Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. ~Thomas Jefferson

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

When you’re a Republican, they let you do it.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

“A king is only a king if we bow down.” – Rev. William Barber

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

Be a wild strawberry.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

We still have time to mess this up!

We are learning that “working class” means “white” for way too many people.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

You are here: Home / Science & Technology / Some Reason for Optimism

Some Reason for Optimism

by | 57 Comments

This post is in: 

After seeing this morning’s Post editorial page and reading at Nate Silver’s latest forecasts, I’m looking for a bright spot. Here’s the best news I heard this week: Mazda says they’re developed a gas-powered car that will get 70 MPG, using a combination of a high-compression engine, a new, high-efficiency transmission, and a lightweight body.

(via Slashdot)

Reader Interactions

57Comments

  2. 2.

    numbskull

    70 mpg on the Japanese cycle. The EPA rating will be more like 35-38 mpg. Poke around the links at the story and you’ll see that Mazda confirms this. Bummer.

  3. 3.

    robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles

    It uses gas. What happens when the oil runs out and there’s no gas to put in it?

  4. 4.

    BGinCHI

    VW clean diesel.

    Can’t believe the dipshits at VW America don’t do a better job advertising those cars.

    My 2002 Jetta TDI got an easy 40+ in the city. And it was peppy with the turbo.

  7. 7.

    eemom

    tee hee. Go check out FDL. Lady Jane seems to be angling for a spot on Mark Zuckerberg’s “to sue” list.

  8. 8.

    gene108

    Didn’t they have a 100 mph carburetor built in the 1960’s, but had to scrap it because of the catalytic converter?

    Eh…I’ve heard enough press releases about high mileage cars only to be disappointed, when the production models get made…I’ll hold my enthusiasm until the car is ready for sale…

  9. 9.

    The Pale Scot

    a gas-powered car that will get 70 MPG

    Too little, too late,

    We’re at peak oil now, and if we’re not, we’re only 1MBPD from it. And China and India are expecting to put millions of more drivers on the road in the next few years, any savings will be soon overwhelmed. Cheap Oil is the only thing keeping the global population at 7Billion. Without it the globe can support maybe 2Billion. By cheap I mean <200.00 So will the world use what's left to support agriculture, or their militaries?

    Get a copy of "Oil:The Crude Awakening" and watch Michael Rupport's "Collapse" on utube. Rupport comes off as paranoid, but everything thing he says is true.

    We live in a debt based economy predicated on infinite growth powered by cheap oil.

  12. 12.

    morzer

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Well, those busy beavers at the GOP have been developing a perpetual motion hot air machine, so at least the nation will be warm when the long winter strikes….

  13. 13.

    Omnes Omnibus

    Is the weather bringing everyone down? The FP posts and the commenters have been remarkably morose. Perhaps I missed some piece of news that changed everything, but, FFS, get a frickin’ grip.

  16. 16.

    Citizen_X

    @The Pale Scot: Oy.

    If we are at peak oil right now, then increasing efficiency of fossil fuel usage would lessen the pace of oil depletion. That means a less catastrophic drop off of supply. That means avoiding a 5-billion-person dieoff. All the while, declining production drives prices up, forcing a shift to alternatives energy sources and increasing efficiency further.

    In other words, we can transition away from fossil fuels instantly, or over decades. You can bring the plane back down to the ground in an instant, or slowly enough that it doesn’t kill everybody. Which do you prefer?

    ETA: @Omnes Omnibus: I know you were joking, but increasing efficiency of fossil-fuel use also decreases carbon output. Uh, I mean, GIVE UP! WE’RE DONE FOR!

  19. 19.

    Davis X. Machina

    @Citizen_X: Serioulsy, though, there’s a massive pre-existing retail network for liquid fuels, and few workable options for energy storage for immediate use at an equivalent density.

    There’ll be pumps pumping something liquid for a long time….

