Via YouTube:
This is the only Batmobile created that makes fiction reality. It is powered by a military spec Boeing turboshaft engine driving the rear wheels through a semi automatic gearbox. It features a custom tube frame/monocoque chassis with fully independant suspension, disc brakes, and a sequential shifter. It runs on kerosene, diesel, or Jet fuel and has a power to weight ratio comparable to a Dodge Viper.
This is too cool.
What is good for the goose? Number of government-owned limos has soared under Obama.
Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News.
Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Obama administration officials said most of the increase reflects an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world.
Many of those new limos will are armored, adding to the costs. Remember this story and the thousands like it the next time you hear an elected official suggest we need to increase taxes.
Moving on to us ganders…
While our government is on a limousine buying binge, Obama and his minions at the EPA have pushed an edict for a new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard on automakers. Of course to meet these new CAFE requirements, automakers (both domestic and foreign) will incur significant costs that must be passed on to consumers.
The government claims that these costs will be offset by fuel savings offered by the new CAFE requirements. However, the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research (CAR) points out in an exhaustive study that this is not the case:
Table 12 summarizes both total consumer savings from the adoption of higher levels of fuel economy technology and incremental savings gained by the consumer from moving to higher scenarios. As can be seen in the final two columns of Table 12, consumers maximize their net savings at 37.6 mpg at $2,107. Moving from 37.6 mpg to 40.8 mpg actually reduces consumer net savings by $976 which is shown in the final column. Moving higher to 44.8 mpg reduces total consumer net savings by an additional $873. Moving to the highest level of fuel economy of 49.6 mpg from 44.8 mpg reduces total savings by an impressive $3,309. It is true that total net savings are positive through 44.8 mpg (supposedly paying for the technology) but no rational consumer would pick a level higher than 37.6 mpg where total net savings are maximized. In fact, it is likely that total net savings are maximized below 37.6 mpg but the NAS/NRC study does not provide finer technology cost levels for mpg levels below this target. It should be repeated that it does not matter whether net savings are sufficient to pay for a level of technology cost. What finally and ultimately matters is what is maximal for the consumer.
As Table 12 illustrates, there is no five-year payback to support the increased vehicle costs required to archive a 62 mpg CAFE target.
And if gas doesn’t reach $6.00 / gal, these technologies will become even more expensive for consumers.
So, what will vehicles that conform to 62 mpg CAFE standard be like?
Look no further than Europe for answers because this is where all the bad eco-ideas start:
At an event held at the RAC, Pall Mall, London Gordon Murray Design has today unveiled their latest ultra compact city vehicle, T.27, the world’s most efficient electric car.
The design and development programme for T.27 is a £9 million project, made possible through a £4.5 million investment from the government-backed Technology Strategy Board. From a clean sheet of paper to a running prototype the programme has taken just 17 months including the design and build of a completely new electric powertrain by Zytek Automotive Ltd, one of the Consortium partners.
T.27 specifically targets the urban city environment via a unique, holistic, manufacturing process (‘iStream®’) developed by Consortium lead partner Gordon Murray Design, it aims to significantly reduce lifecycle impacts and enable low cost, efficient manufacture within the UK. The electric car sets new standards in weight, footprint, small car dynamics, safety, packaging and efficiency whilst addressing full lifecycle CO2 emissions, congestion, parking and low cost motoring.
While government ‘officials’ are literally chauffeured around in armored limousines on our dime, we are being relegated to eco-boxes like this.
Isn’t this great?
* An extra big tip O’ the hat to my friend on StumbleUpon, Leopardess, for sending me the Limousine Liberal article.
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan’s other Democrat Senator, is taking it upon herself to direct the future of America’s auto industry, and to a large extent Michigan’s economy, all by herself.
Her plan? The Battery Innovation Act:
The Battery Innovation Act is the first coordinated plan that incorporates all aspects of advanced battery production, from research and development, to the availability of raw materials, to the manufacturing of these high-tech products. The Act will build off of initiatives authored by Senator Stabenow in 2009, which helped A123 Systems ramp up advanced batteries manufacturing and create jobs in Michigan.
The idea that Stabenow thinks that she can put together a “coordinated plan that incorporates all aspects of advanced battery production, from research and development, to the availability of raw materials” would be right at home in the Russian Politburo of the 1950′s.
Debbie continues:
The Battery Innovation Act will boost the research and development of advanced batteries and components. This will not only spur the development of more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles but for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles for our military as well. Stabenow’s bill also creates a competition that will provide incentives for researchers to help develop an advanced vehicle battery that can go 500 miles on a single charge.
