| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct...2/Default.aspx
It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct...2/Default.aspx 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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
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. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct...2/Default.aspx It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen. Heh - yeah - great deal for the fishermen who just happen to "need" new engines. I need a new, more energy efficient barn - I should apply to the state to see if I can get one. You never know. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
On Sep 26, 10:54*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:51 -0400, wrote: 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. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
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 |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:13:33 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:59:03 -0400, JohnH wrote: 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 ??? Obviously, the way you pose the problem... pretty poor, but saving fuel isn't what it is all about, is it? Please also factor in savings and benefits of safer vehicles that pollute less and giving the struggling American auto industry a sales boost. A car cannot be sold without sending money to nearly the entire continental 48 and firming jobs and the economies there. Factor in, too, that the $3500 or $4500 is not a "gift," it is taxable and your version of the math is even more confused. It is funny how these things work so well in other places, but here it is the devil's spawn...... Quantify, please. In your quantification, please note which manufacturing companies got the biggest boost. Also note that used cars also provide incomes for many. As many states have emission testing programs, do you think you've really cut back on pollution so much? -- John H |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
"Katie Ohara" wrote in message
... On Sep 26, 10:54 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:51 -0400, wrote: 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. It worked out OK for me. $4500 for a 1985 F-150 was "sweet". That was after a motivated seller made a pretty good deal. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that you gave the Feds $4,500 through taxes who then gave it back to you only the Feds borrowed it from the Chinese. Probably the best way would be to compile how much you have paid in straight Federal Income Tax over the years and determine how much that $4,500 represents as a percentage of your taxes. Good Gawd, another stupid Obamadoggle. Don't these people ever learn. All indications so far is that it worked quite well to get the auto section of the economy moving again, which was the whole point. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:38:17 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... On Sep 26, 10:54 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:51 -0400, wrote: 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. It worked out OK for me. $4500 for a 1985 F-150 was "sweet". That was after a motivated seller made a pretty good deal. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that you gave the Feds $4,500 through taxes who then gave it back to you only the Feds borrowed it from the Chinese. Probably the best way would be to compile how much you have paid in straight Federal Income Tax over the years and determine how much that $4,500 represents as a percentage of your taxes. Good Gawd, another stupid Obamadoggle. Don't these people ever learn. All indications so far is that it worked quite well to get the auto section of the economy moving again, which was the whole point. The problem was it only "moved" for about 3 weeks. Our dealers are crying the blues again. Yes, there is that. -- John H |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Diesels | Cruising | |||
| FNM marine diesels | General | |||
| Lombardini marine diesels | General | |||
| Cheap Diesels | Boat Building | |||
| Free Global Crew Database - commercial or non-commercial | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
