Alternative-Fuel Choices To Make Gains in 2015

2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-IIjpg

It looks like 2015 will be a good year to be an alternative-fuel full-size pickup truck and that includes the Ram 2500, GM's 2500 and 3500, and Ford's entire truck lineup. Why, you ask? Because the Obama administration's 2015 budget was just released and the part of the Department of Energy involved with advanced-vehicle and alternative-fuel technologies is budgeted to get 15 percent more money than it did this year.

According to the Next-Gen Transportation News, a business-to-business website that addresses fleet technology and strategy for the transportation sector, the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will be getting $2.3 billion to support alt-fuel and clean transportation solutions for qualifying states and cities. That's very good news for General Motors, as they revealed their most recent bifuel HD truck (the 2015 Chevy Silverado 2500) at the Chicago Auto Show.

Fuels like compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, electric vehicles, hybrids and anything else that can replace those that run on gas, diesel or jet fuel can qualify for funds. And just in case you want to track and follow the other changes in governmental spending, click here to see an overview of the currently proposed 2015 U.S. budget.

 

2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-Tank II

2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-Guages II

2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-Bed II

 

Comments

@BAF0 - It was YOU that brought up "Protectionism", "tariffs" etc. You have zero response because you're obviously spewing nonsense. So of course you now cry "off topic".

Heavy duty pickups, 8500 lbs gross and up, are used for commerce including small business, family farms, contractors and one man operators. Some already struggling to survive. They don't buy a big, thirsty HD pickup for it's fashion statement. These SHOULD be exempt. Still, they are NOT exempt. Hit those hardest with fuel standards and you cripple America. There are no 8,500 to 10,000 lbs SUVs or (private) passenger vans.

But smaller trucks SHOULD yield dramatically improved mpg vs a big HD, especially if it's a small base truck. There's no excuse for the poor mpg of smaller pickups. Mid-size trucks have horrible mpg compared to 1/2 tons of similar weight and footprint.

The EU has similar mpg standards, but it's just common frick'n sense. The bigger the vehicle, the more fuel it needs consume. Laws of physics. That doesn't mean smaller vehicles should be allowed the same standard for big vehicles. What would be the point of that??? What stup!d ideals you have...

When there's Tundra and Titan HD pickups of 8,500 #'s and up, you'll troll a different song.

@papa jim
It is a cynical use of words. A downturn or a mild recession is an "adjustment".Being employed does not mean you have a reasonable job with a 5/6 day shift.You are "employed" if you work one hour a week.

@Robert Ryan

Me cynical? Nevermind.

When government economists (who, by the way tend to be accounting-school guys who could not get a real job in banking, insurance or brokerage) say they adjusted something, they did it to obscure the facts--every bleeping time.

By the way, was your reply cynical?

I read all the posts, I worked in the HD part of the business, setting efficiency standard makes you a communist, setting pollution standards, being as most every one of them was done by the Republicans must be the greatest things, ever.
Pollution standards in the HD market started in 1970, just in case you wondered. The HD engines got more efficient up to the 1990's
The future will be in my opinion, a vehicle with a small engine running a generator and all wheels with motors in them. The vehicles will have paint that produces power, to charge batterys, keep the vehicle cool in the summer and warm in the winter whenever posible, cruise control will be computer controled with mapping tecnoligy to use the power stored and the power made to the most efficient manner posible.
What ever political beliefs you have, I am glad that every republican politician, being free thinkers says exactly the same thing word for word on most every situation.
I notice a lot of the free thinkers on this site can spout the party line on most every topic. They can bring up the sites the Brothers sponsor for every topic, it is good to know that Corporate america is so smart they can speak for everyone.
Soon you will only need to post your name and the brothers will fill in the rest.
Just a thought1

@papa jim
No could not agree more with your posts. Wording that hides problems is now becoming very common.

@John Pringle

We're so proud that you are a free thinker.

Most of what I've seen you post is almost unreadable, but you've sure got your opinions. Before you start talking sh*t about someone else's ideas, at least be sure that you can spell, compose decent sentences and that your ideas actually contribute something to the discussion.

My free thoughts--at no charge!

"Pray tell, who is having that "problem?""

