The Ultra-Light Loremo

Over the weekend, I happened onto a link for a German car that is being designed for an amazing 157 miles per gallon (1.5 l/100 km). The car is called the Loremo, an ultra-light, two-cylinder, 20-horsepower, turbo-diesel with an price tag of about $15,000 U.S.

The Ultra-Light Loremo

After poking around a bit, I found that there is a history of ultra-light vehicles, but they have not sold well:

Driving On The Light Side

In 1999, German carmaker Volkswagen launched the Lupo 3L TDI in Europe, a no-frills subcompact that got 100 km on 3 L of gas. Volkswagen built 29,500 Lupo 3Ls and then last year yanked the car from the market. “It was too frugal,” says Hartmut Hoffmann, a product spokesman for VW. “Customer interest faded.”

In 1997, Ford announced plans for what it called the P2000, which promised to be 40% lighter than conventional family sedans. And in 2002, Opel, the European subsidiary of General Motors, unveiled the Eco-Speedster, a sleek, low-riding sports car that gets 2.5 L of fuel to 100 km. But none of the manufacturers ever intended to offer their ultralight cars for sale.”

But with fuel prices at historic highs, all that may be about to change. CEO Heilmaier says 10,000 people have signaled interest in buying a Loremo since March, when a model was shown at the Geneva auto show. That’s not bad for a car that hasn’t even been driven yet. The first drivable prototype is to be built this year, and Sommer expects to go into production of the first 5,000 to 10,000 cars in 2009 and ramp up to 100,000 by 2012. If consumers are finally ready to embrace radical fuel efficiency, then Sommer and his team will have truly nailed it.

Let’s just hope it all works out per the design. Personally, I think that’s a good looking car. If fuel prices stay high, they will probably fly out of the showrooms.

The Ultra-Light Loremo

Over the weekend, I happened onto a link for a German car that is being designed for an amazing 157 miles per gallon (1.5 l/100 km). The car is called the Loremo, an ultra-light, two-cylinder, 20-horsepower, turbo-diesel with an price tag of about $15,000 U.S.

The Ultra-Light Loremo

After poking around a bit, I found that there is a history of ultra-light vehicles, but they have not sold well:

Driving On The Light Side

In 1999, German carmaker Volkswagen launched the Lupo 3L TDI in Europe, a no-frills subcompact that got 100 km on 3 L of gas. Volkswagen built 29,500 Lupo 3Ls and then last year yanked the car from the market. “It was too frugal,” says Hartmut Hoffmann, a product spokesman for VW. “Customer interest faded.”

In 1997, Ford announced plans for what it called the P2000, which promised to be 40% lighter than conventional family sedans. And in 2002, Opel, the European subsidiary of General Motors, unveiled the Eco-Speedster, a sleek, low-riding sports car that gets 2.5 L of fuel to 100 km. But none of the manufacturers ever intended to offer their ultralight cars for sale.”

But with fuel prices at historic highs, all that may be about to change. CEO Heilmaier says 10,000 people have signaled interest in buying a Loremo since March, when a model was shown at the Geneva auto show. That’s not bad for a car that hasn’t even been driven yet. The first drivable prototype is to be built this year, and Sommer expects to go into production of the first 5,000 to 10,000 cars in 2009 and ramp up to 100,000 by 2012. If consumers are finally ready to embrace radical fuel efficiency, then Sommer and his team will have truly nailed it.

Let’s just hope it all works out per the design. Personally, I think that’s a good looking car. If fuel prices stay high, they will probably fly out of the showrooms.

The Ultra-Light Loremo

Over the weekend, I happened onto a link for a German car that is being designed for an amazing 157 miles per gallon (1.5 l/100 km). The car is called the Loremo, an ultra-light, two-cylinder, 20-horsepower, turbo-diesel with an price tag of about $15,000 U.S.

