The objective has always been to make a difference. Apparently, it is now necessary to point out that the difference should be a positive one. Over the years, we've witnessed plenty of negative. Vehicles have grown larger and stronger, unfortunately resulting in a consumption increase. That's clearly a bad thing, yet they attempt to convince you that since the system is more efficient now it is a step in the right direction. The fact that it "saves gas" should in no way cancel out the reality that more gas is actually being used overall. Imagine if that wasn't the case, a world of greater size (capacity) & power (speed) while at the same time the decreased consumption. That would be amazing... and an actual reality in the computer industry. So why is the fact that it isn't in the automotive industry considered acceptable? True, it took a massive investment to accomplish that, but making such a difference does have an obvious benefit of helping to ensure long-term profits. Many automakers didn't run their business with the thought of anything beyond immediate survival though. Now they are really beginning to suffer for such a poor choice. Their efforts did appear noble on the surface. The development of fuel-cell vehicles kindled promise, but didn't actually support a goal that would make a difference. Substituting one fuel for another alone isn't really a step forward... which is why Toyota has adopted the motto of "Moving Forward". They actually are. Not only will the future hybrids support multiple fuels (like gas, ethanol, and plug-in electricity), they also strive to use less. Just look at the nonsense around the use of "E85". There is no consumption reduction. It is just a switch from one fuel to another. I'm really growing tired of the propaganda. When people accept change but no difference is being made, that's moving backward. Switching without benefit is a waste. And thankfully, many more people than in the past are catching on to this. Perhaps they are tired of me climbing up onto the soapbox so often. Whatever the case, it's nice to read comments posted in forums and printed editorials stating that consumers want progress now... change in a forward direction.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jun 4 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]265667[/snapback]</div> Also something people tend to forget when they talk about E85... we, the United States can't possibly produce enough ethanol with the available farm land! E86 is just a short term solution to the "energy dependancy" puzzle. Long term we need to reduce our energy needs. Just like electric plug-in cars. They are not the solution and they simply shift the problem. Personally I'm not buy a Prius for the "green" appeal, the EPA milage nor the tax credit. I feel I'm voting with my dollars and making the statement people will buy and want a fuel efficient car. I am voting with my dollars I don't need to drive a tank to and from work every day. I'm voting with my dollars that I care. I'm making my statement on the a cooperations bottom line.
The hyperbole never stops and we continue to use "voodoo" economics. Just as the Bush administration and the oil companies envision hydrogen being derived from oil, it is the same with biomass. To grow maize ("corn"), switch grass or other crop to produce ethanol requires fertilizer. Where does fertilizer come from? Yep, good ol oil. We cannot solve a problem by using the same process that caused the problem. As an integrated, constructive, long-term solution, we need: 1. Plug-in hybrids (better batteries, longer distance capabilities) 2. Greater use of [/b]renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro and conservation) on every home, church, business and school. 3. Transportation alternatives (walking, bicycling, light rail) 4. Local community focus (greatly reduced sprawl), neighborhood schools, etc.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jun 4 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]265700[/snapback]</div> Plug-in hybrids are not a solution until renewable energy powers the home. Unless you plug your hybrid into a solar cell or wind turbine your still getting your fuel from fossil fuels. Why must we insist burning coal is better than gas?
Maybe there are just to many people in the world. China and India are using more oil (cars). The planet is trying to tell us something. Slow down!!! :blink:
Hi All, Well, hydrogen from oil could be with enough developement, done ecologically. If you take the hydrogen out what are you left with ? Carbon, or with the right technology carbon fiber. That is carbon that will not end up in the atmosphere. With more oil one can make a high temperature thermoplastic resin. Put the two together and car bodies could be made. Car bodies that could be recycled by heating up the thermoplastic to seperate it from the carbon fiber. I am sure this is a little over-simplistic. The real problem here is that there are allot of board rooms that are fat and happy on the status quo. And do not want to change from using the valuable resource that oil from a low-cost fuel to a valuable strutural material. This will take decades. In the meantime they have mansion mortages to pay and the where-with-all to make the rest of us misreable for their sake. Like holding the riens on NiMH vehicle battery usage limits. There really ought to be an application of monopoly law against what Texico did. The present monopoly legal situation is probably getting close to 100 years old, and allot has changed. Maybe there needs to be some legal modernisation.
Some of the Biomass to EtOH would be good, in the short term. Not food stuffs but waste like wheat straw, corn stalks that are often burned in the field. We still need much of the grain to feed the world taking advantage of other biomass makes sense in the short term until even more renewable recourses come available. This needs to be a step wise process and EtOH from cellulose is not a bad short term idea.
