Washington Times has it right...

Interesting the storm seem to be brewing for true change. I wonder when it will happen, for some reason I don't think Bush is the president to move us away from oil.

 

[ The time demands such leadership, the national security requires it and the American people deserve no less...

[snapback]197265[/snapback]​

[/quote]

Somehow, I have my doubts that Bush will be the one--especially with such inspiration like:

"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together."

or the ever insightful:

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to pratice their love with women all across the country"

or let's not forget the ever-popular:

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods"


:blink:

 

The bad news is that we haven't had an energy policy in this country (not one that did anything, at least) since... well, since we've needed one.

Here was one of the first attempts:

"Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." President Richard Nixon, Jan 30, 1974.

And regardless of party or president, we've done no better since then.

It'll have to change some time!

 

Wow,

This is quite an odd article from the Washington Times. They traditionally are more likely to bash hybrids rather then promote them, but maybe this is some VERY good news that regardless of political ideology, the majority of Americans see our current depedence on oil as an untenable situation.

That being said, I just don't have much faith that this president will pull an "Only Nixon could go to China" dealing with oil. I really don't think he has the vision for it. As was stated in another post, no one has really done much about transportation efficiency, and that includes liberal presidents like Carter and Clinton, but I think in the context of the GWOT, there is more pressure for thing to change. Bush just ain't the one to do it.

Peace,
Cosmo

 

The current admin aka the republican party does have a policy:

Subsidize big oil to expand exploration
Remove environmental protection barriers
Invade countries that threaten the status quo

You may not like it (and I hope you do not), but the policy is there for your vote.

 

"If the vehicle's engine is also flexible-fuel compatible, plug-in hybrids can get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline."

Another reporter that doesn't understand that quoting MPG is disingenuous for a plug-in.
I wish these guys would talk to an engineer once in a while. <_<

 

You may not like it (and I hope you do not), but the policy is there for your vote.

[snapback]197324[/snapback]​

[/quote]


I'm under the impression my vote does not count. See Florida and Ohio. And if that isn't enough, Dibold, manufacturers of the new and improved voting machines has fought successfully to eliminate paper trails, and from what I understand, their machines are open to hackers. F.O.W. Indeed, I do not like it.

 

MarinJohn, I know of what you speak. But truthfully, rigging the vote in the US is nothing new, and the repubs are no more successful at it IMO than the dems have been in the past.

Only one person in 100 has to change their stance, and the republs are out of the white house. That is well within the public's ability, even with the current level of electoral corruption.

 

You beat me to it Kiloran... He combines BOTH the disingenuous MPG for plug-in AND e85 in one stupid swoop too...

Just saying that you get 500 MPG per petroleum gallon of gas tells you nothing if you're mixing in ethanol and grid electricity... saying you get 500 MPG implies that ethanol and electricity are "free" energy sources...

While they are certainly NOT... both cost the driver something, and both have their dependancy on foreign oil (be in indirect)...

 

They are an interim solution and that is all. I don't think anyone thinks that ethanol is the answer long term. Hybrids, ethanol, etc will help bridge the gap between now and the next energy source.

 

Isn't that pathetic, looks like old Dick was at least 30 years off.

 

It's the perception that ethanol is a "free" energy source that bothers me... the spin...

pretty soon you'll have a gasoline supplier advertising that you can get 2X the "foreign fuel" MPG instantly if you use their gas because they guarantee that their gasoline is 50% from American oil, and only 50% foreign...

No change in fuel consumption... no change in pollutants... just spin...

 

If GM and Ford sell 1 million E85 vehicles and even half burn E85 won't that eliminate the use of a lot of gasoline? How much gasoline does it take to make e85 besides the 15 %?
I am driving a tahoe right now that I am burning e85 in. I paid 1.85/gallon to fill up.

 

It's tricky to work it out... but it's certainly more than 15%.

That is assuming that you'll get a 50% adoption rate for E85. We are a long way from that. Some states have done a great job getting infrastructure up, but we're a long way from that being possible.

Not only that, but the price of E85 will have to go down, especially when people realize that the stuff will result in worse mileage out of their FFVs that regular gasoline...

E85 is a solution that unquestionably has promise to reduce foreign oil dependancy, but in terms of reducing the burden on the American driver's pocketbook... do not know.

If the price of E85 proves to be less volatile than gasoline (becauso only 15% of it is gasoline) then perhaps it is a good thing, and the price will not flucuate so wildly.

