Reuse or Recycle?

From the list that I read of the top 10 traded in models, six were Ford Explorers, and 2 were Jeep Cherokees. I don't remember the other 2. At least 1 model of the Cherokee would lend itself to being a good utilitarian vehicle, but any Explorer model I'm familiar with is a luxury boat, best used as parts to refurbish pickup trucks.

Unless these vehicles were all traded in for enclosed mopeds that get 350 MPG or better, the total energy "savings" would be a net loss, just like the alleged zero emissions electrics of the past (I'm unsure of the emissions footprint of lithium-ion) where the emissions of producing and recycling the batteries exceeded the emissions of its gasoline powered counterpart over the life of the electric. When you consider that the gasoline powered vehicle has a life expectancy of at least twice, up to five times that of the electric, then the comparison becomes even worse.

The best use would be to repurpose the vehicles into a less-driven-over-a-given-time senario or recycle the parts into other applications rather than destroy them. Even as recyled material, it is a net emissions loss unless replaced by something that no one wants. (solar powered unicycle)

Vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from the clunkers program as they can be considered "classics". Cars that qualify for the program, have their engines permanently disabled. The re-cycler can salvage parts from the car before sending it to the crusher.

Cash for clunkers is just a political exercise in pandering to the greeny gronks.

What it has done is set a perceived minimum price on all used cars whether they be clunkers or not. Against which the normal horsetrading on a new car is skewed. It has added false value to many used cars which would have been given up for scrap anyway.

Its a bad deal all round except for the chosen few who will make (not actually earn) a small fortune.

Fortunately in Australia it hasn't happened yet, our car market is too small to support it, our economy is still tanking, such that getting finance for a new car is not an option for most people so there would be no benefit in getting credit for a clunker.

Used car dealers would be smiling though because they would potentially treble their profits overnight.

Australia has a roadworthy inspection scheme in place for re registering cars, it makes keeping a bad car on the road very expensive if not almost impossible.

There are many businesses that are geared to recycling cars and trucks which would no longer be viable if all the "clunkers" were scrapped, Many repair workshops would find the lack of trade onerous.

From an financial point of view it makes little sense unless you are a socialist which case nothing has to make sense.

From an true environmental standpoint it is a falsehood perpetrated on the gullible like so much other propaganda e.g. "Global Waming"

There are much better ways to improve the environment, without the cost to the global economy and welfare of the global community.

So which fuel efficient components on those clunkers were you planning on reusing or recycling, The 4 wd powertrains on priuses? Those huge 18" wheels on ford focuses?

Oh, the power windows and seats? Maybe the mirros and visors? No, Too bad.

The real question is since we can't recycle any part of them, there is no incentive to strip them, so the copper and such is likely to contaminate the scrap as shredded, making higher residual scrap. Why pay a dismantler to strip parts he cant sell? Reduce cost per car handled, just grind'er up virgil.

Yay Team.

Its pretty clear, the point was to distort the market to remove an alternative (used cars) so that people had to buy a new car, thus forcing a cash transaction to the current administrations favorite welfare recipients, the UAW and Lawyers helping the "bankrupt thinking companies" formerly known as GM and Chrysler.

The last thing I expect out of government "environmentalists" is reuse or recycle.

Thats just not how they think. They think "Didneyscience."

The shame is they are neither engineers, nor car guys nor marketers.

Just Bludge Bureaucrats.

milo

Who cares about the fuel efficiency? Around here pickup trucks are quite popular and they are used as trucks; in fact, usually overused and hence the need for parts. And since this is not the most affluent of areas, and we don't spend money unless we must, we prefer to repair rather than replace.

All this as you stated, is out the window in another foolish attempt to manipulate the market to achieve a desired end by people who have no idea what they are really doing.

If intelligence is the ability to learn, then why do the "Best and Brightest" not learn from history that this doesn't work?

why do the "Best and Brightest" not learn from history that this doesn't work?

Because there is no cash flow for them to purloin handle if they do nothing?

milo

Actually this particular program really pissed me off since both beat up worn out cars my wife and I have, at least get 23 or so miles per gallon.

Since I am looking for a job, and or trying to create one, it would be pretty stupid for me to take on car payments.

The requirement that I buy more insurance if I get a new car inhibits me as well. We live in a nation that requires you to have insurance on your car, but not on your life.

Of course 4 grand spent with my loyal and helpful, and competent mechanic would put my cars in tip top shape.

4 grand at the dentist would be good too.

It sure doesn't appear to me that this program really addressed much of the foundational problems since as far as foreign oil and gasoline usage which weakens our economic position internationally simply due to dollars going out of the nation, and not coming back.

These cars are still burning gasoline, not CNG, or some other fuel that we actually have here, at least in amounts sufficient to compete, and possibly help at least keep gasoline prices lower.

From a Technocratic view point it is likely that by recycling steel, the program will turn out as a net loss.

(-I'd have to know how many cars you can now make from one melted down Ford Explorer, and whether or not that is really the program.)

Steel is great stuff, but if we are really turning to fuel efficient vehicles, you've got to wonder if it is the best stuff to keep building cars out of at all.

When I go out to the airport these days seems like these new Cirrius made of composites mark a path.

What is a Volt made of anyway? I am curious as to whether or not a Volt will meet the Taxi fleet Challenge, for I am convinced that if a car won't make a good taxi, it is not a good car.

(I did have the opportunity drive a Checker Marathon enough to think it was a great vehicle. The Chevy Impala of decades ago met the Taxi challenge as well.)

My study of cars and trucks and fuel does lead me to believe from a Technocratic viewpoint that the money would have better been spent on the Electric Grid, and or used in someway to advance alternate fuel use, such as NG, CNG, or Propane.

From the viewpoint of Politicians, it is the sort of thing they apparently can accomplish without much thought at all.

Years ago I started advising whatever youths crossed my path that in my lifetime I had seen things change so that there simply was less margin for error than was allowable when I was their age.

(This certainly was not universal, for it has never been that the poor or working classes could afford many errors. However it does seem to me that in the US there was a time when more of us could fool around more often here and there, and get away with it.)

But the point is that there is an awful lot of just blundering around as if everyday is the first day on the job, and nowhere has anybody got a plan based on any reality.

Psychologically for manipulating the mood of the citizens who seem over and over to have the herd or lemming mentality, you can see cynically every justification for Politicians to give my money away for others to buy cars with, instead of giving me money to give my mechanic to keep my sensible car running.

Overall it is galling, and I am extremely dubious that there is any real benefit that will be equitably shared. P.S. Why would we want to sell our older or inefficient cars to developing nations, since we want to sell them new cars we make?

I wrote this some time ago. what it was ment for is to help the auto motive industry , the people, and the enviroment . The bailout for the automotive industry was in the trillions. This was substantially less. It hopefully will make our highways a safer place as well as clean up the envroment if utilized properly. Look p free press release . com restructure automakers. Sincerely John.