They also limit the horsepower a production car can produced. IIRC it's
something like 320 bhp. However It's been broken regularly by pretty
much all japanese car manufacturers.
Never heard that one. It makes some sense though, I mean you wouldn't
want to confuse tourists and foreign travelers into thinking that You
were a taxicab or something.
Most of the vehicles I have owned have had more than one exterior color,
although none of them came that way new.
It's not against the law; there's a sort of 'tax' that starts to go up
a whole lot once the car reaches about 40,000, though. Once they hit
60,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) the tax is high enough to keep most
people from driving them. The tax is based on age, size of engine, and
a few other factors. Once they hit the magic 100Km, you may have to pay
to get rid of it.
So, while not illegal, it most certainly is discouraged financially. I
bet the US car manufacturers would buy a *lot* of politicians to get a
law like that passed here <g>.
From an article about buying a car in Japan:
"Sixth, and last, "Sha'ken" (mentioned just above) must be paid every
two years on older cars. The amount of Sha'ken goes up depending on the
size, engine size and age of the vehicle. During the Sha'ken process
certain repairs must be made, and it can get very expensive. On the
other hand, it helps insure that your vehicle is well maintained, so
you're much less likely to have it breakdown in between. However, the
fact is that as cars get older, Sha'ken becomes more and more
expensive. Eventually, if the car stops running well or reaches a
certain age (even though it's still a good car), you may have to pay a
fee just to get rid of it. This is the reason why there are so few
older cars in Japan. When cars hit about 60,000 kilometers (maybe
40,000 miles), people start to get rid of them. You'll find very few
cars on the road with more than 100,000 kilometers (66,000 miles). Many
of these used cars are shipped to other countries, like Australia and
New Zealand, where people love the endless supply of cheap, slightly
used cars from Japan."
On 5 Sep 2005 22:57:44 -0700, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Well, taxes [ :-( ] could have been imposed to stabilize the price of
gas at the pump. Katrina is short time blip, and a force of nature.
The Iraq war is a major long term reason for high oil and gas prices,
and is force of the Bush administration.
So the fact that U.S refineries don't have enough capacity to supply
the demands of the domestic market has nothing to do with it? You
mean if we withdrew all our troops tomorrow the capacity problem
would go away?
I find it ironic that people claim we went to war because of oil and
then blame oil prices on us going to war. If we went to war for oil,
wouldn't that lower the price?
Who is responsible for this. Can you say reformulated gas. Some of the
old refineries could not make it and had to be shut down. So take your pick
Bill Clinton who made it law or the tree huggers who pushed for it. You can
also thank them for over 20yrs with out a new refinery.
And did I hear it takes upwards of 6 years to get a permit for a new
refinery? No wonder no one wants to build one. We need to invest in
domestic energy. That means drilling in the ANWR and getting new,
modern refineries online in a timely fashion.
There's plenty of waste land in this country to put a refinery, or 20.
Problem is there is no pool of talent sitting in the waste land to run
the thing. No people, no refinery. Now where there are plenty of
people is where they WANT the refinery, problem is that isn't waste
land.....well not if they don't build. The refineries in this area have
taken entire cities, brought the blight and destroyed the landscape.
For a refinery to be built in your backyard you have to write off the
land it's built on and everything downwind and down stream for a couple
miles. You can buy a house in Marcus Hook for about $20,000, the same
thing 10 miles up the road is $250,000.........now why would someone
want anything like that in their back yard?
It's not terribly hard to figure out.
That's the same Catch-22 that a lot of industries suffer from.
Airports are a good example, too. Thing is - you put industry X
somewhere, people will congregate around it for the jobs. Eventually,
you get people moving there because it's become a Nice Place to Live.
However... when the industry that started the growth wants to
expand, the residents protest against it. They forget that they owe
the existence of their community to that industry.
6 years for a refinery permit is nothing. How long did it take the last nuke
power plant to go from applying for a permit to online power generation? And
how many have been built in the last 3 decades or so?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
I'm confident that if/when it is profitable and low risk, they will be
Yes, and we are. I think we should be conserving domestic oil and
importing all the foreign oil we can get, ideally all of it, for
vehicle fuel use. For "energy" I favor other means.
I'd prefer to exhaust foreign oil supplies first. Then too, I suspect
that the US may eventually have to sell all or part of Alaska to pay
its debts and other obligations, and mucking up ANWR could adversely
effect the sale price.
Like nuke plants, one purpose for all the regulations and permit
hassles is specifically to make it UNprofitable. You can thank the
liberals/environuts for this. Same with all the lawsuits everytime
someone tries to build something useful like a refinery or power plant
-- they figure if they can't stop it outright, they can at least make
it too expensive to build.
Good idea, at least on its face. On the other hand, we need at least
some domestic oil to help keep the price of the foreign stuff down.
Without it, they'd really have us over a barrel. Also, if we wait until
the foreign sources dry up (physically or politically), it could take
too long to get domestic oil into production.
On 6 Sep 2005 22:42:03 -0700, " email@example.com"
Not quite. If you can't properly build a profitable safe secure nuke
plant, you should not build a profitable unsafe nuke plant.
I was referring to the increased use of modern wind mills. But now
that we have a nuclear waste depository and sky high petroleum prices,
I'd expect to see more interest in safe environmentally friendly nuke
You sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too. The SPR and
untapped US oil in the ground will tend to keep the price of foreign
oil down, but not by much. What will keep the price low is increasing
foreign production, and decreasing consumption by countries bidding
against us for the same oil. This can be addressed in part by our
foreign policy. For example, don't piss off oil producing nations or
their leaders, and for God's sake keep war out of those regions. Try
to keep other oil importing nations from becoming cash rich. E.g.
maintain a balance of trade with China (or even unbalanced in our
Not a problem. The problem is waiting (physically and politically)
for foreign sources to dry up before US reserves dry up.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.