Raising The Gas Tax: Auto Execs Push An Unpopular Solution

The Car Connection™ ^ | November 4th, 2009 | By Bengt Halvorson

[Son House]

We’ve been here before. The government mandates more fuel-efficient vehicles across the board, yet the American public continues to gravitate toward what’s big and powerful.

Barring this era of greater responsibility and restraint, which might pass like a fleeting fancy with the recession, why not pick the bigger or more powerful car, we say?

A lot of things are different this time around, though. Perhaps most remarkably, quite a few executives of automakers and major auto-supplier companies are voicing out in favor of higher fuel taxes—of more rigorous regulation of what types of vehicles can be built and sold—as a way of reducing our consumption.

At the Reuters Auto Summit in Detroit, executives said that $4-a-gallon gas would have more of an affect on national fuel usage than the $25 billion Energy Department loan program approved by Congress earlier this year.

"We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms," said Dura Automotive CEO Tim Leuliette, according to Reuters. Leuliette called the U.S. auto market “an artificial environment.”

Executives are suggesting a gradually rising fuel tax—more specifically, one that’s ‘floating,’ meaning that it would help moderate sharp price swings brought about by refinery issues, or politics.

Naysayers will likely insist that this will destroy the American lifestyle, but at the same time the American lifestyle often involves ridiculously long, time-consuming commutes that might be financially impractical nearly anywhere else in the world.

Clearly in brainstorm mode, the execs included some ideas clearly not quite ready for public consumption. Jerry York, the longtime advisor to billionaire auto-industry investor Kirk Kerkorian (and former GM board member), advocated some sort of subsidy system, like food stamps, to help low-income Americans get past the blow of the higher taxes.

Without it, the tougher fuel economy regulations—ramping up to a federally mandated 35.5-mpg fleet average by 2016—are going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Among the most fuel-efficient models for 2010, the Toyota Prius still reigns king, at 50 mpg (51/48 mpg city/highway); only the 2010 Honda Insight and Civic Hybrid manage to pass 40 mpg with their EPA Combined numbers. And that's hardly enough to displace the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of much lower-mileage trucks and performance vehicles that the public will still crave.

There’s already evidence that the restraint is fleeting, with more shoppers looking back longingly to larger and less-efficient vehicles. Will shoppers want to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles—like GM’s upcoming Chevy Volt—in large enough numbers to make a difference and offset the continued production of large trucks? Perhaps only if gas prices are higher.

Of course, the executives and investors are looking for profitability, not popularity, and a way to limit future regulation on products. And there is one little obstacle: getting the American public to think that this is a good idea. Until then, it’s political suicide.

[Son House]

continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms

You'd think they'd want to fight the gas tax and tougher fuel economy regulations to sell more auto's.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

So is this an issue of freedom or an issue of national security?

Frankly, either taxes or supply and demand will get us to $8 a gallon anyway. It is heading there one way or another. The question is whether the dollars flow to the US treasury or the Saudis, Iranians and Russians.

If the tax is revenue neutral I am generally fine with it because it would allow the American auto industry to be competitive and make some serious steps toward reducing American dependence on foreign oil. But, businesses and individuals who drive for a living can’t have an additional burden. Coupled with a plan to open restricted areas to drilling might be a good quid pro quo.

The real problem is that it is darn hard to trust politicians to make anything revenue neutral.

[Son House]

Same CEO in this article;

Auto supplier consolidation seen in 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/Autos09/idUSTRE5A15PY20091104

Dura Automotive Systems Inc Chief Executive Tim Leuliette said liquidations are happening, but quietly. About 200 U.S. suppliers are going through quiet liquidation processes in which they are slowly selling assets to other suppliers or private equity companies, Leuliette said.

“We are seeing this more quiet, more cost-effective transition than a bankruptcy proceeding,” he said, adding that falling valuations will drive more consolidation next year.

^
handing the future of the auto industry to business-auto-hating Democrats, Jobs Jobs Jobs(of course just read my tagline);

[sionnsar]

As I heard in a meeting last week: "Energy is too cheap."

Draw your own conclusions.

[Landru]

"Executives are suggesting a gradually rising fuel tax—more specifically, one that’s ‘floating,’ meaning that it would help moderate sharp price swings brought about by refinery issues, or politics."

