Thread: 92 mpg and 0-60 in under 5 sec

Tweet

Keep in mind that there are pilot programs in effect right now that have readers installed at the pump to read the database on your car to log miles driven. The point? States and Feds have already realized that higher fuel economy cars might use fewer gallons of gasoline, thus impacting current forms of tax collection. The tax rationale becomes miles of roads used, not gallons of fuel. Don't ever underestimate the power and speed with which tax policy can be changed to benefit the politicos (and on occasion us).

If you were a significant investor (not exactly what $400,000 is, multiply that by 10 and you'd be closer to realistic) in current petroleum based fueling what your position represents is a drop in the bucket financially compared to market demand, especially for a "quick" (and real) 92 mpg solution. Market demand is for inexpensive energy/consumption. Even at today's higher (than a few years ago) costs, on average, energy cost for the "average" U.S. family runs somewhere between 4 and 7 % of annual income depending on who's doing the data crunch and what weighting factors they use. That compares with nearly double that for the mid 1960's, which would partly explain why folks aren't seriously cutting back on their useage, because, even if they can't vocalize it, they see/feel the overall economic benefit to themselves. (yes, back to my bandaids vs gasoline value assessment) I know, the dedicated negativists don't believe that, so call me a liar or an idiot, but I'll stick with the reality of the marketplace.

If water became the raw material for our energy needs tomorrow the price of water would skyrocket the next day. Why? Because there's no free lunch. Where's the water going to come from? Your municipal system? Let's say they'd have to double (probably unrealistically low) throughput. A) they'd have to scale up to do that (meaning extra expense), B) like any other "business", when demand accelerates dramatically prices rise (the theory of supply and demand endures for a reason). And where do they get the water? Whether they have to drill more wells, build more dams, desalinate seawater (good luck getting the Kennedy's to go along with one of those off the coast of Mass.), or build new reservoirs to collect rain water, there's going to be huge capital investment that will be repaid by the consumer. And if they can't secure enough water, then we get rationing.......................yeah, there's a neat solution to our energy needs.

You're right and wise to realize that no change in technology occurs overnight. But even if it did, most of those displaced in dropping the old technology would likely migrate to supporting whatever the new techology is. Well...................unless the new technology is magic pixie dust.

I agree 100 percent,
No matter whats presented to us, it seems theres a little sprinkle to a whole mountain of pixie dust getting thrown in.....We hear of the new energy sources or better stated substitutes for oil ,but rarely are they backed up with complete tests revealing the actual data or how the tests were performed,leaving us with little actual hard data, only that it seems logical to work based on sound principals.
I believe there is no free lunch,if it ran on air there would be some sort of meter or a base charge for consuming it.
Other than small changes in fuel or engines,the only new tech is hybrids and that just uses existing tech.