Payload

[DainBramaged]

the load carried by a vehicle exclusive of what is necessary for its operation

Load, cargo, consignment, freight, lading, shipment. All those words mean basically payload.

How many fence posts (average size) can you put into a Toyota Prius? How many bags of ceeement? How many boxes of bread from the bakery for the deli you get your sandwich from? How much ice cream on a hot summer day?


So so many of you think the word "hybrid" is the answer. Maybe 20+ years down the road it is, but the answer for business and industry isn't a Prius or a Honda or a Malibu Hybrid. It's STILL big trucks powered by a diesel or BIG gasoline engine to deliver BIG payloads.


Payload, the more you carry , the cheaper it is to deliver.


And that's that.

[islandmkl]

1. most people think their goods and products 'just get there'...

like, the stores just 'have' the stuff...

[Deja Q]

2. And rail...

Trucks will always be relevant... but rail has its place.

[DainBramaged]

5. Yes, but the problem is rail is becoming a conduit for containers of imported crap

rather than a conduit for Domestically produced goods, or bulk natural resources, which don't usually get distributed in Urban areas.

[kristopher]

3. What do you have against energy independence?

Do you love having your head up the ass of big oil?

We can eliminate over 60% of our transportation petroleum use by switching to battery electric drive. And the rest could run (as Pickens is proposing) on domestically produced natural gas until an alternative is developed (batteries with enough energy density are in the development pipeline now).


The FACT is that internal combustion engines waste over 80% of the energy in the gasoline - they are dinosaurs.

[DainBramaged]

4. (sigh) you don't get it do you? So sad.

[kristopher]

6. I get that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[DainBramaged]

7. And neither do you. I don't trust Pickens as far as I can throw him

but you apparently bought into his bullshit. Remember, HE financed the Swift Boat veterans. HE is a very bad man. And instead of joining in the discussion you immediately take a shot at me and attacked me.

Go to hell. Join my "click" revolution.

Oh, and never forget the law of unintended consequences. They can bite you in the ass when you least expect it. Especially when you think an avowed Republican and enemy of all things Liberal starts pushing a "big plan" to save mankind. Of course, he'll need Lemmings to follow him over the cliff, and there are PLENTY here.

[kristopher]

8. Typical of your thinking

It demonstrates that the Bushies don't have an exclusive on bad thinking. You throw out a good idea because of the person presenting it instead of making an evaluation of the merits. That is exactly the type of thinking that got us in all the shitholes we are now wading through.

[islandmkl]

9. regardless of the 'good idea'...which it is in theory...

you really don't understand t.boone, do you? you know all about him, from what you have 'found'...but you don't have a clue to what he wants to achieve...

i suggest you research water resources, mineral rignts, proprietary water flows, and aquifers...for a start...

google, read, and read some more...and then come tell us why t.boone's wind (and gas) proposals are designed to get us off of oil dependence...

he merely wants to control the 'next energy' with wind and gas via 'his plan'...and water...well, if you think we need oil, you are missing the primordial cog to man's existence: water...

t.boone acknowledges he is 'running out of time' (age-wise)...but he is an oil man thru-and-thru...and that business (bidness) is all about monopolizing resources...

his goal is water...and all the rest is subterfuge...

[DainBramaged]

10. You are wasting your time, concrete is difficult to remove when it sets

How T. Boone Pickens' Energy Plan Just Got Killed

The new bailout plan passed by Congress may have put the nail in the coffin on Pickens' dangerous energy proposal.

The financial bailout bill passed by Congress may have once and for all put an end to T. Boone Pickens' energy plan. Let me explain.

Until the financial meltdown obliterated all other news coverage, T. Boone and his energy plan were everywhere. His book, The First Billion Is the Hardest, is number two on the bestseller list. During the Republican and Democrat Conventions his press conferences were attended by a fawning media, virtually all of who filed stories with the theme "oil man turns wind energy advocate."

