Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869

    No OPEC Req'd - 500 mpg car

    Why doesn't our energy policy address things like this?.....


    Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon

    By Fareed Zakaria
    Newsweek
    March 7, 2005
    There have been many calls for programs to fund research. Beneath the din lies a little-noticed reality—the solution is already with us

    The most important statement made last week came not from Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush but from Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia's shrewd oil minister. Naimi predicted that crude prices would stay between $40 and $50 throughout 2005. For the last two years OPEC's official target price has been $25. Naimi's statement signals that Saudi Arabia now believes that current high prices are not a momentary thing. An Asian oil-industry executive told me that he expects oil to hit $75 this decade.

    We are actually very close to a solution to the petroleum problem. Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following speech: "We are all concerned that the industrialized world, and increasingly the developing world, draw too much of their energy from one product, petroleum, which comes disproportionately from one volatile region, the Middle East. This dependence has significant political and environmental dangers for all of us. But there is now a solution, one that the United States will pursue actively.

    "It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per gallon. This revolution in energy use will reduce dramatically our dependence on foreign oil and achieve pathbreaking reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions, far below the targets mentioned in the Kyoto accords."

    Ever since September 11, 2001, there have been many calls for Manhattan Projects and Marshall Plans for research on energy efficiency and alternate fuels. Beneath the din lies a little-noticed reality—the solution is already with us. Over the last five years, technology has matured in various fields, most importantly in semiconductors, to make possible cars that are as convenient and cheap as current ones, except that they run on a combination of electricity and fuel. Hybrid technology is the answer to the petroleum problem.

    You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a battery and petroleum. The next step is "plug-in" hybrids, with powerful batteries that are recharged at night like laptops, cell phones and iPods. Ford, Honda and Toyota already make simple hybrids. Daimler Chrysler is introducing a plug-in version soon. In many states in the American Middle West you can buy a car that can use any petroleum, or ethanol, or methanol—in any combination. Ford, for example, makes a number of its models with "flexible-fuel tanks." (Forty percent of Brazil's new cars have flexible-fuel tanks.) Put all this technology together and you get the car of the future, a plug-in hybrid with a flexible-fuel tank.


    Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless and independent advocate of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)

    If things are already moving, why does the government need to do anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large companies—in the oil and automotive industry—have vested interests in not changing much. There are transition costs—gas stations will need to be fitted to pump methanol and ethanol (at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per station). New technologies will empower new industries, few of which have lobbies in Washington.

    Besides, the idea that the government should have nothing to do with this problem is bizarre. It was military funding and spending that produced much of the technology that makes hybrids possible. (The military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All new naval surface ships are now electric-powered, as are big diesel locomotives and mining trucks.) And the West's reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what we spend in Iraq in about three months.

    Smart government intervention would include a combination of targeted mandates, incentives and spending. And it does not have to all happen at the federal level. New York City, for example, could require that all its new taxis be hybrids with flexible-fuel tanks. Now that's a Manhattan Project for the 21st century.

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: kronik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,332
    Fine.... but with no mention that Bush and his cronies also benefit from $50 per barrel prices. The reluctance to say anything about peak oil, is partly due to criminal greed (Bush et al get very rich from high oil prices and the Iraq war) and partly due to economic fear (thou shalt not spook the markets).

  3. #3
    tcp
    tcp is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    293

    a couple of forgotten items....

    You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a battery and petroleum. The next step is "plug-in" hybrids, with powerful batteries that are recharged at night like laptops, cell phones and iPods. Ford, Honda and Toyota already make simple hybrids. Daimler Chrysler is introducing a plug-in version soon. .
    Plug-in cars, hydrogen fuel cells and the like always forget to take other problems into account. To "plug-in" your car, electricity has to be produced at the generating station. What kind of increase in Coal, Natural Gas or Nuclear engergy is required if we "trade" gasoline for electrical charging. To produce hydrogen in liquid format, large amounts of energy are required. Where is that going to come from? Production of ethanols also require energy to produce as well as grain, potato, etc crops... when do we ramp those up to create all this magical ethanol? pesticide runoff increases, etc

    All these solutions really just trade one fuel for another.
    I don't have the answers but these problems are totally overlooked in this type of article.

