On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Sep 26, 7:07*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct.../ItemId/9132/D...

It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen.

Sounds like a boondoggle to me. * The amount of pollution produced by
lobster boats is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and so is
the amount of emissions that the lobstermen are exposed to. *There are
lots of risks to lobster fishing that are far greater than diesel
exhaust. *This whole idea was probably dreamed up by a bunch of old
salts trying to figure out out they could get some fed funding for
routine engine replacement.

I was kind of wondering that myself, Wayne...

Plus, what are the hidden catches. from what I've understood, the
Stimulus for Cash for Clunkers really didn't prove that sweet of a
deal for the consumer.

I posted this once, asking about the math, but no one helped out.

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a
year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a
year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline
consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons / year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at
$75/bbl.

So, in a down economy, with auto makers all ready have been given
billions of dollars,
we all contributed even more, spending $3 billion to save $375
million.

How good a deal was that ???
--

John H