Of course reigning in the damned speculators is the last thing the brain-stem/PT genius would think of for containing "sharp price swings" brought about by yadayadayada. Good grief. We're sincerely doomed. LOL

"Barring this era of greater responsibility and restraint, which might pass like a fleeting fancy with the recession, why not pick the bigger or more powerful car, we say?"

I wholeheartedly agree. LOL

[Eska]

Here in rural Ak, we are paying 5 bucks a gal for fuel that is refined in Fairbanks outta oil from the slope. People are upset enough thinking about higher taxes; they might just push them off the edge; and maybe that’s what need to occur.

[Carry_Okie]

If the tax is revenue neutral I am generally fine with it because it would allow the American auto industry to be competitive and make some serious steps toward reducing American dependence on foreign oil.

A fixed energy pie; how typical. With your plan, people won't be able to afford their suburban homes, so I take it you're just aching to see a complete collapse of what's left of our banking system eh?

[Always Independent]

This is a joke. High fuel prices and lack of innovation is what put the domestics in this position. If they succeed in getting the congress to do this, I’ll build my own vehicle before I buy one of theirs!

[Landru]

"Here in rural Ak, we are paying 5 bucks a gal for fuel that is refined in Fairbanks outta oil from the slope."

I know of which you speak, well.
Used to live in Fairbanks during the time the Alyeska Pipeline was being built. The refinery was called something like Tobuck-Tesoro or something along those lines back then. Not far from North Pole, IIRC?

"People are upset enough thinking about higher taxes..."

Interesting to hear that's the case, my friend. One would've thought the situation just the opposite whatwith the crude & refining so local.

When I lived up there (in WI now, FWIW) the state sent royalty checks to the indigenous peoples.
My how things have changed, or should I say degraded. It's what happens when corruption eats away so much fat & muscle it begins to devour itself, I 'spose.

"...they might just push them off the edge; and maybe that’s what need to occur."

Maybe it is. What's the old saying? "Every now and then one must hoist the flag & slit a few throats." or some such? Sorry to hear even those living so far away from the madness are touched. A damned shame. ;^)

[whershey]

It’s more than darn hards. It’s next to impossible.

[johniegrad]

So is this an issue of freedom or an issue of national security?

Without freedom, who cares about national security?

Goverment rewards auto makers and unions for producing smaller cars and, then, when no one wants them, government rewards auto makers and unions with higher gas taxes to make people buy the smaller cars they rewarded them for in the first place.

Stay the hell out of the markets in the first place.

[iopscusa]

Try this for once since taxes are so EU and yesterday. Kill the EPA, DOE and 90% of the Bureaucrats, no bailouts nor subsidies to Corporations, No support of Gasohol, build Nuclear PPs and DRILL everywhere for Oil&GAS. NO MORE TAXES!

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

Raise taxes so gas reaches $8 a gallon, while providing some sort of subsidy system, like food stamps, to help low-income Americans pay for their fuel.

Uh, isn't that called "redistribution of wealth"?

[saganite]

Nope. The govt owned auto industry is fully onboard with the govt plan. The time when the customer was king is dead. Get used to it. It’s not what you want, it’s what’s good for you. And you don’t get to decide what’s good for you.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

So is this an issue of freedom or an issue of national security?

Frankly, either taxes or supply and demand will get us to $8 a gallon anyway. It is heading there one way or another. The question is whether the dollars flow to the US treasury or the Saudis, Iranians and Russians.

How about we try something really unique?

WHY NOT (CONSIDERING WE ARE SITTING ON THE WORLD'S LARGEST RECOVERABLE RESERVES OF OIL AND GAS) drill and use our own oil which would decrease the flow of our dollars (IT'S NOT THE TREASURY'S) to the Saudis, Iranians, Russians and Hugo Chavez among others and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower the price of EVERYTHING, increase revenue and anyway you look at it, be beneficial???

Lay off the OWLGORE Kool Aid!!!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

How does what I wrote translate into a “fixed energy pie”?

I also don’t quite get your logic on not being able to afford their homes? I think you are making leaps that are quite extraordinary.

