Proclaiming Independence from Imported Oil

i agree with you 100% but i can say from personal experience that the shortage of vehicles has put Toyota in a position to where they cannot advertise the Prius as the car should be.

every day i run into people who have no real idea what a hybrid does or is. many think that they still have to be plugged in, that the batteries wont last more than a few years, that they are slow, limited range, cant be used for long trips etc.

riding in my Prius gives them all an eye-opening experience. but the fact is, i dont know that many people. so my spreading the word im afraid, simply aint going to go far.

Lets face it, if any american car dealer had won Motortrend's car of the year, we would have been bombarded with TV adds. Toyota, in its wisdom to do the right thing (like you expected them to do something wrong??) has not advertised the Prius hardly at all. (i will say that i did finally see a infomercial type add on Techtv for the Prius) I am hoping that the 2005 model year will address the shortage problems. i feel that unless production is increased significantly, the shortages will continue for another year.

To be honest with ya, i dont know that any car, no matter how good, would be able to overcome hurdles that difficult. it is a great testament to the value of the Prius and the conviction of hopeful Prius owners to have overcome all the delivery hassles of the past 8 months as well as it has.

 

Here in Maryland, I can purchase my electric power from a variety of power companies. Most are conventional, but one is a wind farm in the nearby mountains. Regardless of who I buy my power from, it is still delivered by the same cables connected to my house.

Applying the same logic to my oil consumption, if the US gets half of its oil from foreign sources, and I can reduce my current consumption by 50%, should I be able to claim that I have elected to stop using foreign oil? It's true that I'm not likely to bring OPEC to its knees, but if the whole country could reduce it's consumption by 50%, we could significantly reduce or even stop importing oil.

I realize that this is still also only a short term solution because eventually our oil reserves will be depleted to the point that we will have to resume importing oil. Hopefully we can develop alternatives (like hydrogen) before that happens.

 

ummm completely eliminating our dependance on foreign oil is unrealistic since only 65% of our oil comsumption is in transportation.

but not using middle eastern oil is obtainable and i think it should be our #1 goal. i am proud of the fact that Iraqi oil went from being our #6 supplier to zero.

you realize that our #1 importer is Canada.

for 1st quarter of 2004

1. Canada 17%
2. Mexico 13.7%
3. Venezuala 11.9%
4 Saudi arabia 11%

so you can see that if everyone went to hybrids with their estimated 75-150% increase in economy, that alone would do it.

NOTE although venezuala is an OPEC member, i dont look at them in the same light as i do the middle eastern countries simply by the way they manage the oil revenues more than their physical location.

 

You make a good point about the percentages. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it unrealistic since it is inevitable. It will be painful and will require sacrifices, but eventually we will have to stop using oil. The sooner we curtail our consumption, the longer and easier our transition will be to world without cheap oil.

 

it is inevitable in that it will happen when the world runs dry. but to have it happen before that could happen. if we moved all mass transit to Maglev and personnal transportation to hybrids it could be done.

 

Maglev is an energy hog to keep the electro-magnets charged sufficiently to elevate the vehicle; though once elevated, moving it is cheap. The extra control systems and safety backups have additional energy costs as well.

TANSTAAFL

 

maglev uses permanent magnets. no current necessary to maintain the charge.

the only electricity consumed would be in refrigeration to cool the conductors that moves the train. they are located in the rail system. while in superconductive mode, they consume nearly no power at all. the problem is that current "warm" superconductors work at temperatures slightly above liquid nitrogen temperatures.

although maglev technology has been known for years, it was never feasible as a transportation alternative because of "cold" superconductive materials that required temperatures at liquid helium (that is 4 degrees above absolute zero)

 

I have to agree with DonDNH. Maglevs currently use too much power to compete with conventional trains. Their biggest advantage is speed, and they may be more economical to run than regional jets. It takes a lot of power to produce liquid nitrogen, so until warmer superconductors are developed, Maglevs will remain impractical.

 

Some versions of the technology may use permanent magnets; however, the couple I have researched use superconductor magnets for both levitation and propulsion.

 

A question about a supeconducting track: If your track was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures, how would you keep the ice from building up during a rainstorm?

 

the tracks are completely sealed from the elements in some sort of special concrete-like stuff..

you realize that there is a 6" clearance between the train and the tracks.

also sealing the tracks in concrete helps to maintain lower temperatures. supposedly, (i find this a bit tough to swallow) the difference in energy requirements would only be slight for cold or hot climates.

but the reason why energy needs would not be extreme would be the insulation installed during construction and the fact that no waste would be generated to cool anything other than the superconducting material.

as i said, the website present a glowing outlook for this technology that is obviously bias. but at the same time, i dont see anyone disputing the claims. in fact, oil companies are ignoring maglev almost as if they think if they dont make a fuss over it, we will eventually forget about it.

i would love to see some independent studies but apparently much of what maglev 2000 Floridas technique is patented or not readily available for scrutiny. i was kinda hoping to find someone who maybe lived near where the company was located and might have access to employees or more info on the company.

i must say that the credentials of the CEO is rather impressive. and since he was a former high level director with both the EPA and the energy and transportation department, he seems well postioned to have answered the main questions from each of these departments.

but the main stumbling block is the $10 million per mile construction cost of the track. getting the government to back maglev like it did the freeway system will be hard to do since the freeway system was built to have a transportation system and maglev would be built to replace an existing transportation system ( well wont replace it, but would take 75% of the load off the highway system)

 

Some MAGLEV Studies and Projects

I work at the US DoT's Transportation System Center in Cambridge, MA. RR projects aren't my area but I've seen a few reports on the topic. The link above presents a GOOGLE search for some of the studies related to DoT's work in the area and some projects that might bring MAGLEV into being.