It is no coincidence that Stabenow is pushing this idea about Michigan becoming the economic hub for Li-Ion battery production (just as politicians from Indiana, Kentucky and just about every other state in the union are doing as well). The reason for the push? Obama is mandating electric vehicles through regulation.
As pointed out by Henry Payne @ the MI View, Obama and his EPA minions are out to kill the internal combustion engine through their ridiculous CAFE requirements. And through pure coincidence, Debbie has a solution to the Obama problem. A solution, and gobs of tax payer & borrowed Chinese cash:
In their regulatory plot to make the gas engine go the way of the incandescent light bulb, Obama’s EPA is not just mandating 56 mpg by 2025 – effectively creating a standard only hybrid electrics can meet – but putting in place harsh fines for companies that make engines they don’t like.
Not only does Debbie Stabenow’s plan to create an industry using government central planning reek of old school (and failed) Politburo economics. Stabenow’s Battery Innovation Act (and the whole green energy idea in general) defies the very fundamentals of economics.
To illustrate the how flawed her plan is, read Economist Frédéric Bastiat’s essay titled What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (published July, 1850). In his essay, Bastiat includes a short parable about a young boy who breaks a window. It is uncanny how this parable from 1850 describes the fatal flaw in Stabenow’s economic central planning today.
Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs’ worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.
And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
Stabenow’s plan, if implemented, will divert hundreds of billions of dollars (through taxation, regulation and inflationary monetary practices) from endeavors that will add value and grow the economy to the flawed and absurd idea of duplicating and replacing existing automotive infrastructure- including simple and effective things like gas stations.
Much like replacing a broken window.
Finally, there is one last huge flaw in Stabenow’s central plan. It doesn’t doesn’t violate the fundamentals of economics. It violates the fundamentals geology:
Finally Stabenow’s plan will spur the domestic supply of lithium, the basic raw material used in advanced battery production,
Apparently, someone forgot to look at the USGS report on Lithium:
click for larger version
The United States has almost no Lithium reserves to speak of. How, exactly, is she planning to increase Lithium production in the United States?
With thinking like this, do we really want to trust Debbie Stabenow (Democrat-MI) with our economy?
The designers of electric passenger carrying vehicles have made great advances in the past few years, and these machines have retained all their early popularity and are steadily growing in favor with both men and women. They are very handy for use in the cities, and numbers of the best known and most prominent makers of gasoline cars in this country use electric cars for driving between their homes and their offices.
Today’s Detroit Free Press has a fawning article about Democrat Senator Carl Levin (one half of Michigan’s liberal ‘dynamic duo’ in the Senate) and his love for his Chevy volt. The article is really and truly nauseating. Here is a sample.
But its electric power was the reason he bought it.
“It’s much cheaper to run it on electricity. And cleaner, of course. So I bought it to get those savings downstream,” he said.
Uhhh, Carl, electric vehicles are essentially coal powered vehicles. The electricity doesn’t magically appear in your wall outlet and it didn’t come from a windmill or solar panel.
The article continues with its sickly sweet prattle.
“This has a terrific pickup,” Levin grinned. “Watch this.”
The Volt shot forward, pushing passengers against the seat backs.
No one is going to confuse a Chevy Volt for a Dodge Challenger or a Ford Mustang.
Then the article get’s to its supposed point about the lack of charging stations for EV’s. Senator Levin want’s to set the example about charging stations and EV’s.
“It’s kind of a chicken and egg problem, I think,” he told the Free Press. “But as the number of cars increases, I think you’re going to get more companies to install charging stations.”
Levin said he figured it would be easy enough to charge the car at the Senate office building. Set up a plug and a charger in the garage. Pay all the expenses, so no taxpayer money is used.
Let’s get this straight. Carl Levin, the Senator who voted in favor of the $800 billion flop of a stimulus bill AND voted in favor of the largest government entitlement program known to man – ObamaCare, is now concerned about spending tax payer money.
Unbelievable.
I think most Americas would gladly foot the bill for an EV changing station at the capital in exchange for the repeal of ObamaCare.
click for larger view
This is really a big deal… And it was invented in Detroit.
A Detroit entrepreneur surprised university engineers here recently, when he invented a heat-treatment that makes steel 7 percent stronger than any steel on record – in less than 10 seconds.
In fact, the steel, now trademarked as Flash Bainite, has tested stronger and more shock-absorbing than the most common titanium alloys used by industry.
The Flash Bainite process is a new way to heat treat steel in 10 seconds rather than in hours (or days) like current processes.
“Steel is what we would call a ‘mature technology.’ We’d like to think we know most everything about it,” he said. “If someone invented a way to strengthen the strongest steels even a few percent, that would be a big deal. But 7 percent? That’s huge.”
