. I'm not talking politics, my field is engineering and mechanics.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i think it was sort of misunderstanding the goal of the program...
i mean, i knew it was to get "rid" of clunkers, but i thought it was also about finding a new use for the turned in stuff.
and i have absolutely NO clue where i got that, because i have looked around, and everything i thought i read about doesn't exist. so, um... i guess i just made it up somewhere? or maybe someone told me that they were going to recycle stuff. i am on a *lot* of pain meds, so my memory is sort of iffy right now...

[galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com]

Why are the Explorers broken down by year, but the Cherokees are not?

[solarbird]

i dunno. but if you broke out the cherokees into years they'd drop out of the top ten probably? and then it'd be ALL FORD EXPLORER ALL THE TIME with special guest star Dodge Caravan.

[galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com]

Yet that would be a more internally consistent data set. If the vehicles were not broken out by year, it would probably be:

1. Ford Explorer
2. Jeep Grand Cherokee
3. Jeep Cherokee
4. Dodge Caravan
5. ???

I have no use for the Ford Explorer, but that is no reason to massage the data to make it look worse than it actually is.

[brombear.livejournal.com]

Problem with the Cherokees is that they have a VERY bad tendency to rust out in a short time! I had a 96 that had very little rust. After 1 really bad winter with lots of salt and slush, I almost put my hand through the rear floorboard. They weren't really good on gas, but weren't that bad on it as well.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

One reason I can think of: Fords have a tendancy to change over model years much more than Jeeps have, particularly during that period. A 1998 Jeep Cherokee is nearly identical to a 2001 model. As I recall, Explorers had two model revamps during that stretch.

[firni.livejournal.com]

can't... stop... laughing....

[solarbird]

ME EITHER

[firni.livejournal.com]

What I can't figure out is why they have an age cut-off. Shouldn't they be trying to get those OLD clunkers off the street? The ones that get 10MPG and only run on leaded gas? Sheesh.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

I think they were trying to avoid the destruction of antiques (or rather, cars useful as spare parts for better-kept valuable antiques). There are a lot of people who are very fond of 1950's and 1960's era muscle cars, it would only take a few photos of such 'classic' cars being destroyed before every auto club in the country would be screaming about it.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

and to think, all this could have be avoided if only Congress hadn't caved and let USian automakers cheat on gas-milage...

i used to have a 1988 Honda Accord. at one point (while i was out of state for 3 months) my mother let a neighbor use it for some weeks. and she knocked a hole in the radiator the of my fist. which i did not find out until i had had the car back for almost 6 months.

in all that time, not only did the car work *beautifully* (until the temp climbed to 120F), but it got over 40 MPG in the city, not on the highway - highway averaged almost 60MPG

yet i'm supposed to be impressed with cars that get 30MPG?

if all cars got what that Honda did, we'd be better off (or if we got a different fuel. i have heard that there are cars in Australia that do actually run off of hydrogen with water as a byproduct, that these are not any more expensive to make than the cars we have now... i blame OPEC for the crappy cars we have anymore)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

No hydrogen here... Unless it's in a university somewhere (possible). Isn't there hydrogen filling stations in California now?

[denelian.livejournal.com]

in CA?

really? have you heard that? wow...

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I am in Cali and never heard of this.

The governator was all "yay hydrogen cars!" for a while, but I never heard of anything actually getting done to support the lip service.

[galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com]

Making car engines run off hydrogen is easy. Probably could be done with little more than a firmware upgrade of the computer and a swap out of the exhaust system for stainless steel (hot steam can be rather corrosive).

The problem is storing enough hydrogen safely to get 300 miles per fill up. Americans seem to require a magic 300 miles per stop, otherwise electric cars that get 80-100 miles per charge would be an easier sell. (This is in spite of the fact that 80-100 miles is longer than almost everyone drives on nearly any given day.)

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

That explains my car. It gets 34mpg or so, but only has a 8.5 gallon tank, so it maxes out at 225 miles or so (depending on where I'm at).

Also, compressed hydrogen is already less dangerous than gasoline, but the general populace doesn't know that.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

and won't believe it - its damned near impossible, with studies, to get people to believe that coal factories give off more radioactivity than even nuke faculties...

