Comments on: Cars and carbon emissions http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/cars-and-carbon-emissions/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:18:10 -0600 hourly 1 By: sameer http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/cars-and-carbon-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-3153 sameer Fri, 29 May 2009 23:45:17 +0000 http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/cars-and-carbon-emissions/#comment-3153 You don’t have to be Leo DiCaprio to own one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles available, although it certainly helps if you want someone hot to ride shotgun. The stodgy auto industry, spurred by high gas prices and consumer demand, is coming around with more hybrid vehicles, smaller models and alternative energy options. Still, “fuel efficiency” stateside is an oxymoron akin to “congressional ethics” and “doing nothing.” The miles-per-gallon standard for cars in the United States is stuck at 27.5, compared to 43 in Europe and 46 in Japan. And those standards will be laughable in a few years time. Case in point: A British Volkswagen concept car gets 235 miles to the gallon. But that one won’t be available for a couple more years. “Given everything that’s coming soon, if you can afford to wait, wait,” says Chelsea Sexton, electric vehicle advocate and executive director of Plug In America. (And while you’re waiting check out these 100 tips to save on fuel costs with your current vehicle.) A plug-in hybrid charges for a few hours from a regular plug, runs solely on electricity for 40 miles or so and then kicks into gas-battery mode after that. Sexton says the full electric charge will cost about 50 cents a day. General Motors is readying both the Saturn Vue and Chevy Volt plug-in hybrids for consumers, while Daimler is working on plug-in Mercedes and Smart cars. Or, for about $10,000, EPA-certified Hymotion will convert your gas-electric hybrid car into a plug-in. But if you’re looking to buy now, here are some of the most fuel-efficient passenger vehicles on the road in the United States ===================== mike ===================== You don’t have to be Leo DiCaprio to own one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles available, although it certainly helps if you want someone hot to ride shotgun. The stodgy auto industry, spurred by high gas prices and consumer demand, is coming around with more hybrid vehicles, smaller models and alternative energy options. Still, “fuel efficiency” stateside is an oxymoron akin to “congressional ethics” and “doing nothing.”

The miles-per-gallon standard for cars in the United States is stuck at 27.5, compared to 43 in Europe and 46 in Japan. And those standards will be laughable in a few years time. Case in point: A British Volkswagen concept car gets 235 miles to the gallon. But that one won’t be available for a couple more years.

“Given everything that’s coming soon, if you can afford to wait, wait,” says Chelsea Sexton, electric vehicle advocate and executive director of Plug In America. (And while you’re waiting check out these 100 tips to save on fuel costs with your current vehicle.)

A plug-in hybrid charges for a few hours from a regular plug, runs solely on electricity for 40 miles or so and then kicks into gas-battery mode after that. Sexton says the full electric charge will cost about 50 cents a day. General Motors is readying both the Saturn Vue and Chevy Volt plug-in hybrids for consumers, while Daimler is working on plug-in Mercedes and Smart cars.

Or, for about $10,000, EPA-certified Hymotion will convert your gas-electric hybrid car into a plug-in. But if you’re looking to buy now, here are some of the most fuel-efficient passenger vehicles on the road in the United States
=====================
mike
=====================

]]> By: Mike S http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/cars-and-carbon-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-954 Mike S Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:05:46 +0000 http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/cars-and-carbon-emissions/#comment-954 In your article "Fuel additives" you mentioned that some additives do reduce emissions, but you didn't mention any names. If the article title attracted folks who use or are thinking of using additives, I would think that it was a good idea to point them in the least harmful direction, instead of advise them to try to get Congress to do something. It's common knowledge that a majority of the folks in Congress work for whoever pays them the most money. Also they have NOT ended the war or stopped funding it, even thought that's how the Dem's got into power, they are distinctly underwhelming. But you advise contacting Congress instead of telling us which are the least harmful if not actually helpful additives? Um. how can you possibly support that position? In your article “Fuel additives” you mentioned that some additives do reduce emissions, but you didn’t mention any names.

If the article title attracted folks who use or are thinking of using additives, I would think that it was a good idea to point them in the least harmful direction, instead of advise them to try to get Congress to do something.

It’s common knowledge that a majority of the folks in Congress work for whoever pays them the most money. Also they have NOT ended the war or stopped funding it, even thought that’s how the Dem’s got into power, they are distinctly underwhelming.

But you advise contacting Congress instead of telling us which are the least harmful if not actually helpful additives? Um. how can you possibly support that position?

]]>