Indeed, even the more than casual reader might come away believing the Pickens Energy Plan was all about wind energy. T. Boone's web site does little to contradict that impression. It displays nothing but wind turbines.

But expanding wind energy is not the key element in his plan. The reason is that that the plan's goal is to reduce our dependence on oil and the electric sector uses very little oil. Thus expanding wind-generated electricity does little to move us in that direction. Instead, the heart of Pickens' plan is to purportedly use increased wind energy to back out the natural gas in our electricity system. Pickens wants to eliminate our use of natural gas to generate electricity and instead use it to in our vehicles.

In California, Pickens has been more upfront about his intentions. The Texas oil and gas billionaire has single handedly financed a ballot initiative that would raise $3 billion for incentives for vehicles using cleaner fuels. The initiative heavily favors natural gas vehicles. The biggest rebates would go toward the purchase of heavy-duty trucks and transit buses fueled by natural gas. Only natural gas vehicles would quality for the largest rebate for passenger vehicles -- $10,000.

The primary beneficiary of this ballot initiative would be Clean Energy, the nation's biggest supplier of natural gas for transportation needs. Mr. Pickens is majority shareholder of Clean Energy.

The Pickens energy proposal has a fatal flaw. Transforming our transportation fleet to natural gas will require massive investments in new engines and new fueling systems. Although largely buried in the fine print, Pickens isn't proposing to use natural gas to entirely replace transportation fuels derived from oil. His goal is a 20 percent replacement. So after 15-20 years and the expenditure of tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars we would then have a transportation system still 80 percent dependent on oil and 20 percent dependent on a fossil fuel whose life expectancy is not much longer than oil's.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/100806/how_t._boone_pickens'_energy_plan_just_got_killed/

[kristopher]

17. Pickens has floated 2 versions of his plan

In the first, all transportation was envisioned as being powered by natural gas freed from electric generation by wind. That is a nonstarter for two reasons: first, the internal combustion engine is too inefficient and using the natural gas for personal transport is simply continuing the present system of waste. Second, there isn't enough natural gas going to be released by large scale wind development, coal is what will be turned off.

The second iteration was an improvement in that he recognized the efficiency of battery electric drive for personal transport; so he concentrated on using natural gas to fuel the heavy hauling. That is perfectly reasonable until we develop a mature biofuel industry.

Your article totally misunderstands the dynamics of the changes coming to our electric grid; as apparently do you.
Why don't you stop acting like a know it all on things you don't know anything about and try to learn something instead.

[DainBramaged]

20. It seems from my research, that Pickens is the one whose head is up the ass of big oil

and your blind devotion to his plan makes me wonder about your intent. Since you decided last night that insulting me was a far better choice than discussing the issue, I'll bid adieu.

"Click"


Cya.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

16. Every large scal change produces winners and losers

What I'm interested in is the change. If I tried to pass moral judgment on everyone that was motivated by greed and rejected their contributions on that basis, nothing would ever get done and the status quo would prevail. Your argument is absurd.

[MercutioATC]

12. The issue is that some forms of transport still need to use "traditional" fuels.

Truck transport and air cargo are two of these. They may be able to run on fuels such as biodiesel (or a similar non-fossil fuel), but they'll never economically run on battery power (and, for air cargo, they can't currently run on batteries).

[DainBramaged]

15. Long after I'm gone, we will still be reliant on fossil fuels

it will take another 50 years before the technology advances enough to begin to wean us from them. And when the oil begins to run out, synthetic fuels from coal will supplant them until the technology catches up.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

18. How much raping of the planet do we need to do exactly?

You are correct that T. Boone Jerkoff is a horrible person.

But why can't we develop alternative fuels for trucks that don't involve relying on resources like coal and oil? This doesn't seem to be an either-or issue. Why can't we have alternative fuels and still use trucks for transport?

