AUDIO: Women Debate Minivans vs. Smart Cars

Posted by on Oct 15 2012 | energy, Environment, Events, PPC, Regulation

Last week our Energy Policy Center put on the third in a series of women-only energy debates. This one focused on vehicle regulations (like CAFE standards) and was titled, “Minivans vs. Smart Cars.” As always, it was a great output of high powered intellectual forces, with both sides making excellent points and engaging in an entertaining style. If you’re like me and unable to attend these debates because of your testosterone, then don’t worry. Here is the audio file from the debate. ENJOY!

4 comments for now

4 Responses to “AUDIO: Women Debate Minivans vs. Smart Cars”

  1. Richard Chauvinist

    Space? I need space to keep liberals away from me!

    Geesh, now I know why the forefathers did not allow women to vote.

    16 Oct 2012 at 8:58 am

  2. Richard Chauvinist

    Nascar what?

    All things being equal, when you add weight, you decrease fuel economy. A Nascar weighs about the same as a typical midsize sedan such as the Toyota Camry. About 3000 pounds. A Nascar has no sound deadening, 1 seat, no air conditioner, no stereo, NOTHING. Most of the weight is in the roll cage and other safety/strength measures. To hold 800HP, the car has to be rigid. Also, the driver’s helmet and seat contribute greatly to safety however a Nascar driver has incredibly limited vision. A Nascar driver and car could NEVER navigate a standard city.

    Nascar does not measure miles per gallon, they measure gallons per mile!
    More air bags and more electronics equals more weight. More weight equals reduced fuel economy.

    The elephant in the room is air pollution. The EPA tunes every car. The manufacture is along for the ride. The EPA tunes for reduced N02, not fuel mileage. Every technological advance has been consumed by clean air. Modern cars are partial zero emissions.

    Every hot rodder knows how to break into the EPA tuned ECU . We can easily increase fuel mileage by 25%, however the tail pipe will get a little dirty. Dirty is a subjective term and N02 is barely perceptible and a single airplane will create more emissions than 10,00 cars for a given time. Ground level ozone and acid rain control our reality according to the EPA.

    Hybrids move pollution to a windmill plant that dumps toxins during manufacture (heavy metal, toxic resins) or a coal plant.

    The real solution is to live, recreate and consume near where you work. Then you do not need mass transit or personal transportation.

    16 Oct 2012 at 9:56 am

  3. Richard Chauvinist

    The more oil we do not buy, the more oil somebody else will buy. Short term independence, long term decimation.

    It is in our best interest to always consume the cheapest energy source FIRST. This is a basic law of economics.

    16 Oct 2012 at 10:05 am

  4. Richard

    Sorry my 3 post were disorganized and maybe even a wee bit aggressive. That debate had me all frazzled. To recap.

    1.Nasar is a poor comparison because Nascars are all high strength steel and have no amenities. The drivers sit in a special seat, wear a special helmet and have a Hans devise. The cars are traveling in the same direction, there are no head to head accidents. Most of the walls and other barricades are made from special foam to absorb impact. (Safer barriers.)

    2.New autos have massively awesome engine and transmission technologies. The cars are also more aerodynamic however the cars are on average, 500 lbs. heavier than just 10 years ago because they are packed with airbags and electronics. The extra weight zaps fuel economy.

    3.The new cars are plagued with emissions equipment and emissions tuning. This reduces fuel economy. Emission controls are good but the EPA tunes for N02 reduction above all other emissions and considerations. Airplanes contribute more pollution than even ocean cargo ships.

    In summary, the auto market is distorted because of EPA and NHTSA regulations. EPA fuel ratings are often inaccurate and further distort the market. Unions suck up the rest.

    Live, work and recreate in a small area if you really want to be safe, reduce fuel consumption and emission, otherwise pay the price and enjoy life.

    Live and let live.

    19 Oct 2012 at 6:58 am

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Clicky Web Analytics