@papa jim

These are the top problems:

obama interited the WORST economy since the Great Depression so you can't blame him for anything

Bush gave tax cuts for the rich
nothing for the 99%

economy in the ditch because republicans gave all the money to the banks and cartels, Boehner was crying to get it passed

Obama and the democrats never passed any emission laws so get that right! That was all Bush and the republicans in 2004!!!!

global warming - it is killing this country and we need to get serious about it!

race relations are at an all time low thanks to republicans

Whether you like it or you don't most of Big Al from Oz, Mr_Lou & John Pringle are dead on.

When people get covered under Obamacare, they’ll start liking the new system because they’ll get the same health care, but cheaper.

If the Republicans and insurance companies would stop fighting it, there would be no delays!!!!! This whole thing would have worked just fine except for the Republican commitment to kill it.

@Mr Pringle/John Pringle or whoever the hell you are this week:

The topic is alternative fuels; government programs for alternative fuels, and politicians handing out favors to the people, groups and rich friends who supported them.

Now, what was your comment about fuels?

@papa jim
It appears John Pringle, who stated he's a Republican is a different person to Mr Pringle, who obviously is a Democrat.

Mr Pringle is just a troll and hasn't the gonads to use his real name.

This is a sad part of PUTC, it allows the weak in cyberdom to hide behind a veil.

They are what we call the gutless in society.

Fuels? I said Obama never signed any fuel laws. The Obama administration never even proposed that the EPA to do anything so get that right! The standards were all set by Bush and the republicans in 2004 and is what got us in the mess to begin with along with the worst economy since the great depression which Obama inherited from President Bush. You should leave commentaries about fuel laws and politics to the adults or do more research. Just a thought.

@ Big Al, Speak for yourself and stop the trolling. I never said I am a Republican or a Democrat.

@papa jim--America has prospered on cheap energy and cheap money. I am not saying that is bad but eventually it doesn't last forever. Yes this is a discussion of alternate fuels and like everything not every alternate choice will work. It appears that you want to argue for the sake of arguing and that is your choice. Maybe you are some old curmudgeon who is stuck in your own ways.

@Jeff S

please stick to what you know!

It is impossible to have cheap money and cheap energy concurrently.

America had a strong dollar in the 1950s, 60s, 80s and 90s.

We had a cheap dollar in the 1970s, 2000s and in the current decade.

We had a prosperous economy and low unemployment during strong dollar years. Employment and economic health were screwed during the soft dollar years.

During the strong dollar years fuel was dirt cheap--during the weak dollar years fuel costs tested new highs.

This is not about Democrats and Republicans. Reagan and Clinton were both strong dollar presidents.

I don't expect you to trust me on this, but you are free to look it up.

@papa jim--I am not talking about the value of money being cheap, I am talking about the cost of borrowing money at record low interest rates. Excuse me I lived through the 70s and 80s and the interest rates were much higher then than they are now. I am no expert but neither are you nor should you pretend to be. If anything the US dollar is much stronger than most of the World currencies now, but that is not saying a lot. I do believe that higher employment and deficit reductions would go a long ways toward curing most of our economic woes. I do agree with much of what has been stated above that many younger Americans do not want to work as hard and feel they are entitled to more without having to work.

As for alternative sources of energy that is another discussion. The US is more fortunate than a lot of countries in that we have a lot of oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, and other sources.

@Jeff S

You really should quit while you are ahead. There is a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between interest rates and soft money.

When dollars are strong there's more demand for paper currency and interest rates are higher! Soft dollar (aka Obama since 2009) and interest rates can go NO LOWER.

Seriously, study this stuff. Being uninformed has a price to pay. You'll thank me.

@papa jim--No it is you that should quit. You are on this bash Obama tirade. Interest rates were low before Obama became President. The dollar is not that strong but neither are most of the currencies, but the dollar is stronger than many. Again you need to read what I said. I did not say the dollar was strong, I said that it is stronger than many of the major currencies. Actually demand for precious metals is much higher because all the currencies are not that strong. Why do you think the Chinese or any country would want to keep the dollar stronger? Now why are the Chinese buying gold? Since you are the expert I will let you answer that.