  20. 20.

    zattarra

    I work with companies pushing the next generation of fuel efficient vehicle every day. They have better power trains. Better hybrid logic. Better electric engines. Better hydraulic hybrid blending. Clean Diesel engines are more efficient. Better blending of electric motors and IC engines Stories like this are just the beginning and barely touch the real stuff that’s coming down the line as this decade progresses. But its going to be slow and it’s going to be incremental because the capital investment is huge. But the government is helping and will drive this innovation. And will again get no credit for it.

    And I really do wish I could say more and say who but I’m actually blocked by non disclosure agreements (and would like to keep my job) as are most the people who actually know about this stuff. The things you see in these e-zines and blogs is very little of what is really going on and most of it is written by people who have no idea how the auto industry works or what they are writing about..

  21. 21.

    The Pale Scot

    @Citizen_X:

    We no longer have decades my friend, after the USA reached peak production slide from 12 MBPD to <5 in a decade despite new sources in the Gulf and the N. Slope, A similar situation globally would be 86 mbpd to <30. All the rosy forecasts rely on the Saudis boosting production from 12 mbpd to the 30s, there is absolutely no evidence that they can do this, indeed, their use of enhanced production tech indicates they are at their peak. ex: dispite the fact that the Saudis haven't found any new fields since the 60's, their official reserve estimates never decline.

  24. 24.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @zattarra: Interesting. I wish you could say more, but I guess keeping your job is more important than blabbing on a blog (if you are selfish that way).

  25. 25.

    Todd Dugdale

    The polling is unreliable. Silver is only as good as the data he has to work with.
    Nate used to realise this and question underlying assumptions, but after the 2008 elections he fell under the spell of Beltway insiders and drivers of conventional wisdom.

    A couple of months ago, Nate did a post on flawed polling. He mentioned the usual suspects: cellphones, low response rates, hose effects, etc. He also mentioned the idea of pollster self-censorship. IOW, if a pollster would find results contrary to the CW and other polling, they would be inclined to either sit on the poll or massage the numbers to fit the narrative. After the R2K implosion, nobody wants their numbers put under the microscope and be subjected to public ridicule. The easiest way to avoid this is go with the herd. And you cannot under-estimate the effect of the 800-pound gorilla named Rasmussen in this herd mentality.

    The current narrative was created by Rasmussen after the special elections in NJ and VA. Using his mysterious, super-secret likely voter screen, he created a fictional electorate in which only the highly enthusiastic would turn out to vote. Like most false narratives, it contained some truth: the Right was more enthusiastic. Hell, they had spent over a year (at that point) in rabid, frenzied froth screeching about hundreds of apocalyptic scenarios. But how many average voters get excited about a midterm that is a year away? And how many of these highly enthusiastic Republicans would have voted anyway? By and large, it’s the same Republican base that has been thrown at us every cycle, and they turn out reliably in every cycle. The difference was the independents breaking Republican, not the base.

    Other pollsters quickly confirmed that (a year from the midterms) the Republican base was more enthusiastic, and Rasmussen’s flawed premise became conventional wisdom. Likely voter screens were adjusted heavily for enthusiasm, and Republicans looked good. It became self-perpetuating mythology, bolstered by the sampling flaws of landline polling.

    Remember, it was Rasmussen who created the PUMA myth out of whole cloth with his polls showing that HRC supporters would not vote for Obama. His mistake was to put this myth forward too early in the cycle, though, when other pollsters overcame their intimidation and showed a different story. Rasmussen quietly abandoned his own narrative soon afterward.

    Even the Right is now conceding that the election is really about the economy. It’s not about any of the issues that electrified the base: apocalyptic socialist fears, FEMA camps, death panels, forced obedience to Allah, etc. Yet the base is still seen as the deciding factor, and not independents.

  27. 27.

    The Pale Scot

    @Joseph Nobles:

    I didn’t notice him ’till recently, Collapse focuses on oil and economics.; myself I have no problem believing the Cheney Junta knew that AQ planned on hitting a building with a plane, but I’d bet they figured it’d be something like the nut in houston with a small plane. That’s why Bush looked so stunned in the classroom.

    And the all the shorts made in the market that week along with the Fed’s pumping up the money supply to historic levels the day before is awfully peculiar, but it’s waste time thinking about it, it will never be proved.

  28. 28.