Yet, when inventor Gary Cola initially approached him, Babu didn’t know what to think.
“The process that Gary described – it shouldn’t have worked,” he said. “I didn’t believe him. So he took my students and me to Detroit.”
Cola showed them his proprietary lab setup at SFP Works, LLC., where rollers carried steel sheets through flames as hot as 1100 degrees Celsius and then into a cooling liquid bath.
Though the typical temperature and length of time for hardening varies by industry, most steels are heat-treated at around 900 degrees Celsius for a few hours. Others are heated at similar temperatures for days.
Cola’s entire process took less than 10 seconds.
He claimed that the resulting steel was 7 percent stronger than martensitic advanced high-strength steel. [Martensitic steel is so named because the internal microstructure is entirely composed of a crystal form called martensite.] Cola further claimed that his steel could be drawn – that is, thinned and lengthened – 30 percent more than martensitic steels without losing its enhanced strength.
If that were true, then Cola’s steel could enable carmakers to build frames that are up to 30 percent thinner and lighter without compromising safety. Or, it could reinforce an armored vehicle without weighing it down.
“We asked for a few samples to test, and it turned out that everything he said was true,” said Ohio State graduate student Tapasvi Lolla. “Then it was up to us to understand what was happening.”
Cola is a self-taught metallurgist, and he wanted help from Babu and his team to reveal the physics behind the process – to understand it in detail so that he could find ways to adapt it and even improve it.
This is the type of business that will create a large footprint of economic activity and many spin-offs. I would hope the political leadership in Michigan, who are endlessly prattling on about creating jobs, would clear the decks, remove all regulatory barriers and get Gary Cola processing steel in Michigan.
Today, the EPA, DOT and NHTSA jointly rolled out the ‘new and improved’ fuel economy labels to much contrived fanfare:
These improvements will give consumers better, more complete information to consider when purchasing new vehicles that are covered by the increased fuel economy standards. Starting with model year 2013, the improved fuel economy labels will be required to be affixed to all new passenger cars and trucks – both conventional gasoline powered and “next generation” cars, such as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
Upon taking office, President Obama directed DOT and EPA to prioritize the development of new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards, resulting in the historic standards that will be represented by these new labels. This is the latest step in EPA’s and DOT’s joint efforts to improve the fuel economy and environmental performance of vehicles and to provide consumers with useful information to inform their purchasing decisions
I don’t know what us poor, confused consumers did before we had the new and improved fuel economy labels ‘to help us make better decisions‘ when purchasing a new vehicle (as if we are children who need guidance).
Who knew a Smart Car is more fuel efficient than a Mustang GT?
If you read the Freakonomics Blog, you would read this about Electric Vehicles today:
Electric cars are all the rage today, but some of the smartest people I know believe that moving towards electric vehicles is a terrible idea.
It’s like the Freakonomic guys have been reading motorcitytimes.com since its inception.
The blog post continues pointing out (eerily mirroring motorcitytimes.com)out the flawed economics of Electric vehicles:
Looking casually as an outsider at the unappealing economics of electric vehicles (the need for a new and immensely expensive infrastructure, cars that cost much more than either traditional gas engines or hybrids, limited ranges and long recharging times), I find it hard to understand why the Obama administration is pushing electric cars
Then the Freakonomics post moves on to a discussion of another MCT mainstay, rare earth materials:
Be careful what you wish for, however, because if electric cars become a mainstay, we may be trading one dependence for another that is even more troubling. Ninety-five percent of the world’s output of rare-earth metals today comes from one country: China. By some estimates, demand will outstrip supply within five years.
This sounds remarkably like a MCT post titled No Free Lunches: Trade Expensive Imported Foreign Oil For Expensive Imported Foreign Lithium (June 8th, 2010):
If goal is to move to large scale electric vehicle production. the next problem is where are we going to get the lithium needed to construct the batteries? The United States has only a very small reserve of lithium. The majority (by some estimates over half) the worlds lithium resides in Bolivia. So, rather than import expensive and dangerous foreign oil from places like Canada and Mexico we will end up importing expensive and dangerous foreign lithium from places like Bolivia.
Even the supply chain to construct these electric cars are going to require lots of petroleum. Are we going to use sail powered vessels to ship the lithium from Bolivia? Of course not. The entire supply chain, including shipping, will require petroleum.
It’s good to see that people are starting to catch on that the electric vehicle is not going to live up to the liberal / environmentalists hype.