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation: kronik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,332
    Quote Originally Posted by tcp
    Plug-in cars, hydrogen fuel cells and the like always forget to take other problems into account. To "plug-in" your car, electricity has to be produced at the generating station. What kind of increase in Coal, Natural Gas or Nuclear engergy is required if we "trade" gasoline for electrical charging. To produce hydrogen in liquid format, large amounts of energy are required. Where is that going to come from?
    Solar, wave, and wind power are all hydrogen producing possibilities.

  5. #5
    horizontally compliant
    Reputation: Simpleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtoomuch
    ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.
    Pure BS propogated by my home state (Iowa) & other potential ethanol producers looking to score some of your tax dollars. It takes oil to make ethanol. What do the tractors run on? Where does the energy come from to distill the alcohol? Not to mention the growing "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico & the amount of soil erosion created as we chase yet another pork-barrel scam...

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_312089.html
    http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    [QUOTE=Simpleton[I]] It takes oil to make ethanol. [/I]

    You raise a good point about the net energy of ethanol compared to what it takes to produce it. But, I think it's more accurate to say that it takes heat to make ethanol and you have to provide energy for that heat.

    It may boil down to this....you could get rid of your dependency on OPEC by using other means of energy to produce ethanol and other alternative fuels. Not as effiicient as pumping oil out of the ground and putting it in a tanker. But, consider the impact on world politics.

  7. #7
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,639

    One benifit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleton
    Pure BS propogated by my home state (Iowa) & other potential ethanol producers looking to score some of your tax dollars. It takes oil to make ethanol. What do the tractors run on? Where does the energy come from to distill the alcohol? Not to mention the growing "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico & the amount of soil erosion created as we chase yet another pork-barrel scam...

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_312089.html
    http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm
    if I may add it in here. One plus of plant grown fuel is that it is not taking cabon out of the ground and spewing it in the air. The plants take in CO2 from the air, take the carbon and make hydrocarbon chains out if it.

    Other than that, yeah, we still need to get the energy from somewhere, and the only 'free' energy sources are from the earth's heat, the sun or wind/wave. All of which are expensive to produce.

    Hydrogen take a lot of energy to seperate, but the benifits are pretty substantial. Water vapor as an exhaust product is pretty cool. If we can centralize the pollution generating facilities, then we can do a better job of controlling them. Easier to control one factory than 100,000 cars.

    That said, it is estimated that cars are only responsable for 25% of smog anyway, and the vast majority of that is generated by pre-1980 -ish cars. The rest is industrial. We really should get in the habbit of switching off of dino-juice, tho. Things would be a lot cleaner if we closed the carbon cycle. Not sure Ethanol is the answer, since it produces formaldahyde as a by-product.

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178
    Quote Originally Posted by tcp
    Plug-in cars, hydrogen fuel cells and the like always forget to take other problems into account. To "plug-in" your car, electricity has to be produced at the generating station. What kind of increase in Coal, Natural Gas or Nuclear engergy is required if we "trade" gasoline for electrical charging. To produce hydrogen in liquid format, large amounts of energy are required. Where is that going to come from? Production of ethanols also require energy to produce as well as grain, potato, etc crops... when do we ramp those up to create all this magical ethanol? pesticide runoff increases, etc

    All these solutions really just trade one fuel for another.
    I don't have the answers but these problems are totally overlooked in this type of article.
    correctamundo

    though I agree w/ the article (too) generally

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    Are you brain dead or just math dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by crashtoomuch
    Why doesn't our energy policy address things like this?.....

    Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon
    Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless and independent advocate of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)

    .
    I suppose just because someone writes something you believe it to be plausible?

    "a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)"

    OK.........will you please tell me how many acres of farm land will be required to produce the massive increase in in ethanol?
    Has your source ever done the math?
    Has your source ever done the math to show what the "net" energy is when a gallon of ethanol is produced versus the "net" energy that comes from fossil fuels?

