Si Vis Pacem Parabellum

| Saturday, May 7 2005 |

This calls for a burnout.

... right past the farkin' Times building.

The NY Nitwits.. ur.. Times seems to think the solution to high fuel prices is to lower the national speed limit back to 55mph. You can read the whole contrived mess of morally superior nonsense if you wish, but for those of you who have better things to do, a concise summary: Going 10 miles per hour slower will solve all foreign oil dependance, high gas prices, smelly air, save the cute spotted owls, and so on and so forth. Oh, and, Bush sucks, and Europe rocks, because they have higher taxes.

Given that it's the NY Times, you'd likely expect a load of nonsense based on disinformation and frosted with liberal idiocy, but this one really takes the taco. For example, we're presented with the news that Diesel engines are 60% more efficient than those burning Gasoline. Interesting. While it's true that diesel does have more convertible energy per unit than gas does, the number is closer to 30%, and it has absolutely no bearing on the efficiency of an engine. (The fuel is more efficient at energy conversion, not the engine design) Then there's the conveniently ignored fact that diesel requires about a quarter more oil per gallon to produce than gasoline, which is one of the reasons it stores more potential energy.

Anyway, that (and many other) technical inaccuracies or outright ignorance aside, the jist of the point is that reducing speed limits will have a meaningful effect on fuel costs through reduction of demand. The reality is that, among the 40-odd percent of fuel and oil consumption that is used by individual cars (e.g. not trucks, planes, and power plants), an average reduction in speed by ten miles per hour would equate to roughly 2-5% less fuel used per vehicle per mile, assuming the average car or light truck. Or, in the big picture, a savings of about 450,000 barrels of oil per day, best case. Out of the 9,000,000 barrels used to produce gasoline, or if you prefer, out of the 20,000,000 barrels used in total.

Yup, that's right, we'd reduce total oil consumption by a whopping 1% to 2.25%. Be still my heart.

Of course, that assumes that people actually do the speed limit. Which, as any person who drives to work on one of the zillion interstates and parkways throughout the nation will tell you, typically tend to be a rough guideline to be either somewhat followed or outright laughed at, depending on location and specifics.

That's the point that the author, and unsurprisingly most liberals, simply do not understand. Americans didn't trade in their boring econoboxes for luxury SUVs or the current breed of high performance V8 sports cars because we're "complacent" or "lazy". No, we buy fast cars, drive them fast, and burn lots of gas doing it because we want to, which is the same reason we don't whine about working 60+ hours a week to pay for those cars, and the gas we put in them, and the speeding tickets we rack up driving them 30 over the limit.

How alien this great vast land must seem to the morons locked up in their liberal hives of stupidity.

(Via Ben Kepple)
posted by Mr. Lion @ 23:07 hours | comments (2)

<<More Articles
CopyRight © 2001-2011 All Rights Reserved
Syndicated news: RSS 2.0 - RSS 1.0