Here are a few posts @MCT concerning electric vehicles / rare earth materials and green energy for your perusal:
More On Rare Earth Materials: China Is Reducing Exports By 10% In 2011
Rare Earth Materials And The Incompetence Of Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Electric Vehicles: Hyped For One Hundred Years
Obama’s Volt 281… 2011 Dodge Charger 3,263
Obma’s SOTU And His Flawed Green Energy Economics
Pravda: Energy is the keystone to any and every economy
493 Chevy Volts sold in the month of April… I’m so glad the State of Michigan, under the ‘stellar’ leadership of Democrat Jennifer Granholm, decided that Michigan is going to focus on the lithium-ion advanced battery for electric cars.
While sales of the Volt and Nissan Leaf (a whopping 573 sold this April) continue to flounder, the unabashed Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV sold 9802 units for the month of April.
If you roll back the clock to August 2008 and liberals we using $4.00 /gal. gas prices as short hand for really expensive:
House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, noted that the House package evolved from hours of talks among all stakeholders, but now he feels as if he’s starting from scratch in talks with Senate leadership — including listening to a demand for a huge unspecified tax cut.
“What they are ignoring is the cost of doing nothing,” Dillon said, adding that Michiganders have become more attentive to the state energy debate as gasoline costs have risen. “If we don’t plan, we’ll be at $4-a-gallon electricity.“
Of course, Democrat Dillon was pushing for legislation mandating the fallacy of green energy, but you get the point.
Fast forward to today, and we get a smug column from Tom Walsh @ the very liberal Detroit Free Press telling us that, hey, don’t panic when gas is above $4.00 / gal.
But me? Personally, I’m opting for the no-panic button. Three reasons:
1.) Oil prices are peaking now and will head back down soon. Happens every time after a big price spike.
2.) I bought a hybrid.
3.) Don’t obsess over stuff you can’t control or predict.
Mark Perry, economics professor at University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says the U.S. Energy Department projects that gas prices will level off and fall to $3.60 by the end of 2012.
According to Tom Walsh, don’t sweat it guys, there is nothing us little people can do about gas prices so suck it up. Besides, according to Obama we will be Brazil’s best customer when it comes the purchase of oil.
Mr. Walsh continues his column pointing out he is greener than thou because he purchased a hybrid. And due to his superior vehicle purchase he is more insulated to fuel price swings than the average person:
Of course, we did pay a premium for the hybrid version — but even if the total operating cost comparison was a wash, I’d rather pay more money to Ford and its U.S. workers than pay it to Saudi sheikhs for extra fuel.
Ohhh the ‘dangerous’ foreign oil argument. I’m pretty sure there are few oil rich Saudi sheikhs running around Canada and Mexico. You know, where we in the United States get the majority of our foreign oil.
When you think about it, there are major oil drilling going on just across our northern and southern borders and we are putting the breaks on developing our own real energy resources.
| Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Feb-11 | Jan-11 | YTD 2011 | Feb-10 | YTD 2010 |
|
|
|||||
| CANADA | 2,193 | 2,149 | 2,170 | 1,897 | 1,889 |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 1,114 | 1,099 | 1,106 | 881 | 922 |
| MEXICO | 998 | 1,216 | 1,112 | 996 | 1,015 |
| NIGERIA | 948 | 968 | 958 | 896 | 948 |
| VENEZUELA | 878 | 951 | 916 | 913 | 868 |
| ANGOLA | 357 | 294 | 323 | 312 | 289 |
| IRAQ | 263 | 470 | 372 | 540 | 522 |
| ECUADOR | 242 | 178 | 209 | 145 | 182 |
| BRAZIL | 175 | 259 | 219 | 192 | 233 |
| COLOMBIA | 175 | 303 | 242 | 371 | 330 |
| ALGERIA | 138 | 378 | 264 | 282 | 306 |
| KUWAIT | 118 | 147 | 133 | 228 | 143 |
| RUSSIA | 97 | 105 | 101 | 214 | 174 |
| EQUATORIAL GUINEA | 52 | 32 | 41 | 0 | 28 |
| CHAD | 51 | 55 | 53 | 0 | 24 |
click for larger image
David Shepardson of The Detroit News writes, “The company hopes to regain the luster of the iconic Beetle brand that remains one of the best known auto brands by appealing to more men—as the original version did” by “aiming to shed the ‘chick car’ label.” Shepardson goes on to quote VW design brand chief Klaus Bischoff, who says, “The Beetle is now characterized by a clean, self-confident and dominant sportiness,” adding that VW “wanted the vehicle to be more sporty, dynamic and masculine.” We’d say he more than achieved that. Kudos, Klaus!
click for larger version
click for larger version
click for larger version
I like the new look of this Beetle, and agree it is a lot less a ‘chick’ car that the previous model.