    Bill Murray

    @Omnes Omnibus: I thought it was no one gets out of here without singing the blues. I’ve been working on my version of Howlin’ Wolf’s “Built for Comfort”

  31. 31.

    monkeyboy

    a [new] high-compression engine

    Is it a Wankel engine? Mazda is the only car company that had serious production of Wankels.

    Arrgh, I looked at the link and saw a picture with pistons.

    Anyway, I like to say Wankel.

    wankel, Wankel, WANKEL

  32. 32.

    The Pale Scot

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Don’t really know, I am glad I don’t have children. But there will fulcrum that provides the opportunity for us prove whether we are a sentient specie with a soul, or multiple tribes of hairless monkeys with extremely sophisticated stone axes.

  34. 34.

    frosty

    @Omnes Omnibus: Softly weeping is good, but here’s the mantra: Economize, Localize, Produce.

    Start cutting back now and living a frugal life. Try living locally — locally produced food, job within bike distance if at all possible. Start a vegetable garden, get some rain barrels for your downspouts. As far as that job is concerned, get one where you Produce something someone needs. In the long run, being able to work with your hands is going to be more important that pushing pixels around a screen.

  36. 36.

    frosty

    @Omnes Omnibus: Funny, I haven’t — I had to look it up. My advice is standard fare on TheOilDrum. So we’re all coming to the same conclusion, looks like.

  37. 37.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @frosty: I am less pessimistic than many. My original comment about weeping softly was snark. There are things that can be done and things that are being done. Look at Zattara’s post above.

  39. 39.

    Roger Moore

    @zattarra:
    You can get some very impressive gains with conventional technology just by prioritizing efficiency instead of performance. Contemporary cars are grossly overpowered for their main mission of commuting at no more than highway speed. If you were to design a car that was as light as possible while still passing safety tests and had an engine barely powerful enough to drive at highway speeds while climbing a shallow hill, I’ll bet you could get at least double the mileage of current models. The problem is that it wouldn’t sell enough to justify the design costs, at least with gas prices as low as they are right now. If gas were $15/gallon and looked likely to stay that high, people would care about ultra-high mileage and car companies would make cars to suit their new priorities. It’s as much a matter of economics as technology.

  42. 42.

    Svensker

    Did the NFL Open Thread disappear for everyone else, too? Or have I finally entered the twilight zone for reals…

  44. 44.

    jwb

    @Todd Dugdale: Nate still does recognize the limits of his model, when he bothers to talk about it. He’s been especially upfront about the problems with estimating likely voters. The trouble is that his top-line number gets all the buzz and the underlying uncertainty little of it. After seeing the performance of his model for the British Parliament, I have little faith in his model for the House, because though the election systems differ quite a lot and he does know the US system infinitely better, both models still suffer from the same difficulty of estimating a large number lightly polled districts on the basis of adjoining districts and national polling. In the US, the issue is complicated by the fact that much of the polling in the lightly polled districts has been done by suspect (primarily Rasmussen) firms. I’m just not convinced that it is possible to construct a model that compensates for that in any meaningful way. Still, I don’t begrudge him from trying. On the other hand, I do have a reasonable amount of faith in his Senate numbers, because he had a good test of the methodology for the 2008 election. Of course, you are right that even here his model is only as good as the numbers he puts into it, and if the pollsters have been putting their thumbs on the scale, he can only do so much in terms of correcting for house effect.

  47. 47.

    fasteddie9318

    First, they came for the NFL thread, and I didn’t speak up, because the Steelers were playing like crap and handing the game to Miami.

  51. 51.

    Svensker

    @stuckinred:

    Me too, right after I made a brilliant comment too!

    No, it was my brilliant comment that made it go poof — I dissed Big “Dickhead” Ben.

  56. 56.

    wmd

    I made 50 calls for Russ Feingold today.
    roughly: 15 bad numbers
    10 refused to talk
    5 republicans
    15 very happy to vote for Russ
    5 undecided, liked that I am enthusiastic about sending him back to the Senate.

    You can help. Calls run until at least 6:00 PM EDT. Voter Activation Network tools are working a lot better today.

Comments are closed.