The Ultra-Light Loremo

After poking around a bit, I found that there is a history of ultra-light vehicles, but they have not sold well:

Driving On The Light Side

In 1999, German carmaker Volkswagen launched the Lupo 3L TDI in Europe, a no-frills subcompact that got 100 km on 3 L of gas. Volkswagen built 29,500 Lupo 3Ls and then last year yanked the car from the market. “It was too frugal,” says Hartmut Hoffmann, a product spokesman for VW. “Customer interest faded.”

In 1997, Ford announced plans for what it called the P2000, which promised to be 40% lighter than conventional family sedans. And in 2002, Opel, the European subsidiary of General Motors, unveiled the Eco-Speedster, a sleek, low-riding sports car that gets 2.5 L of fuel to 100 km. But none of the manufacturers ever intended to offer their ultralight cars for sale.”

But with fuel prices at historic highs, all that may be about to change. CEO Heilmaier says 10,000 people have signaled interest in buying a Loremo since March, when a model was shown at the Geneva auto show. That’s not bad for a car that hasn’t even been driven yet. The first drivable prototype is to be built this year, and Sommer expects to go into production of the first 5,000 to 10,000 cars in 2009 and ramp up to 100,000 by 2012. If consumers are finally ready to embrace radical fuel efficiency, then Sommer and his team will have truly nailed it.

Let’s just hope it all works out per the design. Personally, I think that’s a good looking car. If fuel prices stay high, they will probably fly out of the showrooms.

Pure Venom

It is disturbing to me that an industry that plays as important a role in modern life as that of the farmer is so vilified. It must be that people simply do not recognize the role the oil industry plays in their lives: From medicine to food to clothing to housing to transportation – today all are heavily dependent upon the oil industry. Yet somewhere a group got together and said “Hey, let’s slap a bunch of additional taxes and burdens on the oil industry. Surely they will bear the burden and there won’t be any impact on all of the citizens that depend upon their products”:

House slaps $16 billion in taxes on oil industry

“There’s a war going on against energy from fossil fuels,” said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. “I can’t understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry.”

A lot of people immediately peg me for a Republican because of my sometimes harsh criticism of the energy policies that Democrats often embrace. I don’t see too many (any?) Republican policies that I can endorse either (Hey, let’ s just drill in ANWR!), but they aren’t the party that always vilifies the oil industry and scapegoats them as the reason for high energy prices. I think that a positive feedback loop has been set up here where the Democrats are hostile to the oil industry, which therefore sends campaign money to the Republicans, which keeps the Democrats hostile.

I actually think that of all candidates in either party, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson has the most coherent energy policy, and he has a track record in New Mexico that demonstrates that the subject is very important to him. But in my opinion the Democratic Party has the more naïve view of energy. This bill is a perfect example. More from the Houston Chronicle:

House passes energy package

Swatting away objections from a cadre of energy state Democrats, the House voted 241 to 172 in favor of a 786-page energy bill and 221-189 for the companion tax package targeting the oil and gas industry.

With these votes, “the House propelled America’s energy policy into the future,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., called the vote on that provision, which passed comfortably, the “energy vote of the decade.”

The tax bill slaps the oil companies with $16 billion in taxes. Among other provisions, it would exclude the companies from a scheduled rollback in the corporate tax rate for U.S. manufacturers, increase the taxes on their operations overseas and complicate their efforts to write off exploration and production expenses.

That corporate tax rate benefit, incidentally, is only being rolled back for the oil industry. Other manufacturers will continue to enjoy it. How on earth do they think the industry can plan long term projects if the rules are changed in the middle of the game ala Hugo Chavez? Oh, right. They don’t think long term projects are needed, because they have mandated that the future will be bio-powered. I wonder what happens if they are wrong?

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, called the tax bill “extreme … even vindictive.”

Environmentalists, in contrast, were elated by the bill’s success. Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, called the package “a substantial down-payment in reducing global warming emissions.

I beg to differ. I am an environmentalist. I am not elated. I see some good things in this bill, and a lot of very naive thinking.