The US is not the only country that manipulates it's currency. You are looking for an argument. I am not that big of a fan of President Obama but currency manipulation has been happening for a long time. Quit while your ahead, especially when you have made comments that when it snows you should wait for it to melt, easy for you because you live in Florida and not in the snow belt.

@Jeff S - I'm waiting for the snow to melt. I'll let you know at the end of May (or June) when it should be all gone ;)

@Jeff S

Your ignorance on this topic is profound. For your own benefit please stick to a topic that you understand. Until then, for reasons of maintaining healthy blood pressure I'll only respond to your comments when you have demonstrated some mastery of the subject matter being discussed.

For your information: The George W Bush years were marked by Soft Dollar policies, which were continued by the Federal Reserve--because the same people were running the Fed--during the Obama years.

I can give you all manner of reasons for dissing the Obama administration but soft money has been a continuation of his predecessor's policies.

that is all.

@papa jim
What you stated is what economist hope for. That is when interest rates rise so does the currency attached to the interest rates. This is what a healthier economy does.

But this isn't always the case. Look at nations that default on debt obligations. High interest rates caused by liability and a deflating currency caused by a collapse of asset values. This provide inflationary pressure.

How much debt does the US have, or the Japanese?

This can happen to any country, even the US.

@Big Al

1. Please provide specifics (interest high vs low)

2. In re: Japan or US you cannot discuss them without having the 3rd leg to the stool.

Out of my considerable generosity I'm giving you the answer to Number 2. ...Momentum

The big panic people get into whenever debt or deficits are mentioned fails to acknowledge the considerable impact of economic momentum.

No sane person would ever agree to finance a large-cap improvement or investment without the promise of momentum.

Economics is not zero-sum, nor is is absent momentum.

This originally was a discussion of the lame initiative of the White House to sprinkle a few billion dollars of US Treasury Department holy water (borrowed from China by the way) on the alternative fuels game.

If Obama's team had proposed anything on the massive scale of Jack Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon, my take on this could be different. Momentum is one of the reasons.

The whole US economy was stimulated by the space race in the 1960s. Cars had fins, people wrote songs and books about it. People moved to Florida and later Texas to get closer to it.

I don't see anybody in Hollywood making a big budget flick about compressed natural gas, unless it's a movie about this White House :)

Budgets have to pass congress, his exec pen doesn't cover budgets for new spending. There are a few constitutional laws left, last time I checked.

@Ray

thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Regarding the constitutional limits on spending--the president indirectly runs the various Executive Branch agencies by appointing the Cabinet secretaries who run them.

The agencies issue regulations (and authorize their own budgets which continue to grow).

The always-rising cost of being regulated by state and federal agencies is one of the most difficult expenses that companies of all sizes are forced to reckon with.

Just my two cents.

CAFE may seem evil but is necessary so we all don't die prematurely from cancer or asthma!!doubt it!!go see some vids on. China's air pollution..
Alternatives exist,so why dont car makers use these

Hydrogen powered car
http://youtu.be/rfBdPKxk35k

Hybrid electric truck
http://youtu.be/8rKsk6hEcNQ

Electric bus
http://youtu.be/MVXWGBgYj3M

http://youtu.be/9JpMTWdPZ6c

Coates rotary valves engine,less pollution more power,way less oil changes
http://youtu.be/pDsRa4eT7co

Momentum is an interesting word and is the factor that kept the financial bubble afloat for as long as it did. Heavy debt loads and all of the mechanisms that kept high risk financing afloat was based on the speed at which currency changed hands. As long as money is kept circulating all is fine but the moment it slows down or stops it all crashes.

@Lou

Sorry I didn't see your comment/reply regarding momentum sooner.

Some smart guy recently called it a game of musical chairs:
The last guy holding the bag when the music stops loses.

The ability for the big central banks to trade "credits" online means that the fellows they hang out with have access to insider info regarding the next moves in the currencies. It is a trillion-dollar ripoff.

Just as was the case in 1929, smart guys like Jack Kennedy's dad moved to cash about six weeks ahead of the crash. Then they were able to move in and buy very high quality assets for pennies on the dollar.

Today America's banks are slowly pushing residential property (stuff they seized after the 2008 bust) back onto the markets. There's a short list of winners and a long list of losers.



The comments to this entry are closed.