The simple math that a car that gets 50mpg @ $4 a gallon costs the same to drive as a car that gets 25mpg @ 2$ a gallon is pretty simple. So don’t start packing yet.

PS Nice to see you around.

[Wonder Warthog]

How about a list of these “auto executives” companies, so I’ll know whose brands NOT to buy?? The article only mentions “Dura Automotive”.

[The Wizard]

and $4/gal will also get us so pissed of that 9-12 will look like a minor get together.

[Caipirabob]

"We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms," said Dura Automotive CEO Tim Leuliette, according to Reuters. Leuliette called the U.S. auto market “an artificial environment.”

Do any of these morons even give a d@mn what this would do to food prices, families and business in general? It would crush our economy and bring this nation to it's knees.

The only conclusion that I can reach is that this is exactly what they want.

That makes you a threat to our very lives, you bastard, Leuliette.

[exit82]

"We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms," said Dura Automotive CEO Tim Leuliette, according to Reuters. Leuliette called the U.S. auto market “an artificial environment.”

Just outed himself as an enemy of free men and women in the USA.

When Sarah becomes President, gas will be down to about $ 1.10/gal.

And it will be OUR oil we'll be using.

The Arabs better remember how to eat sand.

[exit82]

"We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms," said Dura Automotive CEO Tim Leuliette, according to Reuters. Leuliette called the U.S. auto market “an artificial environment.”

Just outed himself as an enemy of free men and women in the USA.

When Sarah becomes President, gas will be down to about $ 1.10/gal.

And it will be OUR oil we'll be using.

The Arabs better remember how to eat sand.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

Do any of these morons even give a d@mn what this would do to food prices, families and business in general? It would crush our economy and bring this nation to it's knees.

John Galt from Atlas Shrugged: "You have destroyed all that you held to be evil and achieved all that you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you. The world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it and you have wished it. And I, I am the man who has granted you your wish."

Page 924

----------------

"We granted you everything you have demanded of us, we who have always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you."

Page 925

[Carry_Okie]

I also don’t quite get your logic on not being able to afford their homes? I think you are making leaps that are quite extraordinary.

You just had a huge example of what I'm talking about and diddn't see it. A very large fraction of people in this country are financially over-extended; they live from paycheck to paycheck. Raise the demand for cash on them and they can't pay their bills. Driving to work is (for them) a non-discretionary expense. Triple the cost of that and they buy gas before they pay their mortgage because of the reasonable hope that a rapid increase in price represents a transient phenomenon.

That's how Soros pulled the trigger on the current financial crisis; he hired Enron traders, hauled them to London, and spiked the price of gas and the mortgage markets crashed just before the election. Right on cue. People spending three hours a day in a car to get a paycheck to buy a house in San Bernardino or Palmdale, CA were the first to fall.

The simple math that a car that gets 50mpg @ $4 a gallon costs the same to drive as a car that gets 25mpg @ 2$ a gallon is pretty simple. So don’t start packing yet.

Did you add the cost of the payments on 25 grand???? They wouldn't get a dime on the car they can't afford now and won't get the loan to buy the new one.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

So you are saying that national security needs to be play a second fiddle to people who bought cars and houses they could not afford on the basis of erroneous assumptions?

The price of oil is going to go up no matter what. Tapping US shale reserves is too expensive to keep the price below $4 a gallon.

People wanted those big cars and trucks. The bought houses far from their workplaces. They were free to buy them, but now they need to live with their decisions.

As I said, the price of oil is going to go up one way or another. The real question is whose treasury fills up with the money.

[TonyRo76]

» Stay the hell out of the markets in the first place.

YES!!! Bears repeating, and amplifying!

[TonyRo76]

I really like your tagline. Sarah ROCKS!!! I can hardly wait for her to be my President.

[kickonly88]

“Without freedom, who cares about national security?”

Exactamundo!!!

[BraveMan]

Here we go . . .

Filling the Bagger will cost $40. Great . . .

[nascarnation]

Uh, isn't that called "redistribution of wealth"?

Baraq's comments to Joe the Plumber said it all.......

[MileHi]

The simple math that a car that gets 50mpg @ $4 a gallon costs the same to drive as a car that gets 25mpg @ 2$ a gallon is pretty simple.