 

GM is planning a big roll-out to coincide with the Chicago Auto Show in early Feb. What I know about it was sourced mostly from Ford and GM, but I do know it is made from corn and there are literally parking lots full of corn formenting all over this area. Even if after all is said and done, the petroleum content moves up to lets say 25 % aren't we much better off?
GM and Ford have pointed the dealers to the following website to use as a resource:
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
Again I don't think anyone claims that E85 will solve all of our problems but if it reduces the Us need for oil by even 10 % that will drive the price of gas down a long ways.
In some way I think it is better if the price stays high because it will force real change. I fear that the price will go down to $1.50/gallon and everyone will go back to business as usual including GM and Ford.

 

Flex-fuel vehicles have lower CAFE requirements. That is the sum total of Detroit's interest. Nothing further will come of it, and Etoh use will remain a pittance, except for the occasional coversion to political pork.

 

GB had his ultimate chance after 9/11 to galvanize this country towards energy independence and look what we got. This admin's team is pure old school military industrial complex. It is not about reform or forward vision. We will pay for these mistakes and so will our children and grandchildren.

 

I'm under the impression my vote does not count. See Florida and Ohio. And if that isn't enough, Dibold, manufacturers of the new and improved voting machines has fought successfully to eliminate paper trails, and from what I understand, their machines are open to hackers. F.O.W. Indeed, I do not like it.

[snapback]197334[/snapback]​

[/quote]


florida and ohio are nothing compared to the governors election in Washington state. that election was bought by kerry

 

Just like the E85 coalition - a PAC with GM Corp as a founding member - you have conveniently excluded a lot of energy inputs required, to arrive at a very rosy NEV (Net Energy Value).

First of all, according to EPA fuel economy data at www.fueleconomy.gov, a 2WD Tahoe running on regular unleaded is rated 15 city and 20 highway.

Running on E85 that same Tahoe is rated 11 city and 15 highway.

A car like the Impala suffers an even larger fuel economy hit. On regular unleaded it's rated 21 city and 31 highway. On E85 it gets 16 city and 23 highway.

The NEV "required" to make E85 a substitute for all foreign oil is a fantasy, and even the USDA article includes data with many negative NEV's. Naturally, being promoters of the agribusiness, they sided with the positive NEV's and ignored the negative NEV’s:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/AER721.PDF

I have yet to see realistic estimates of how much crop land will be required for this little venture. Other sites bring this up:

http://www.ontheborderline.net/?p=1420

Notice the founding members of NEVC:

http://www.e85fuel.com/background.php?topic=About%20NEVC

Can you say "vested interest?" Rather than have a fuel economy mandate, say 45 MPG for cars and 30 MPG for SUV’s and pickups, E85 will turn them into even bigger gas hogs. Which is just what GM et al wants.

Now, if the corn currently used is truly a "waste" product, then by all means make use of it. We really do "waste" a lot of potential fuel sources by disposing of them, creating environmental hazards.

As an example: you mentioned you're from a corn-growing area. Must be a lot of pigs there too, sure must stink, just like in SE Manitoba. All that manure is kept in giant lagoons or spread on fields, the result being contamination of shallow potable water sources.

Why not capture that manure, put it into a digester, and create methane? It's an anaerobic process, and you end up with a sludge that is almost odor-free and far safer than raw manure. Surprisingly, the powerful corporate swine farms are *very* resistant to this suggestion, anything that reeks - pardon the pun - of more control over their operation.

Despite the fact in-situ microturbines with cogeneration will easily power these corporate farms, with the excess returned to grid-tie systems. Most studies point to a 3-5 year ROI at current power rates. Swine farms use enormous amounts of electricity, but we seem to be ignoring a good source of energy, that stinky result of all those hogs.

How about forestry operations? I have a lot of experience with industrial process control. Only very recently - like within several years - have producers even given serious thought to all the leftover from slashing operations. All the limbs, bark, chips, etc, used to be left to rot in the forest, or put in slash piles and burned.

Turns out you can gather up all the limbs, bark, chips, etc, and ferment that as well. The methane can be used in microturbine power plants to produce clean energy.

Even some city wastewater plants are beginning to use their effluent to produce power at in-situ cogen plants, with enormous cost savings. Imagine that, instead of giant complex power plants, you can have smaller plants located much closer to the source.

I'm sure you'll agree that in a world of unpredictable natural disasters and terrorist events, there is a strategic and tactical advantage to having numerous small-scale power plants, vs centralized large and complex power plants. Not "putting all your eggs in one basket."