    For one end of the spectrum.......
    http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
    There the professor claims it take more than 10 gallons of fuel to make 10 gallons of ethanol
    That is one end of the spectrum. On the other side you have net energy ratios of from 1.25 to about 1.65 from responsible sources...
    So you see they are debating how many gallons (energy) of fuel it takes to make 10 gallons of bio fuel. Some say it takes 11 or more gallons of fuel to produce 10 gallons of ethanol. Net loss. Others claim it only takes 8 or 7 or minimum 6 gallons of fuel to produce 10 gallons of ethanol........net gain.
    So as you can begin to see, to replace 8 of the present 10 gallons of petroleum with ethanol you will need not only those 8 net gallons, but you'll also need another 7 or 6 or 5 gallons of fuel to "produce" those 8 gallons of ethanol. Thus you need, say, 8+6 gallons, or a total of 14 gallons of ethanol to replace those 8 gallons of petroleum.
    So even if you increase the MPG of the average car you many only be able to drop that 14 gallon requirement to perhaps 10 gallons.

    Thus needing 10 gallons of fuel to replace the 8 gallons of ethanol in your above mentioned 85%.......or there about.
    So you need more total fuel in gallons and more fuel burned (combustion)....

    Now, even if you said, thats OK.......because its "renewable" while oil is not......you still have major problem....
    Where are you going to grow that massive increase in farming and harvesting..
    The scale needed to produce 85 percent ethanol/methanol is unknown in the modern world. You would have to plant every available acre west of the Missippi to achieve such a huge production.... What about the price of corn etc........would it remain steady with all that growth in demand? What would a box of corn flakes cost?

    Will you please give me your estimate of present agricultural acreage needed for this type of plan, and compare it with the total present acreage currently under utilization.

    In other words.........do you even have a clue of what is involved in such a pie in the sky scheme?
    If you don't have any idea, then what in the heck are doing presenting these views?
    They are fairy tales compared to reality.

    Do you even think about these things?

  10. #10
    ride your bike
    Reputation: jubilee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester

    In other words.........do you even have a clue of what is involved in such a pie in the sky scheme?
    If you don't have any idea, then what in the heck are doing presenting these views?
    They are fairy tales compared to reality.

    Do you even think about these things?
    I'm not sure if you consider yourelf a conservative, but this is a typical conservative response. If a liberal complains about a problem, they're a "whiner". If a liberal comes up with a solution, that idea "will never work".

    Perhaps we should simply wait for the problem to run itself into the ground, ala social security? The POTUS seems concerned about THAT problem after all....
    Taking it easy for all you sinners.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation: kronik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,332
    a small portion of our oil is renewable.

  12. #12
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by kronik
    Solar, wave, and wind power are all hydrogen producing possibilities.
    no, they don't provide that sort of scale of energy.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  13. #13
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot

    That said, it is estimated that cars are only responsable for 25% of smog anyway, and the vast majority of that is generated by pre-1980 -ish cars. The rest is industrial. We really should get in the habbit of switching off of dino-juice, tho. Things would be a lot cleaner if we closed the carbon cycle. Not sure Ethanol is the answer, since it produces formaldahyde as a by-product.
    Problem is, who are the offenders here? Third world contries and old communist countries that don't give a crap about the air and what they spew into it. You aren't wrong or anything, but short of invading china, mexico, and a list of other countries that don't have anywhere near the controls that we do, what's the point? Is there anything that could ever be done about it? Talk about imposing a way of life or "big brother"...
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  14. #14
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by jubilee
    I'm not sure if you consider yourelf a conservative, but this is a typical conservative response. If a liberal complains about a problem, they're a "whiner"
    Well, when they bring up crackpipe ideas that have no foundation in the real world, things like that are bound to happen.

    Is 500mpg even possible? I mean what is the PE of a gallon of that fuel? Modern cars are very efficiant given that they are buring fuel as energy. Isn't it somewhere like 40% efficiant? In any case, 500mpg sounds like a crazy stretch.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    In any case, 500mpg sounds like a crazy stretch.[/QUOTE]

    It is. If you read the article, they use a small percentage of petrol and mix it with other fuels, so to go 500 miles, you use much more than one gallon of fuel. But, you use only one gallon-equivalent of "gasoline". But, hey, that's how they got the eye catching title of the article.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    Ethanol is a "corn fed" profit created political scam

    Quote Originally Posted by jubilee
    I'm not sure if you consider yourelf a conservative, but this is a typical conservative response. If a liberal complains about a problem, they're a "whiner". If a liberal comes up with a solution, that idea "will never work".