Um, what if I don't WANT a tiny POS transportation module?

[Carry_Okie]

So you are saying that national security needs to be play a second fiddle to people who bought cars and houses they could not afford on the basis of erroneous assumptions?

Obviously not. Nor do I think that you fix an energy problem unbroken since the mid 1960s by making it bigger.

The price of oil is going to go up no matter what. Tapping US shale reserves is too expensive to keep the price below $4 a gallon.

There are better ways of curbing demand than adding taxes. Most people just don't see them because they compartmentalize when they think of energy.

One would be investing in a business that does academic testing analogous to the College Board. Offer the greatest professors in the world online, and test the kids at strip malls. Hose the schools and you save a lot of gas and taxes, also freeing up a fair bit of prime real estate. Those strip malls will have the room if we but can the Post Office, thus creating a daily opportunity for integrated supply delivery enterprises. Shopping takes a lot of gas too. Between those two, my WAG is that we could cut 25% of our fuel demand in two years while simultaneously building a franchise system for export.

They were free to buy them, but now they need to live with their decisions.

The leftist in you is coming out. Unfortunately, given the condition of the economy in this country, it looks to me like their problem is becoming ours. That's just to start.

In my opinion, the real fuel solution for cars is liquefied natural gas running turbine-electric hybrids. A gas turbine is over 90% efficient, so the motor could be tiny. Electronic drives can now handle the transmission problem. We have hundreds of years worth of gas.

As I said, the price of oil is going to go up one way or another. The real question is whose treasury fills up with the money.

That's what guys like you were saying in 1979. The principal reason energy prices are high is because wealthy manipulators game the system with regulations. You're playing their game.

[John O]

So you are saying that national security needs to be play a second fiddle to people who bought cars and houses they could not afford on the basis of erroneous assumptions?

NO. National security plays second fiddle to personal freedom. If we are going to be slaves then it doesn't really matter who we are slaves to. If we are going to be free then this is our country to make secure. Understand?

The price of oil is going to go up no matter what. Tapping US shale reserves is too expensive to keep the price below $4 a gallon.

We've got plenty of oil if we'd just be allowed to drill for it. Technology continues to advance making that oil shale cheaper and cheaper every day. Just use our easy oil until the cost for squeezing the shale oil becomes low enough.

Of course this also means reducing the use of oil for other purposes. Build more nuke power plants and use electric for eevrything we can. Also build more coal fired plants. Todays' coal technology is remarkably clean and we have an almost limitless supply of coal in this country.

People wanted those big cars and trucks.

Your typical eurocar (compact or subcompact equivalent) is useless for a family. Just about anything smaller than a minivan is pretty useless in fact. Then if you live in the country you need a truck of some sort to haul the boat etc.

The bought houses far from their workplaces. They were free to buy them, but now they need to live with their decisions.

1. John Rocker was right. We want to live around folks lik eus. Not with the human refuse that infests most of our cities. 2. Even if we did want to live in the cities the costs of real estate there is prohibitive. Houses in most major cities are too expensive for the average family to afford.

We can't afford to live there and now they are trying to make it unaffordable to get there from where we can live. All a plot to force us into sardine housing where we can be controlled better.

As I said, the price of oil is going to go up one way or another.

Obviously I disagree. Oil prices are high now due to artificial restraints placed on the oil industry by government. We have plenty of the resource to last for years and years and years and years. Some same (Quite credibly I believe) that oil is a renewable resource being constantly remanufactured in the deep hot bioshpere.

The real question is whose treasury fills up with the money.

No. The question is if the dollars are going to stay in our pockets or be used to control us.

If we have no freedom here than it doesn't matter where the money goes to. Why should a slave care who is cracking the whip?

[thackney]

The best efficiency gas turbines (60%) are huge and require secondary steam turbines to reach that point.

The best microturbine hope to achieve 40% efficiency.

Combine that with energy storage necessary to handle acceleration and the energy required to compress the fuel to a volume that can be stored on a car and you may get 20~25% efficiency.

[Carry_Okie]

The best efficiency gas turbines (60%) are huge and require secondary steam turbines to reach that point.