[mikec1157.livejournal.com]

34 mpg timex 8.5 gal tank = 289 miles. Thus you should be getting 35.3 mpg...I suggest you check your tires, they may be under inflated, or do you drive fast and do jack rabbit starts

[denelian.livejournal.com]

hrmm...
see, i had been told by a guy who was in graduate engineering (and was about to go off to design electric cars) that the pressure issue had been solved (and i didn't follow the explanation totally - sorry, chemistry makes my brain turn off sometimes) but that it was kind of expensive, people didn't believe it would be "safe" (despite being safer than gasoline) and that it was abandonded due to car manufacturers not being interested, supposedly because of the deals they purportedly have w/oil companies.

it is entirely possible that he was exagerating. i know he wasn't flat out lying, because he had lots of work he showed me (everyone thinks that because i can do calculus, i can follow any math. i can't). but he might have been exagerating, or might have missed a something that makes it more expensive.

either way - the real issue i have is that no one seems to really be working on it. i am not sure that electric cars are actually the answer - most electricity in north america comes from coal, and batteries aren't so great, enviro-wise, theselves. electric cars are cut, i admit - but i don't think they are the solution. but no one really seems to be working on a real solution, ya know? hydrogen could be (not necessarily *IS*)

i really really really wish Heinlein had been right about solar panels and shipstones. sigh.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I'm driving an '89 Taurus that has *massive* problems of several different sorts, and *it* is getting about 30 mpg combined for me, or close to it. One of the problems is that the gas gauge is broke, so I keep estimating it at 20 mpg, and I keep accidentally filling it up when I think I should be on empty. My combined is more country roads than in town, but some of these country roads are washboard dirt, and there are stop signs and turns and hills and such, so it's not like it's getting this on the interstate.

This is an *89 Taurus with cracked gaskets and air flow problems and a leaky transmission*. You know they could be making way more fuel efficient cars now if they tried.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

yes! that is what i'm talking about! a new car, NEW wouldn't get better miliage! for the love of Pete, what the hell is wrong with cars today?!

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

And congress being bought and paid for asswipes aside, why did american car manufacturers resist so much on this issue in the first place? Either they were complete dunderheads or they owned stock in oil companies, because competitively it just made no sense . ..

There is no way you can tell me our gas mileage technology went *backwards* during the last 20 years . . . so they made the less-good mileage cars because they wanted to.

Only questions is WHY?

(heh, I just suddenly flashed back to this SF story I read as a kid, I think by Theodure Sturgeon, I think called "Occam's Scalpel" . . . it is appropriate.)

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i am fairly sure i have read that story...
i used to live in Salinas, where the John Seinback library is, and it has (or at least had) a Sturgeon WING. back when libraries got money...

and, yes, i totally agree - they make crap because they want to. cars made 50 years ago (or more) often still run, even with original parts! i mean, not all - but a lot. the way people used to get rid of cars was to just dump them somewhere because they got bored with the car - not because it broke or anything. so why do we have crappy cars with worse gasmilage that fall apart 10 times faster?

because they *CAN* :(

[mikec1157.livejournal.com]

wow, 30 mpg, I have a 1999 Taurus, I like it, but the best I get is 24 to 25 mpg....though as the price of gas goes up and down, my mpg goes up and down. I wonder why that is . No, I am not going to get a locking gas cap as sometime now a days if thieves can't siphon fuel, they have been known to puncture that gas tank.

[solarbird]

Ethanol percentage varies through the year on a predictable basis; so do prices (all else equal). I suspect these factors.

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

Carbon footprint of cheese. The Internets have a winner.

[mikec1157.livejournal.com]

most of the top ten, Fords. Scary. Ford means Found On Road Dead. Or Fix or Repair Daily.

[mikec1157.livejournal.com]

Somewhere in the back of my brain, I remember something about California told the oil companies to do something about the emissions issue and they didn't work on the fuel formula, they just bought old cars and scraped them. My understand was that they got the worst offenders off the road, so it did work.

Does anyone know if this is a true story?