    Perhaps we should simply wait for the problem to run itself into the ground, ala social security? The POTUS seems concerned about THAT problem after all....
    Hardly a conservative........but I am getting a bit sick and tired of people taking "stupid pills" whenever anyone presents even the most preposterous "complete" solutions and rediculous claims....
    "500 miles per gallon"
    or.........Oh, well just stop using petroleum and burn corn or restaurant grease.........
    or,........well just use hydrogen......which has zero pollution
    or.........solar on just a postage stamp 100x100 miles can power the nation
    or .........wind power just in one state could power the nation

    Unthinking people snap these claims up like candy......never asking the authors to produce the simple math to take their "answer" to the extreme they advocate.

    Simple hand held caculator math will render most of these "solutions" completely foolish.
    I just wish people would ask themselves why the simple solution isn't being taken up by some greedy company who would love to make money if it was so simple.

    BTW, the only reason why we are even using as much ethanol as we now are, is because greedy midwest farmers have bribed Senators to FORCE us to include ethanol..
    Purely for profits.... The present ethanol rules/laws have nothing to do with pollution or the environment. California is FORCED to use a special fuel which includes additives such as ethanol because it was legislated in Washington by Senators, who were unwilling to allow us to use equally clean formulas as found in other states, but which would be much cheaper than the crap ethanol we are being extorted to use.
    We, in California are forced to pay an extra 25 to 35 cents per gallon by these ethanol Nazis. The fuel according to all the experts is no cleaner than what is used in many other states, but because it is a special formula produced in no other states, we cannot import fuel from out of state to equalize our prices with the rest of the nation.......
    Thank you corn states.......

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    [QUOTE=Chester]I suppose just because someone writes something you believe it to be plausible?

    You mean like your reply?

    OK.........will you please tell me how many acres of farm land will be required to produce the massive increase in in ethanol?

    Most people read articles as food for thought. I don't think anyone expects the US to convert 100% of the transportation industry to ethanol. It's another arrow in the quill to wean ourselves off of OPEC.

    The gas that I buy at the pump is already 10% ethanol. And, ethanol does not have to come from corn. Research continues on fast growing plants including grass that can be processed into biofuels. There is also feedstock supply from waste products including wood chips and saw dust. Here are a couple of links for more info.

    http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/
    http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/b...eedstocks.html

    What would a box of corn flakes cost?

    They don't use food grade corn for feedstock, so you and Tony the Tiger can relax.

    In other words.........do you even have a clue of what is involved in such a pie in the sky scheme? If you don't have any idea, then what in the heck are doing presenting these views?

    It's pretty obvious that gasoline is not a long term option for transportation fuels. And, the current administration's energy policy makes no effort to address it. Someone emailed me that article this morning and I thought I'd throw it out there since it is an alternate view. Just as I threw the article from Science out there that showed that you could power the entire US electrical grid from a huge PV array in the Arizona desert. Do both of them have issues?...sure they do. And, I'm sure that the answer to each is much more complex than the silver bullet proposed. But, most people looking for solutions gather all the data that they can and usually the best fix is some composite of many alternatives.

    Aside from the energy and emmisions issues, there would be huge benefits in making the middle east less important politically.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    yes, but you lend a sense of possibility about a false reality

    [QUOTE=crashtoomuch]
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester
    I suppose just because someone writes something you believe it to be plausible?
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester

    You mean like your reply?

    OK.........will you please tell me how many acres of farm land will be required to produce the massive increase in in ethanol?

    Most people read articles as food for thought. I don't think anyone expects the US to convert 100% of the transportation industry to ethanol. It's another arrow in the quill to wean ourselves off of OPEC.

    The gas that I buy at the pump is already 10% ethanol. And, ethanol does not have to come from corn. Research continues on fast growing plants including grass that can be processed into biofuels. There is also feedstock supply from waste products including wood chips and saw dust. Here are a couple of links for more info.