Then on your authority I stand corrected, I was told that by a buddy of mine, an engineer who installs those very turbines.

The best microturbine hope to achieve 40% efficiency.

Beats 20% from a piston engine, especially considering the weight of an engine and transaxle.

Combine that with energy storage necessary to handle acceleration

My understanding is that there are capacitors on the way that can handle that role quite nicely at very little loss.

and the energy required to compress the fuel to a volume that can be stored on a car and you may get 20~25% efficiency

Here you make a mistake. The goal is portable energy storage. Batteries are heavy, require mining, and don't last long. Natural gas is plentiful and the technology for large scale liquefaction and delivery exists, albeit the infrastructure would have to be rescaled. You haven't thrown in refining costs for petroleum and transportation costs for liquid gasoline on the other side. Then there is the military subsidy to guarantee delivery. That ain't cheap either.

[Landru]

"Here we go...Filling the Bagger will cost $40. Great..."

You saw the set-up straight away too, huh. ;^)

I'm paralyzed by the fear of detergent costs for cleansing bloody underwear stains caused by hemorrhoids these leeches will leave me in their wake. LOL

[devistate one four]

Bastirds! They take our mnoney and want us to pay more at the tank to try and help them sell cars!

Pound sand a$$holes.

[Mariner]

Personally, I believe it's OK to tax energy.

However, these commie bastards are going about it all wrong.

We should tax ONLY imported crude...at $40/bbl...and imported refinery products at $1.50/gal...above and beyond existing fed, state, local excise taxes.

We should use of that money to guarantee the price of diesel which has been converted from coal at no less than $2.50/gal wholesale (and tax free) to the producer. 20 year contracts...with inflation clauses.

Some of the rest of the revenue could be used for accelerated construction of nuke plants and the upgrade of the electrical grid.

[thackney]

I had a hard time bringing up my links before so I didn’t include them.

I got them now so:

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/h_system/index.htm

http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/microturbines/

Gasoline engine efficiencies are closer to 37% average. It is the rest of the car, starting, stopping and idling that brings the system so low.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

I am not including those exploration and production cost in natural gas either. The compression I referenced was just to load the car. If LNG is used even more losses are needed to refrigerate to. To -260 degrees F and more energy wasted to keep it cold.

To reach those turbine efficiencies you must size the turbine to constant speed full load turning an electric generator. The part of the power is stored to draw more to accelerate when needed.

If you direct couple the turbine and vary the speed and load you get worse efficiencies than the gasoline engine.

[Carry_Okie]

To reach those turbine efficiencies you must size the turbine to constant speed full load turning an electric generator. The part of the power is stored to draw more to accelerate when needed.

Knew that. Capacitive storage is ideal for that problem. As to keeping it cold, that's what vacuum storage is for.

Gasoline engine efficiencies are closer to 37% average.

I've read that it's more like 20%, particularly because of the transmission problem. The high rpms of a turbine make it ideal for a capacitively-coupled DC servo power train.

The biggest beef on turbines seems to be manufacturing costs, which in volume are surmountable. Their multi-fuel adaptability make them attractive for conversion from petroleum to a diverse niche-market fuel delivery infrastructure.

If you direct couple the turbine and vary the speed and load you get worse efficiencies than the gasoline engine.

Nobody in their right mind would do that.

[thackney]

Vacuum storage will not well as you lower the pressure you lower the boiling point.

Power storage capacitors have been claimed to be almost ready for quite a few years. Theory is easier than reality.

I gave the link to document efficiency. It is a government site promoting hybrids and alt fuels; it is not biased to gasoline.

You need to include drive train losses for both systems. Motors have a great efficiency at full load, full speed. But the drive motors have to be sized for maximum load and acceleration. Most of the time they will operate far down on their efficiency curve or you have to include the transmission.

[Carry_Okie]

Vacuum storage will not well as you lower the pressure you lower the boiling point.

Ever heard of a "thermos bottle"? Good grief.

Power storage capacitors have been claimed to be almost ready for quite a few years. Theory is easier than reality.

True, but the lack of demand has inhibited development of scaling infrastructure, something hybrid cars might well change markedly. Considering the improvements in batteries over recent years, I wouldn't be so dismissive.