I get that you are proud of the auto industry, and in fact your posts over these last few weeks have enlightened me. I even posted a thread a few days ago asking for other posters to show their support for Union workers. I did that because of you...

You haven't come out and said it here, but I worry that this thread is meant to demean foreign auto producers because of their increasing use of hybrid technology. Why not just advocate for domestic auto producers to adopt similar, or better technologies now?

And please think about what I'm saying. I like your stuff and as I said I have been listening to you--please don't add me to your "click list".

[DainBramaged]

21. It was meant for what it was meant. And not as a knock but to show the difference

between the wild-eyed devotion to all thing hybrid and the real world.

[RB TexLa]

11. Isn't that a Toyota?

[JVS]

31. Isn't it also loaded with too much stuff?

It doesn't look safe to stack that many pallets on the back of a pickup.

[Cleita]

13. We used to get the majority of our stuff by rail before the interstate

system was built. I still think it's a better system. The only trucks needed then were to take the goods from the rail yard to warehouses or stores where they would be sold.

[merh]

14. Good OP

Things in their proper perspective - things in their proper perspective.

[MadHound]

19. Well, first off, the irony is delish,

You rant on about how America needs big trucks to haul big loads. And you know what, being a farmer, I agree with you. However I think that you'd make your point a wee bit better if the picture didn't show a small four banger truck. But hey, the irony is still funny.

But back to your original point, yes, certain segments of America need the use of a large hauling vehicle. But it doesn't need to be gas, or even dino diesel. It can run off of biodiesel, or some hybrid, after all, trucks and buses in other countries are hybrids, why not ours:shrug:

And the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Americans don't need a large truck or SUV. They need an economical, low polluting vehicle to commute with, to haul groceries and people. Those purposes don't require a large truck, or even a small one.

But hey, rant on if it makes you happy.

[BeFree]

23. We went to the moon

...inside of seven years after deciding to do so, what makes you think we can't run a truck on half as much energy?

[DainBramaged]

24. That's not the intent of this thread. But at least you're thinking.

:hi:


If Toyota or Honda wanted to make a truly dedicated commitment to changing the way we drive, why was their singular hybrids the ONLY efforts on their part??? They make lots of nice gas-guzzling semi-recreational, and luxury, vehicles, but NOTHING for real work. Chevy/GMC and Ford make a 3500/350 dual real wheel diesel two ton payload, 10,000+ pound towing capacity truck that is revered in the logging, oil, construction, road building, and other industries where a super-duty truck is necessary. Toyota and Honda haven't even addressed that market in any way shape or form.



Maybe with some fresh thinking, they could.

[trof]

25. I've hauled 8' lumber in my Prius.

6 2X4s
Back seats folded down.
Came to within a couple of inches of the dash.
Can't carry a 4'X8' sheet of plywood, but I can haul a lot of stuff.
;-)

[DainBramaged]

26. Six 2x4's huh! Wwwwwwooooooowwwwwwww.

:hi: My old Blazer could carry 2 bundles of 24 with the back seat folded down. And 20 bags of concrete before the rear started to sag (I redid my sidewalk by the garage). My little Cabbage (old Cavalier) doesn't carry anything but me, and IF I need something bigger, I have access to it. Which is a good thing.

[trof]

29. 20 bags X 94 lbs. = 1880 lbs. of concrete mix.

Just 120 lbs. shy of a ton?
I think you exaggerate.

[DainBramaged]

30. Nope I was there.

[SmileyRose]

34. 94 pounds? The last bag of concrete I bought was 60 pounds.

thank goodness because it took my sister and I both everything we had to get those bags to the car and then out of the car. (we were already wore out from the dang post hole digging) At 94 pounds each the fence posts would have had to wait for the men...........

[DainBramaged]

35. No one wants to believe you unless you take pictures and even then

you will be accused of photoshopping them. I was there, and if it's not good enough, too freaking bad. I used to go with my neighbor and pick up cases of paint (he was a house painter) 4 gallons to a box and we could put 18 cases in the back of my 2 door blazer. But I don't have pictures, so I guess I'm lying.

