President Hillary has our energy policy solved:
US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on Tuesday endorsed a return to the 55 MPH maximum speed limit for "most" of the country during a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Senator Clinton, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, responded to a question about whether she supported the Carter administration’s national maximum speed limit.
"The 55 mile speed limit really does lower gas usage, and wherever it can be required and that people will accept it, we ought to do it," Clinton said.
Elsewhere on the "everything old is new again" front, Jimmy Carter agrees with President Bush’s immigration plans. If that doesn’t kill them, nothing will.
Opening Arguments 
May 30, 2006 at 8:06 am
US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is not an engineer and I doubt she has any real knowledge of energy or how energy is converted. It is people like her in congress that debate energy bills, pass legislation on energy and we still are no closer to being energy independent than in 1973.
My car has one of those nifty instant and average gas consumption displays. I can tell you that my best gas mileage is at 67 mph. It is not 55 mph. My gas mileage improves dramatically from 22 mpg at under 45 mph to over 33 mpg at 67 mph.
Cars are designed to run on the highway. Engineers optimize the design of an engine, tire, transmission, coolant and more so that it runs efficiently. The real question is what should be the design criteria, city or high way driving?
Lower speed limits may just make driving to that destination in the time you have impossible or not worth it, thereby eliminating the trip all together. Was gas saved, yes, but not because of better gas mileage by driving slower? You could reduce gas consumption even more by lowering the speed limit to 10 mph.
If we want to be energy independent, then we need to look at where the oil is consumed. 45% is used for making gas. This means 55% is consumed elsewhere. Is this bunker oil for ships? Is this oil used in heating homes? Is it used in power plants? If it is oil used in heating homes, convert these homes to electricity and use windmills to produce the electricity. If the oil is used in power plants to produce electricity, replace these power plants with windmills. In both cases you decrease oil consumption far more than by driving slower.
Denmark produces 80% of their electricity using windmills. Windmills are now very cost competitive. Unlike nuclear, there is no waste disposal problem. They are reliable, clean, efficient and can produce electricity at 3.8 cents per Kwh. That is about as cheap as you can get.
May 30, 2006 at 9:42 am
I’m all for using BOTH solar and wind to supplement EACH OTHER for usage in our power plants, though….that makes great sense, and is LONG overdue.
The best (or worst) ways to increase (personal) gasoline usage is to:
1) Make every stinking vehicle that has 4 wheels with AT LEAST 300 BHP
2) RAISE the speed limit (so people can USE those ponies)
3) keep the tires underinflated
4) never get a tuneup or oil change
5) make sure the curb weight of a vehicle is at least 3800 lbs!
Personally…I could care LESS whether or not my car can go “from 0-60 in 4.6 seconds”, like the ads blurt out. My car gets there in TEN seconds. My thought is at least I KNOW I’ll GET to 60 MPH….maybe take a tad longer…no biggie.
When you do the math, you can’t really argue with that logic.
The *optimum* speed for any vehicle is usually high gear (anything over about 40MPH) with a notable dropoff in mileage after 70MPH (it becomes a aero-drag issue then). And this can be based on any engine with 80-170 BHP, be it 4, 6, or 8 cylinder.
You can use more gas getting to high gear than rolling along at 80…that’s why all that CITY *stop & go* driving bites us in the you-know-what.
Since we all like creature comforts, we’re sure not going to give up the 4 or 5 speed “slushbox” for a MANUAL transmission, are we? Not to mention that people are BUSY ENOUGH…let’s not burden them with something ELSE to do aside from cellphone usage, eating, drinking, screaming, and makeup application. Heaven forbid!
But I’m liking this “alternative” idea more and more…instead of letting my 1983 Firebird get about 25-27 MPG (using gasoline)…..it *might* be more advantageous to snag a page from HOLLAND…rig me up a jib and spanker, slap it into NEUTRAL, and tack my way down the byways of America…
Talk about a HYBRID vehicle.
(that should get me the “right of way” a lot too, since SAILING craft have precedence over POWER craft…..all I have to do is change my RIGHT side running lights from RED & AMBER to GREEN)
…Energy Crisis SOLVED…LOL!
😉
B.G.
May 30, 2006 at 10:32 am
I do agree that wind commercial wind power is the answer to a lot of the energy problems we face today, but the first thing that would have to change is the NIMBY attitudes of most people in this country.
May 30, 2006 at 2:11 pm
You know, I was a littled worried about Hillary actually becoming President, but I can see now more than ever she’ll derail her own train long before the election. Temporary knee-jerk reactions and band-aids for political gain…..please….
And as for Jimmy Carter, the odds are pretty good he’s thinking George Sr. is still in office, because I don’t think the blood has been getting to his brain for years. Probably a freak claw hammer accident while “habitating humanity”.
May 30, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Wind energy is a nice supplement and should be utilized more. However, due to the intermittent nature of winds we could only supply 10-20% of our national grid w/ wind energy in a cost-effective manner. This would still be a huge increase over the
May 30, 2006 at 6:20 pm
William- Interestingly, I visit my wife’s relatives in Denmark in 2003, and one of them happens to be a sales rep for a company that manufactures and sells parts for those windmills. He admitted to me that the windmills have been a horrible investment for the country finacially, but very very good for him personally. Mainly, as he put it to me, it is estimated that it will take several decades of use for the windmill to recoup the cost of the windmill… but they make the people feel good to see them. They are a positive boon environmentally, so if you don’t mind the cost, that’s where the benefit does lie.
A carbon tax would begin to make the windmills more competitive, but the people as a whole would be bearing the cost. It’s worth having the debate.
May 30, 2006 at 6:23 pm
On the windmills- I should add, the one thing that makes this relative’s business so good is that the windmills are *not* reliable. He sells replacement parts. Indeed, when I was driving through Denmark (Copenhagen, Arhus, Skagen, and points between) we tended to see about half of the windmills completely stationary. Many were missing blades. I hadn’t noticed it until this relative pointed it out.