Motors have a great efficiency at full load, full speed. But the drive motors have to be sized for maximum load and acceleration. Most of the time they will operate far down on their efficiency curve or you have to include the transmission.

Toyota did pretty well with that one, although why they didn't go to diesel with the Prius I don't know. The thing I think they do well that is unrecognized is the way they find means to introduce products to which they can manage a sequence of what would otherwise be daunting stepwise changes. They understand better than most the degree to which manufacturing technology and supply chain infrastructure dictates what they can do. Thus, they foray into areas to develop capabilities with which to expand massively as market conditions or critical technologies change while still retaining product reliability.

[jim35]

“You’d think they’d want to fight the gas tax and tougher fuel economy regulations to sell more auto’s.”

They don’t need to sell no steenkin’ autos, they’re on the government tit now. There’s probably another bail-out in the works right now.

[thackney]

I misunderstood your vacuum intent. You still have the large energy loss to liquefy in the first place. And good insulation is not perfect insulation. LNG will still require refrigeration every time you park your car.

There is no lack of demand for electrical storage. They were talking about the breakthroughs in capacitor design when I was in college 2 decades ago to be a EE in power systems. Efficient energy storage is the Holy Grail for Electric Utilities.

[thackney]

I left off the Toyota-motor efficiency issue.

The Prius minimizes this issue by being a parallel hybrid. The engine provides the power needed directly to accelerate without going through the generator and the motor. This keeps the motor smaller and operating closer to its design efficiency point.

We both agree that the turbine should not be mechanically linked to the drive train so we eliminate Toyota’s design for a turbine.

[Carry_Okie]

You still have the large energy loss to liquefy in the first place.

You have "energy loss" to produce gasoline too and quite a bit more to transport it. Meanwhile, the loss for compressing LNG appears to be economically bearable:

At least their customers apparently think so.

LNG will still require refrigeration every time you park your car.

The loss is minuscule else they wouldn't put it on that tanker. Remember: as the liquid evaporates in storage it consumes considerable heat. Most of the cooling would come from that. There is plenty of waste heat from the turbine to run solid state refrigeration to cool the outside of the bottle. When parked, the boost caps can handle that load.

There is no lack of demand for electrical storage. They were talking about the breakthroughs in capacitor design when I was in college 2 decades ago to be a EE in power systems. Efficient energy storage is the Holy Grail for Electric Utilities.

Maxwell manufactures BOOSTCAP capacitors NOW for use in hybrid-electric buses. It's a matter of time.

We are now using natural gas for generating electricity and RTOs, which is, IMO, a total waste of a potentially portable and domestically available fuel. If we replace electrical generation infrastructure with nukes, as we should, then we can use the existing NG distribution system for automotive purposes. With but a minor change in bogus regulations, existing pipeline capacity may well be sufficient. We have plenty of NG here in the US, which requires far less in the way of military protection to guarantee delivery.

As to whether it would take ages to build nuke plants, not these:

In short, the federal government's regulatory apparatus is the oil industry's best friend. Now, lest you think I haven't got anything to back that up, think again. There's a reason the tax-exempt foundations of the major stockholders of the oil and gas industry give so very much of that lovely money to those icky greens, and it isn't protection money.

[exit82]

I really like your tagline. Sarah ROCKS!!! I can hardly wait for her to be my President.

And your tagline describes me as well as you.

Your homepage,especially the quotes, is a treasure.

[TonyRo76]

Thank you kindly, my FRiend!

[thackney]

Just because a fuel has some uses does not mean it makes sense for personal vehicles.

Nuclear power is a great source of energy but I doubt I'll be using it in my Ford during my lifetime.

Cryogenic temperatures are foolish to plan on ever day common use.

[paul51]

It’s the new capitalism. Don’t produce and sell what the market wants. Force them to buy what the government says they should have (the government being our elected officials and the auto company they now own after buying it with our tax dollars)

[Carry_Okie]

Cryogenic temperatures are foolish to plan on ever day common use.

Did it in the electronics industry every day. Considering how sophisticated are some functions on automobiles, I really don't see that one as insurmountable, even for fueling, and yes, I've designed and built equipment to be maintained by Jamaicans with a high school education.