    Aside from the energy and emmisions issues, there would be huge benefits in making the middle east less important politically.
    The problem is that few people putting forth such ideas, ever give the real some real perspective of just how much energy comes from fossil fuel.........Fossil fuels are very very very concentrated compared to corn, biomass.
    Anytime you begin to talk about anything beyond 15-20 per cent of our total usage, the practical realities become rediculous and that is seldom included in posts such as yours.

    YOu then throw in fast growing plants including grass........as biofuels. Others include trees and sawdust, chips etc......
    Do the math..........do the math........ You could convert every single tree in the state forests of California and the "net" energy you would get would hardly last the Automobile useage for a single year. The nature of the true numbers just renders these ideas as nearly worthless. On the news you continue to seem some group running "one" converted car from restaurant deep fry cooking oil and some idiot Hollywood star telling us how she is saving the environment by driving it.
    If any of these ideas had any possibility of going to scale at any reasonable cost, then I would listen.
    The reality is that ethanol is a very limited reality both because of supply/farming problems but mostly because it produces so little NET energy......Its all smoke and mirrors supported only by forced laws that mandate it.
    Hydro power is at its limit as long as no one will allow any more dams
    Wind is great when and if you can develope some large scale way to store the energy for those times when there is NO wind.
    Solar is very good if it can ever become competitive without huge government subsidies and IF you can find a way to store the energy for the nights and cloudy winter months.

    I'm all for trying to do little bits of all of these, but these small incremental changes are peanuts compared to our own growing power consumption and especially with the world's (China, India) growing consumption.

    For every 100 gallons we save via your suggestions, China and India are using 300 new gallons.
    I really don't see any practical way to stem the tide in our country without a realistic use of nuclear power.

    But we will chase dozens of micro solutions regardless of their obvious limitations and ignore the safe use of nuclear power. Nice thoughts by the environmental crowd but they provide no practical way to produce the massive amounts of power that we WILL need.
    And that from someone who uses far less power, and oil than the average Sierra Club member. I bet I use half the power.......NO, make that a third the power as the average Sierra Club member.....My utility bill is under $25 per month average.......I ride more bike miles than I drive......So I bow to no one when it comes to consevation.
    But I can do simple math so I don't fall prey to absurd proposals

  19. #19
    ride your bike
    Reputation: jubilee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester
    Hardly a conservative........but I am getting a bit sick and tired of people taking "stupid pills" whenever anyone presents even the most preposterous "complete" solutions and rediculous claims....
    I agree with you. There is no clear cut answer to the problem that will saatisfy everyone. I looked at the article in question not as a solution per se, but as a looking glass into the possibilities. Fact is, and I think most will agree, that petrol MUST be on its way out. It will be a slow and sometimes painful transfer but it has to be done...hopefully for something cleaner, smarter, and umm, renewable-er.
    Taking it easy for all you sinners.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    I wish that I had the time that others seem to so I could read and post all day. That pesky job gets in the way of both biking and posting.

    If any of these ideas had any possibility of going to scale at any reasonable cost, then I would listen.

    I don't have the numbers in front of me, but Denver's mass transit system switched a significany number of buses to methanol about 3 years ago. There is even a gas station a few miles from my house that has a methanol pump with "normal looking" cars frequenting it.. I suspect that it was done as much for pollution control as anything, but it is a switch.

    Wind is great when and if you can develope some large scale way to store the energy for those times when there is NO wind.

    My local utility completed installing 900 MW of wind power in the past decade. Probably small potatoes compared to CA, but they aren't done yet.

    For every 100 gallons we save via your suggestions, China and India are using 300 new gallons. I really don't see any practical way to stem the tide in our country without a realistic use of nuclear power.

    I think you've got apples and oranges there. Nuclear power will save the grid, but I don't think it does much for transportation. The cars of the future will run on something other than gasoline, and it obviously won't be nuclear cars (altough I did get to read a concept design for a nuclear powered plane when I was working for a defense contractor years ago). How about this....we put an ethanol plant next to a nuc plant and use the nuc fuel to power the fermentation?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    yes, this posting is getting in the way of my riding

    Quote Originally Posted by crashtoomuch
    I wish that I had the time that others seem to so I could read and post all day. That pesky job gets in the way of both biking and posting.