While I don’t think it will ultimately be passed into law, just once I wish our political leaders could look into a crystal ball and see the consequences of their actions. I understand that they believe if they extract money from Big Oil and spread the money around, we will all enjoy a happy, green future as Big Oil goes the way of the dinosaurs. Instead, they will find themselves explaining to their constituents in 3-5 years why they are now paying $5/gal for gasoline, and yet still have no viable substitute. Or more likely their successors will. And I don’t have a problem with $5 gasoline, but I do have a problem with lost opportunities and failure to confront the real problems.

Of course the real kicker is that even when oil companies decide to produce alternative fuels and are eligible for the tax benefits, some proponents cry foul and they suddenly become “oil subsidies.” This goes to show that the mentality in many cases is not pro-biofuel, but rather anti-oil company.

Pure Venom

It is disturbing to me that an industry that plays as important a role in modern life as that of the farmer is so vilified. It must be that people simply do not recognize the role the oil industry plays in their lives: From medicine to food to clothing to housing to transportation – today all are heavily dependent upon the oil industry. Yet somewhere a group got together and said “Hey, let’s slap a bunch of additional taxes and burdens on the oil industry. Surely they will bear the burden and there won’t be any impact on all of the citizens that depend upon their products”:

House slaps $16 billion in taxes on oil industry

“There’s a war going on against energy from fossil fuels,” said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. “I can’t understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry.”

A lot of people immediately peg me for a Republican because of my sometimes harsh criticism of the energy policies that Democrats often embrace. I don’t see too many (any?) Republican policies that I can endorse either (Hey, let’ s just drill in ANWR!), but they aren’t the party that always vilifies the oil industry and scapegoats them as the reason for high energy prices. I think that a positive feedback loop has been set up here where the Democrats are hostile to the oil industry, which therefore sends campaign money to the Republicans, which keeps the Democrats hostile.

I actually think that of all candidates in either party, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson has the most coherent energy policy, and he has a track record in New Mexico that demonstrates that the subject is very important to him. But in my opinion the Democratic Party has the more naïve view of energy. This bill is a perfect example. More from the Houston Chronicle:

House passes energy package

Swatting away objections from a cadre of energy state Democrats, the House voted 241 to 172 in favor of a 786-page energy bill and 221-189 for the companion tax package targeting the oil and gas industry.

With these votes, “the House propelled America’s energy policy into the future,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., called the vote on that provision, which passed comfortably, the “energy vote of the decade.”

The tax bill slaps the oil companies with $16 billion in taxes. Among other provisions, it would exclude the companies from a scheduled rollback in the corporate tax rate for U.S. manufacturers, increase the taxes on their operations overseas and complicate their efforts to write off exploration and production expenses.

That corporate tax rate benefit, incidentally, is only being rolled back for the oil industry. Other manufacturers will continue to enjoy it. How on earth do they think the industry can plan long term projects if the rules are changed in the middle of the game ala Hugo Chavez? Oh, right. They don’t think long term projects are needed, because they have mandated that the future will be bio-powered. I wonder what happens if they are wrong?

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, called the tax bill “extreme … even vindictive.”

Environmentalists, in contrast, were elated by the bill’s success. Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, called the package “a substantial down-payment in reducing global warming emissions.

I beg to differ. I am an environmentalist. I am not elated. I see some good things in this bill, and a lot of very naive thinking.

While I don’t think it will ultimately be passed into law, just once I wish our political leaders could look into a crystal ball and see the consequences of their actions. I understand that they believe if they extract money from Big Oil and spread the money around, we will all enjoy a happy, green future as Big Oil goes the way of the dinosaurs. Instead, they will find themselves explaining to their constituents in 3-5 years why they are now paying $5/gal for gasoline, and yet still have no viable substitute. Or more likely their successors will. And I don’t have a problem with $5 gasoline, but I do have a problem with lost opportunities and failure to confront the real problems.

Of course the real kicker is that even when oil companies decide to produce alternative fuels and are eligible for the tax benefits, some proponents cry foul and they suddenly become “oil subsidies.” This goes to show that the mentality in many cases is not pro-biofuel, but rather anti-oil company.