[dysfunctional press]

38. where do you come up with 94 pounds for a bag of concrete?

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

39. my beater dodge grand caravan can fit 4X8 sheets, with the back door closed.

nt

[MazeRat7]

27. Number of SUVs, Pickup Trucks on the Road Holds Strong, According to Experian Automotive

SCHAUMBURG, Ill., Nov. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The number of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles on American roads remained relatively constant, despite a year of surging gas prices and increased public focus on smaller and hybrid vehicles. Pickup trucks accounted for 20.57 percent of all vehicles in operation and SUVs 11.42 percent, according to analysis by Experian Automotive of its AutoCount Vehicles in Operation(SM) database.

"As fuel prices rose throughout the summer, conventional wisdom predicted sharp declines in the SUV and pickup truck markets," said Scott Waldron, president of Experian Automotive. "Yes, sales of new vehicles in these categories have dropped, but when you look at the total vehicle population of new and used vehicles, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles have remained consistently strong as a leading category of vehicles on the road."

...

Waldron noted that there are several regional differences in vehicle class along with other areas of a vehicle's makeup that are particularly important for businesses that produce products and services for specific vehicles. When looking at the top 10 states in terms of vehicle population as of June 30, 2008, Experian Automotive found some interesting statistics within each state:

-- Texas has the highest proportion of 8-, 10- and 12-cylinder vehicles (29.37 percent), while New York has the lowest proportion of these vehicles (15.93 percent)

-- More than one in four vehicles (26.91 percent) in Texas are pickup trucks

-- Texas has the highest proportion of rear-wheel drive vehicles (36.86 percent), while Pennsylvania has the lowest (9.51 percent)

-- Pennsylvania has the highest proportion of four-wheel drive vehicles (33.54 percent), while Florida has the lowest (10.30 percent)

-- California has the lowest proportion of Flex Fuel vehicles (1.26 percent), while Michigan has the highest proportion (3.84 percent)

...

Experian Automotive's AutoCount Vehicles in Operation database consists of nearly 250 million light vehicles.

My point in posting this data is to show that the vast majority of vehicles on the road (around 68%) are NOT light trucks or SUV's. I have no horse in the SUV race since like the OP I haul "heavy, bulky stuff" in my truck quite often, however I can see where for family vacations (eg towing a boat, camper, etc) the SUV makes sense (though I would still pick a truck over an SUV any day since they are more flexible and more inclined to have a much longer lifetime than an SUV).

Bottom line, I think we should be focused on new more fuel efficient "cars". I think going after that whopping 68% as the initial target of more efficiencey would make a huge impact in reducingh our "carbon output".

Just my $.02

Peace,
MZr7


edit: Adding the link to the story: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-04-2008/0004918017&EDATE=

[DainBramaged]

28. Here is the problem in a nutshell

If you own a "gas-guzzler" outright, does it make economic sense to take on the burden of a car payment to save gas? If you traded in your 2005 Guzzler Special @ $12,000, and bought a new Prius at $25,000, how long would it take to amortize the additional $13,000 in debt compared to gas saved? And especially with gas at under $2.00 a gallon again Nationwide.

For so many people, it doesn't make economic sense.

[MadHound]

36. Why not have one of each?

A Prius or other fuel efficient car for commuting purposes and a truck for hauling stuff. You prolong the life of both vehicles that way.

When I moved out to the farm, that's exactly what I did. I already had a fuel efficient car(still have it) and bought an older model truck just for hauling stuff.

That way you don't burn more gas than you need:shrug:

[JVS]

32. Overkill

How many trips does the average customer take in which the vehicle is not absolutely full?

[sl8]

33. Shoot - a Jetta can handle 3000 lbs.

At least, from the Home Depot to the IHOP in Waldorf, MD.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp

[dysfunctional press]

37. picture this...