    If any of these ideas had any possibility of going to scale at any reasonable cost, then I would listen.

    I don't have the numbers in front of me, but Denver's mass transit system switched a significany number of buses to methanol about 3 years ago. There is even a gas station a few miles from my house that has a methanol pump with "normal looking" cars frequenting it.. I suspect that it was done as much for pollution control as anything, but it is a switch.

    Wind is great when and if you can develope some large scale way to store the energy for those times when there is NO wind.

    My local utility completed installing 900 MW of wind power in the past decade. Probably small potatoes compared to CA, but they aren't done yet.

    For every 100 gallons we save via your suggestions, China and India are using 300 new gallons. I really don't see any practical way to stem the tide in our country without a realistic use of nuclear power.

    I think you've got apples and oranges there. Nuclear power will save the grid, but I don't think it does much for transportation. The cars of the future will run on something other than gasoline, and it obviously won't be nuclear cars (altough I did get to read a concept design for a nuclear powered plane when I was working for a defense contractor years ago). How about this....we put an ethanol plant next to a nuc plant and use the nuc fuel to power the fermentation?

    yes, I've been posting more than is healthy the past few days because its been raining and raining and raining..........Looks a bit dry this afternoon so I will not reply any further until this evening if I get out to ride...

    Hey you have it partially correct in your last paragraph, but we won't use the Nuke plants to power our cars nor to make ethanol..........Rather the perfect way to make hydrogen is to use the Nuke plant at night, when everyone is sleeping and business is mostly closed.
    So you use the nuke power during the day for electricity from 6 am till midnight and then keep it humming at full power during the night to produce hydrogen and then power the cars with clean hydrogen during the day giving off no smog.
    Make a lot of sense, and it will take place eventually but far later than if we began building now instead of giving in to the fear mongers who march in lock step following the party line.

    " don't have the numbers in front of me, but Denver's mass transit system switched a significany number of buses to methanol about 3 years ago."

    yes, its always amazing because the adopters of these options tend to be very particular governmental uses. First because they don't have to worry about making a profit and second because most of their routes and vehicles are fueled at one central depota and the total mileage is usually low. Give me enough money/subsidy and I'll drive a car powered by raw sewage

    Wind power........yes we have lots in california just east of the Bay Area......but guess what the Sierra Club types are yelling about now..........Those darn windmills are killing too many birds.......endangered species........Shut them down.......Build no more......
    Stop the Killing...........I kid you not............Nothing is good enough for them, no matter how hard you try they find fault..... Some bug,,,,,,some snake,,,,,,,some bird,,,,,,,,,some air,,,,,,,,some water,,,,,,,,,some ozone,,,,,,SOMETHING is WRONG with your energy wasting life.........
    Get off the trails with your bikes (machines) and get off our hills with your 'killer" windmills.
    The birds were here first.........Humans must defer to their needs.
    Stop the killing........Burn more coal in that other state, and ship it here via power lines, but don't produce the power here..........
    Oh wait,,,,,,,,,,,,we don' t want any of those ugly powe lines.........they are destroying the beauty of our lands........Stop the powe lines.......Birds are being killed on the power lines.
    Stop Killing birds.........
    ETC
    ETC
    ETC
    ETC

    We are bad..........if only there were less of us (humans)
    Stop the population growth and urban sprawl..........they shout.........
    OK should we limit immigration legal or even illegal..( the main source of California growth).........The Sierrra Club........"OH, we won't take a position on that......we believe all environmental should have a global perspective".........meaning we won't take a position on the issue that is driving the growth in sprawl and power usage..........

    ETC
    ETC
    ETC

    Double talk........Triple talk.........Quadruple talk......coming out of their mouths

    Now off to my bike ride to work off all this pent up rage..........
    Tell the boss I'll be leaving early today, I'm plain tired from all this typing

Similar Threads

  1. Considering a new car, can't bring myself to part with old
    By wagon89 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-16-2005, 01:38 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-08-2004, 02:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •