Advocacy & Safety - Alternative fuels will be the end of us

Walking around an alternative energy convention I saw a display on electric cars, biofuels, fuel cells, etc. These people are great environmentalists who support alternative transportation and everything. I was reminded of a comment one of my ethics professors made once. He said these alternative fuels would be the end of mass transit, biking and walking and would actually make traffic worse. Because there would be no pollution from exhaust and no guilt people would drive even more. Ironically, the added tire wear and manufacturing and disposal costs, etc. of having all those cars would lead to even more pollution, more asphalt and way more traffic. Just what us cyclists need - twice as many cars, now with silent electric motors so you can't hear 'em coming. Be careful what you wish for.

Clay

Hopefully with all those added cars it could turn into total gridlock and we would just have to go around non polluting cars, at least we might breath easier on the roads?

I wouldn't care if alternative fuel vehicles caused more traffic, because i'd still be passing them all on my bike:D

It is a good point that manufacturing would go up due to more cars made, etc. Although, what you would also find is more factories and production facilities running off of bio fuel or any of the other alternative energy sources.

I really don't think the general public right now feels "bad" about driving their cars, so I actually doubt much would change. As stated many times on this forum, everyone here has a different reason they choose to bike, and reducing polution is not everyone's reason.

One other thing, I've found that ethics and philosophy professors always seem to have great points when they are speaking, but I'm starting to realize its really just that they are very good at the art of making their ideas sound convincing....

Anyways, you bring up a good subject to ponder!:)

I'll agree to that definately. Mainly becuase im into cars (alot). And i know about combustion engines. And when i get older, take in mind im young (not tellin how old), but i wanna be a mechanical engineer and i do how a cumbustion engine works and i do know how an electric engine works but when u put a hydrogen source of power on it i get confused.










shoulda made it shorter

Hi,
your ethics professor should have taken a class in economics. If, as is most likely the case, the cost of transportation with alternative fuel vehicles is markedly more expensive.....then people will change their behavior. Some will take the bus, others will simply drive less. In the 1970's a rise in the cost of gas had people driving less; and it was at this time that the bicycle boom hit.
The gas taxes in Europe have a similar effect.

Originally posted by Oxymoron
Because there would be no pollution from exhaust and no guilt people would drive even more.

That is the flaw in your logic. Do you really think that guilt is stopping an appreciable amount of individuals from driving now?

No way. :D

If, as is most likely the case, the cost of transportation with alternative fuel vehicles is markedly more expensive.....then people will change their behavior.
i think when alternative fuels are finally successful they will not be mre expensive...

but i agree with the premise here. i think about 4 years ago when i was a REALLY fanatic environmentalist and auto pollution really got to me, i came to the realization that most peope don't care about the pollution or the paving over of wilderness and farmland and the number of people killed on our roads... as long as they are nice and comfortable driving around in their own vehicle exercising their God given right to drive in the USA... and even if it were more expensive they will still drive (the rises in gas prices in the last 3 years have resulted in net GAINS in total miles driven) and that the only that that will change people's behavior is when driving is no longer convenient ---- and about the only thing that seems likely to cause that is traffic.

so, basically alternative fuels will take away some of the guilt points and reduce some of the evils of so much driving, but the waste of land, the number of people killed and the isolation and sprawl that the driving lifestyle will live on...

as i have said before on this forum, i predict that smoe time in 10-20 years traffic will be so bad that the auto quickly loses its role as the dominant transportation mode in cities... what will be next? probably some form of personal "pod" that connects into a public tansit system --- basically like riding the subway, except your individual seat is your own space (your own radio, your cell phone, no stinky "undesireable" next to you) and you get routed right to your destination - then for after-the-transit-travel the pod will be capable of moderate speeds to navigate the last mile or 2... unfortunately we have to wait for the "critical mass" of massive time wasting in traffic before this will happen (wouldn't it be better if we could do it now, but we can't) and then i think things will change quickly as there will be a demand ---- and MASSIVE money to be made, so things will happen quickly.

Hi,
we just pump gas from the ground. The energy cost per btu gained (to produce and deliver that fuel) is very small. It takes a lot of energy (and some $$) to make any of the the current alternatives. Electicity comes from burning coal, or uranium, or natural gas. The losses iofthat process add up. While I suspect alternatives will improve with time; for the forseeable future alternatives will be unable to reach either the dollar cost of gas; or the energy cost to produce a btu.

At least someone is making us think. What is the prospect for alternative power sources for cars? Will it ever be feasable? Will the cost ever rival gas? What does the future hold for auto transportation?

100 years ago, no one would have thought the world would look like it does today. Certainly, nobody would have thought there would be streets jammed with self-propelled vehicles, instead of horses, carriages or people.

Just as then, today we can't imagine a world without cars. But what if new technology offers us even better transportation? Or perhaps, no transportation at all? Silly? Not necessarily.

What if technology eliminates modern workers' need to commute?
What if we all start working from home? Just a thought. Many already do.

It's a fascinating thing to think about. I'm not sure what will happen. Who does, really?

Nevertheless, bike transportation is still the healthiest, cheapest, simplest way to get somewhere. Car transportation, no matter what the fuel, will be massively expensive, just as it is today...

...maybe...

:)

Originally posted by Pete Clark
At least someone is making us think. What is the prospect for alternative power sources for cars? Will it ever be feasable? Will the cost ever rival gas?
:)

I've been toying with the idea of buying a wind generator and using it to recharge an electric bicycle or other electric/hpv ride.

Of course, the generator has initial cost and maintanance cost, but it seems not unrealistic to imagine that we could use wind generated electricity to recharge batteries for a vehicle.

As usual, Pete has given us all something worth thinking about. I don't think alternative fuels will be the end of cycling at all. In fact, I think they will make no difference at all. Nobody feels guilt about driving, nobody cares about the cost of doing so. In fact, most people would quite happily sell their own children into slavery to put fuel in their car for another week. Personally I can't see any effect on us at all except for the fact that we might be able to breathe cleaner air in the future.

Originally posted by mike
I've been toying with the idea of buying a wind generator and using it to recharge an electric bicycle or other electric/hpv ride.

Of course, the generator has initial cost and maintanance cost, but it seems not unrealistic to imagine that we could use wind generated electricity to recharge batteries for a vehicle.
I, too, am fascinated by energy that isn't controlled by some big corporation. I've seen houses with solar panels, so I know it's feasable. Storage batteries must be useful for more than just playing a portable CD player, then throwing in the trash.

In the mean time, electric bicycles can be recharged for pennies from your household electrical outlets, from what I hear. And you can also pedal them.

:thumbup:

Originally posted by Chris L
...we might be able to breathe cleaner air in the future.
I'm ready for that, now.

:D

Originally posted by late
Hi,
your ethics professor should have taken a class in economics.Amen!

It's all about economics, not ethics. Nobody feels guilty about polluting. People will only stop if it hits them hard in the pocketbook.

No matter what the fuel, gridlock will result if we still rely on individual cars. Just means it will be cleaner to sit in traffic for hours at a time, and the cyclists whizzing by won't be coughing. :)

You guys have more faith in those alternates than I do. Hydrogen fuel cells work for space craft but hydrogen is very dangerous and hard to handle. Much worse than gasoline. Battery/Electric vechiles may be great for in town delvelery and maybe busses as it will lower the polution in that area but since batteries are not very efficient generating the electricity to charge them may actually cause more polution in total.

I like the thought that we could grow our fuel. Henery ford tried to get his cars to run on alchool - he was a farmer remember and wanted to help corn farmers. I think corn or soybean oil sounds better than alchool. Does anyone know what kind of residue is left after it burn in a cylindar? At least we would be encouraging more green stuff to try and convert some of the polution back to oxygen. And the concept of using used oil from fast food places sounds really great I'd like to find a way to reuse everything.

Joe
stepping down off soapbox

Faith has nothing to do with it. The amount of petroleum in the ground is finite.
The consumption of said petroleum is growing rapidly. If you compute out a generous estimate of the oil in the ground, a reasonable estimate is 80-100 years. If you DOUBLE that estimate, it buys you an extra seven years before the oil is simply gone. If you ever read the industry press, like the Oil and Gas Journal, they are quite aware of this and you see regular reports on the massive invenstments the oil companies are making into alternatives. If they want to stay in the enrgy business, they will have to use an alternative. In additon, as you hit the knee of the consumption curve, prices are expected to ride dramatically. This will eventually make alternatives acceptable. Another thing I found fascinating is that the oil industry is spending over a billion (thats a thousand million bucks, folks) right now to develop next generation oil drilling equipment. These will be amazing devices. But almost immediately after those are up and running, they will have to develop the last generation of oil drilling equipment; and the cost will be enormous both to develop and deploy.

When we hear about the electric cars, we should remember that the power of all the electric generators in the world is several times less then the power of all the car engines in the world.

There is simply not enough electricity to move the same number of cars. The electricity is expensive both in the economical and environmental sense.

More promising is the compressed air as the fuel, because it can be produced directly from, say, wind generator, without expensive intermediate electricity.

So all those hydrogen and electric cars are mainly built by the car producers for the public relations.

Burning alcohol produces carbon dioxide and water, as far as I remember. But those vast soya fields will be the pollution by themselves. Besides the carbon dioxide is not good for the ecology either.

The oil resources on the planet are limited. With the same rate of burning they will last 2 - 3 decades. Maybe even after one decade there will be the panic price for the oil. Because oil is also the raw material for the plastic, medicines, etc. Even now the price for oil is above $30.

The competition for the oil fields is becoming tougher and tougher. This competition is emerging as the main source of the modern military conflicts already nowadays.

So it will be neither the car, nor the electric car. I guess it could be the modern trains where one can walk in with the bicycle. Germany and some other European countries begin to introduce this model.

Whenever alternative energy issues come up, I find it interesting that electric power is always a main focus. As stated in this thread already, electric power is not the answer, as it takes so much energy to produce. People are more readily willing to accept electricity as a form of alternative power because it is a form that they are familiar with.

We have the ability to harness so many naturally occuring and recycled power sources, but yet everyone is still stuck on the electricity idea. Any moving water can be transferred to power. So can moving air. So can sunlight. So can decomposing trash. So can magnets.

The power source that makes the most sense to me, but seems to be the most overlooked is using used fast food oil. It is starting to catch on big in Oregon, and I've already been to a few festivals that were completely powered by this fuel. The bi-products are miniscule except for glycerine, which is a benevolent substance.

The technology and ability to use a variety of renewable and effective recources as energy is already there. If we want to begin adopting these alternative energy sources into our daily lives, we need to accept that what may seem unconventional now will have to be the reality in the near future.

People want to drive. Understandably. Personal transportation has increased the quality of living enormously. Now people have access to a greater variety of work, leisure, and living arrangements than ever before. And all of this has been accompanied by a significant increase in _freedom_, people's ability to determine for themselves the nature of their life.

All of these things are true even with the costs that automobiles bring, including pollution and congestion. (Though traffic deaths are much more serious, but as many posters here have noted over the years these deaths could be significantly reduced by enforcement measures short of driving people out of cars.)

So of course people will continue driving, even if it becomes more expensive. What fuels cars will use in the future is a peripheral matter in comparison to these facts. Indeed, the only real effect alternative fuels will have on driving is in virtue of their cost, whether that be higher or lower than now.

As it is now, the costs of the alternatives is high. Which is why we don't use them. Indeed, the push for alternative-fueled cars is proving a vast money-losing proposition for auto makers. If it weren't for what amount to government requirements to keep these cars around (in virtue of fleet-wide gas mileage standards that these poor selling cars help manufacturers meet), these cars wouldn't be made. Not yet, anyway.

Even the gas-hybrid electric cars aren't a good deal. Have you seen those things? Tiny cabins, like Ford Festivas. 70 horsepower at peak! Very little trunk space; the batteries take up most of it. Batteries and an electric engine, both of which will have to be maintained and replaced much sooner than standard auto components. All for a sticker of 20k, U.S.

No wonder Toyota and Honda lose a bundle on these cars; barely anyone buys them.

Unless you had some ideological fetish about the consumption of gas, or were just fascinated with the new technology, why would you? You can buy a standard Civic or an Accent for about 12k, and get over 30mpg anyway. And you get a much better car.

All of which amounts to the clear and obvious implication of the market's signals: alternative fuels or engine combinations are not anything like competitive with standard combustion engines.

Someday they might be-- I'm as forward looking as the next guy. But not any day soon.

Originally posted by Merriwether
As it is now, the costs of the alternatives is high. Which is why we don't use them.


Originally posted by Merriwether
No wonder Toyota and Honda lose a bundle on these cars; barely anyone buys them

You make some good points, Merriwether, though I disagree with a few things:

~Although most alternatives are yet to be developed at a cost effective level, there are already some known alternatives that cost very little. People just refuse to accept these alternatives.

~People have not embraced the alternatively fueled car options because they are unwilling to compromise with what feels "normal" to them. People have always put gas into their car. I have read recent polls which relay that people would not want to plug their car into anything to "recharge". It just seems strange to them.

~One major reason the hybrid cars have not taken off is because there is extreme lobbying by the fossile fuel corporations to limit the exposure and sales of these hybrids. One example is that at least in Oregon, when you register a hybrid car, you must pay a penalty for owning such a fuel efficient car. It is actually more expensive to register a hybrid than an SUV. This is a direct result of oil industry lobbying to make owning a hybrid that much less attractive of an option.

I do agree fully that driving essentially equals freedom, and people will drive no matter what the cost. Personal cars have elevated modern society to new heights (and new lows) in many ways.

The focus of society, however, should include planning for future generations rather than merely looking to raise their standard of living in the present time.

You think that car brings freedom. I think getting rid of the car brings freedom.

Without the car I do not have to wash the car, fuel it, visit the service center regularly, visit the technical check at the police (brrrrr....).

Besides without the car I can travel more and see more. I begin to learn my city at last.

Pollution, destruction of the ecosystems are very significant problems. These problems are knocking on the doors. Knocking very hard. In the form of the pollution related incurable ilnesses for example, or catastrophic climate changes, like they have, say, in Portugal or France now. These problems can not be dismissed lightly.

In 1920, Robert Milliken, Nobel prize winner in physics, said, "There is no liklihood man can ever tap into the power of the atom." He was the authority of his day. Two decades later, Enrico Fermi was instumental in conducting the first controlled nuclear fission reaction on a volleyball field beneath Chicago's stadium.

Scientific discoveries can happen so quickly that it's hard to tell what alternative power sources might be widely used in 50 years.

I think man is capable of far more than he realizes when he puts his mind to a task. If we can develop catastrophic weapons of mass destruction when under pressure, why can't we develop new, clean sources of energy? We have only begun to unlock the secrets of the universe. The only danger is in misusing them.

I believe we are capable (if we desire it) to explore new means of
developing energy sources, manufacturing materials, and chemical goods that are more compatible with the natural scheme of things. Instead of creating imbalances that disrupt nature and are toxic, such as with CFC's, fossil fuels and nuclear waste, we can learn more about chemistry and physics to the degree that we can develop alternatives that don't harm us or our world.

A funny short story (true: ) a man and his wife were trying to get rid of a mouse from their RV while on a trip south of the border. Try as the did, they could not buy a mousetrap anywhere. They tried every trick to catch the mouse without success. Finally, in a stroke of genius, the man's wife said to him, "Anybody who can build his own airplane (which he had done) can certainly build a mousetrap." So he did, and caught the mouse.

Anybody who can come so far in tapping the powers of nature can do it in a way that is friendly to the environment.

Of course, I know the naysayers will say, "That's unrealistic. Investors will not spend money on expensive research when there are cheaper things available. It won't happen." I didn't say it would happen, I said it might be possible.

Originally posted by Merriwether

Though traffic deaths are much more serious, but as many posters here have noted over the years these deaths could be significantly reduced by enforcement measures short of driving people out of cars.

The car violence will continue. It is in-built into the current system.

When millions of cars can drive with the speed of 200 - 250 km/h, it is impossible to enforce 60 km/h limit.

The problem of the speeding could be solved very easily. It is technically possible to include in the car the speed limiter, which would work only inside the city via wireless signal and make it impossible to drive faster than 60 km/h.

But it will never happen. Because the car violence is the part of the car culture.

Enforcement measures will work only partly, because there will be always someone, who would drive 200 km/h with the blinking light on the car roof, there will be someone, who would bribe the enforcement officer, or a smarty, who will use the radar to detect enforcers.

The car violence is the part of our culture, as once the gladiators' circuses were. Only this sort of violence is even worse, as it may touch anyone.

That is the flaw in your logic. Do you really think that guilt is stopping an appreciable amount of individuals from driving now?

That was my thought.

But check this out, a compressed air powered car.
http://www.theaircar.com/models.html

And the other drawback is having air we can actually breath.. ;)

The alternative fuels do not address the problem of the obesity and body shape deformation, caused by the sedentary life style.

The obesity leads to the loss of attractiveness and results in health and family problems.

Originally posted by gonesh9

~Although most alternatives are yet to be developed at a cost effective level, there are already some known alternatives that cost very little. People just refuse to accept these alternatives.

~People have not embraced the alternatively fueled car options because they are unwilling to compromise with what feels "normal" to them. People have always put gas into their car. I have read recent polls which relay that people would not want to plug their car into anything to "recharge". It just seems strange to them.

~One major reason the hybrid cars have not taken off is because there is extreme lobbying by the fossile fuel corporations to limit the exposure and sales of these hybrids. One example is that at least in Oregon, when you register a hybrid car, you must pay a penalty for owning such a fuel efficient car. It is actually more expensive to register a hybrid than an SUV. This is a direct result of oil industry lobbying to make owning a hybrid that much less attractive of an option.

I do agree fully that driving essentially equals freedom, and people will drive no matter what the cost. Personal cars have elevated modern society to new heights (and new lows) in many ways.

The focus of society, however, should include planning for future generations rather than merely looking to raise their standard of living in the present time.

Gonesh,

Of course you're right that consumers are irrational to some extent. I'm more than willing to believe that a lot of them are excessively risk averse to new ways of fueling. I agree that car companies do lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment, and they often succeed (though their success in doing this is overestimated by their critics.)

Still, the most straightforward explanation for the failure of alternative cars is that they are not very good in comparison to the standard, gasoline combustion cars. They are more expensive, less powerful, smaller, less safe in collisions, and contain a lot of experimental gadgets with unproven reliability. So we don't have to appeal to any subtle political analysis to explain why these cars haven't yet caught on.

As I said, it's a clear cut decision for most people. They can get a Civic that they can expect will carry them 150k miles with ordinary maintenance for $12k, all in. There's room for their friends, or a bicycle in the back. If they wanted to spend the 20-some large on a Prius, they could get a Camry instead. If you've ever seen a Prius, you'll wonder how anyone would buy it instead of a Camry. Or an Accord. Or a Malibu.

It's not that we couldn't have alternative vehicles now. We could if we were willing to pay the cost. But, at present, that cost would be enormous. We're talking about significantly lowering the standard of living for just about everyone.

This isn't to say these cars won't appear some day. I'm optimistic about the ingenuity of auto manufacterers. I'm just saying it's not realistic to expect these cars in the near term. That's all.

In fact, what we're likely to see in the foreseeable future are refinements on existing combusion technology. In particular, we may well see the reintroduction of diesel engines in a large part of the passenger car fleet. Newer diesel engines are a lot quieter than those of twenty years ago. They get very good mileage with low emissions. More importantly, diesel motors will still provide people with capable cars.

Cycling might catch on with a lot more people, too, but I'm not optimistic. Ever since the bike lane boom of the 70's we've been told we're at the beginning of a cycling revolution, with bicycles filling offices, cubbies at subway stations, and bike lanes on public roads. Yet even today only a few wayward souls like ourselves ride bikes regularly for something other than recreation. I think it's realistic to expect that to continue, whatever it is that fueling the cars that blow by the cyclists too fast and too closely.

Cheers,

I remember it was like this with smoking. It seemed to be invincible. Every movie hero had the inevitable cigarette.

Those wayward souls, who tried to point to the dangers of smoking, were dismissed. When the true data started to emerge about smoking, people got it rather quickly.

The results of mass car traffic in the cities, of the pollution through exhaust and toxic rubber dust from tires will show only in several years or decades. Because the pollution influences mainly children.

It is like with food. Children, who moved to the USA from Japan after they were older than 10 years, have the increased rate of stomach cancer, which is characteristic for Japan. Scientists believe it is because of the salty smoked fish, which is used in Japan as food. But children, who moved to the USA from Japan immediately after the birth do not have any any increased rate of stomach cancer. The age stops to influence this rate after 10 years. Researchers conclude that the environment makes the most significant influence on the human during first 10 - 12 years of his life.

The pollution in our cities from the mass car traffic is on the raise. If the children, who are born and grew up during this ecological disaster, begin to get seek and die in the age of 20 - 30 years, earlier than their parents, who grew up during more favorable ecological situation, the problem will not be ignored anymore. Like with smoking the government will have to act, and as with smoking it will be again too late for many.

Merriwether-

I do agree that given the option of a Prius or a Camry, a Camry is definitely a more attractive option for all the reasons you give :)

Why are all the current hybrid cars so strange looking?

We can go to alternatives with very little change to the current system. The problem is, we won't until the last drop of gas is sucked off the face of the earth.

This year at the Indy 500, 32 cars raced on a two mile oval with speeds in excess of 200 mph! No gasoline was used. In fact, gas has NOT been used on the speedway in over 25 years! Why aren't they using gasoline at the Speedway? Pretty simple. Alternative fuels are safer.

What happened to that guy who invented a synthethic (sp) that was half the price of gasoline and could be mixed right in with your gasoline?

What happened to that guy who developed an engine which would use TREES as a power source while not leaving the carbon smoot behind. You could plant acres of these inexpensive trees he discovered and havast them for fuel providing jobs for thousands of farmers in the process.

These are just a couple of alternatives that could replace oil. We won't do it because hundreds of millions depend on the income from the sale of oil. Destabalizing (sp) these foreign economies would bring hunger, famine, mass unemployment and war in many places around the world.

Can you imagine how much MORE these Arab countries would love us if we no longer needed their oil?

Originally posted by Dahon.Steve

These are just a couple of alternatives that could replace oil. We won't do it because hundreds of millions depend on the income from the sale of oil. Destabalizing (sp) these foreign economies would bring hunger, famine, mass unemployment and war in many places around the world.

Can you imagine how much MORE these Arab countries would love us if we no longer needed their oil?

Oil is very valuable resource. It is the raw material for clothing industry, for plastic, medicines, etc.

The real market price of it is much much higher than the poducers get now.

But we know what happen to the leaders of the oil producing countries, who try to discuss the status quo. We saw in in Venezuela, in Iraq, and in many oher places.

The money for oil does not reach people in those countries. They just make the handful of sheiks rich.

So do not worry about saving some gas. People will be even beter off.

This year at the Indy 500, 32 cars raced on a two mile oval with speeds in excess of 200 mph! No gasoline was used. In fact, gas has NOT been used on the speedway in over 25 years!

I believe the Indy cars run on Methanol which has zero emissions. The only problem is that Methanol is corrosive to aluminium engines. That is why an Indy engine is stripped and drained after every race. This is obviously not possible in normal road cars.

Electric cars are a joke also. Most populated cities have enough trouble generating electricity for it's people in the summer months let alone trying to recharge a million cars at the same time.

I think hydrogen is the only real solution for the time being. Sadly, I feel that when cars have zero emissions, traffic will increase even further.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Dutchy

I think hydrogen is the only real solution for the time being. Sadly, I feel that when cars have zero emissions, traffic will increase even further.


There is much better already comercially working solution than hydrogen http://www.theaircar.com/

Traffic increase even further - let it. Traffic by itself is not bad thing. The side effects are the problem.

Originally posted by Dutchy
I believe the Indy cars run on Methanol which has zero emissions. The only problem is that Methanol is corrosive to aluminium engines. That is why an Indy engine is stripped and drained after every race. This is obviously not possible in normal road cars.

Electric cars are a joke also. Most populated cities have enough trouble generating electricity for it's people in the summer months let alone trying to recharge a million cars at the same time.

I think hydrogen is the only real solution for the time being. Sadly, I feel that when cars have zero emissions, traffic will increase even further.

CHEERS.

Mark

I agree with you about the electric cars. At least for now.

Hydrogen cells would be cool, if there were any reservoirs of hydrogen on earth. Of course, if there were, we'd _already_ be using the stuff and wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any free hydrogen in a few billion years on Mother Earth.

For now, we'd just have to get hydrogen from oil. The whole process is a lot less efficient just than making gasoline.

If we find a way to extract hydrogen efficiently from sea water, we will know that our energy problems have been solved. We can just look to whatever it was that provided the electricity cheaply enough to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Then we can use _that_.

I should say about electric cars, though: a breakthrough in battery technology would put a lot of those cars on the road. If they had decent power, range, could be fueled in less than a day, and didn't cost a fortune, their quiet motors and the prospect of home charging would make them a big hit.

Actually, a lot of things would jump far ahead with better batteries. Consumer electronics, personal computers, a lot of things. Solar would make a lot more sense for many more applications.

But, our batteries are what they are and so there we are.

Cheers,

Originally posted by scarry
That was my thought.

But check this out, a compressed air powered car.
http://www.theaircar.com/models.html

Why not use CO2? It's a by product in many industrial methods, compressed CO2 doesn't need to be temp maintained to any large extent, and you'd get more for the volume than compressed air.

Originally posted by gonesh9
The power source that makes the most sense to me, but seems to be the most overlooked is using used fast food oil. It is starting to catch on big in Oregon, and I've already been to a few festivals that were completely powered by this fuel. The bi-products are miniscule except for glycerine, which is a benevolent substance.

I too was very enamored of this solution, until I found out the economic realities behind it.

Unfortunately to do this on any large scale is not possible. Small numbers of people can do it, but if one ever tried to ramp this up to a larger scale the supply of the fry oil is not there.

For a few idealists, there is plenty of used oil to go around, but try to power every car and the used oil runs out.

And, new vegetable oil is, at least now, much more expensive than petroleum products. A gallon of veggie oil costs maybe $4 a gallon.

In a few years, maybe gas gets up to much higher in price than veggie oil, so the $4 a gallon starts to look good. Only problem then is if everyone competes for this oil supply instead of petroleum the demand and thus price goes up again, and there is only so much supply as there is only so much arable land for growing.

I am also very excited about used fernch fry oil for cars, I have a diesel vehicle I want to convert to do this. Howevwer much i want it to be a viable answer, it will not keep us all in cars. However maybe in the future it can be the fuel to power the busses and trains when cars are too expensive for everyone.

take care,

Jester

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Merriwether People want to drive. Understandably. Personal transportation has increased the quality of living enormously. Now people have access to a greater variety of work, leisure, and living arrangements than ever before. And all of this has been accompanied by a significant increase in _freedom_, people's ability to determine for themselves the nature of their life.

People don't want to drive. They want mobility. And personal automobiles haven't given them freedom; it has made them slaves to the debt of ownership, maintenance and operation of their vehicles.

As it is now, the costs of the alternatives is high. Which is why we don't use them. Indeed, the push for alternative-fueled cars is proving a vast money-losing proposition for auto makers. If it weren't for what amount to government requirements to keep these cars around (in virtue of fleet-wide gas mileage standards that these poor selling cars help manufacturers meet), these cars wouldn't be made. Not yet, anyway.

Even the gas-hybrid electric cars aren't a good deal. Have you seen those things? Tiny cabins, like Ford Festivas. 70 horsepower at peak! Very little trunk space; the batteries take up most of it. Batteries and an electric engine, both of which will have to be maintained and replaced much sooner than standard auto components. All for a sticker of 20k, U.S.

No wonder Toyota and Honda lose a bundle on these cars; barely anyone buys them.

Actually, you're wrong on most counts. Sales of the Toyota and Honda hybrids are exceeding expectations, and they are increasing production capacity to meet the demand. Prices will come down as a result of increased production and availability. Quality and performance will improve over time. Remember how much your first hand-held calculator or computer cost, and it's performance, compared to today's machines?

Unless you had some ideological fetish about the consumption of gas, or were just fascinated with the new technology, why would you? You can buy a standard Civic or an Accent for about 12k, and get over 30mpg anyway. And you get a much better car.

It's not an ideologic fetish; its called preserving the planet and our species. Can you say 'Global Warming'? Or don't you believe in that yet, either?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by randya
People don't want to drive. They want mobility. And personal automobiles haven't given them freedom; it has made them slaves to the debt of ownership, maintenance and operation of their vehicles.

Ah, here we go, the anti-automobile crowd has arrived.

It's a wonder nearly everyone buys a car, what with their being so bad for the people who buy them. But I suppose people just need a good dose of government regulation to tell them what's really in their interests.


Actually, you're wrong on most counts. Sales of the Toyota and Honda hybrids are exceeding expectations, and they are increasing production capacity to meet the demand. Prices will come down as a result of increased production and availability. Quality and performance will improve over time. Remember how much your first hand-held calculator or computer cost, and it's performance, compared to today's machines?

No, the Prius isn't a net money maker for Toyota. Don't wait for "prices to come down", either.

Read here, and note the elliptical phrasing:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/20913.htm

Here's the relevant paragraph:

[beginning] Toyota officials recently told Bloomberg News that Prius is turning a small per-unit profit after some 75,000 worldwide sales as of late December 2001. Starting with 2002, the company will increase yearly Prius deliveries to the U.S. by about 40 percent to some 17,000 units. Even so, Toyota says sales will remain insufficient to offset research and development expenses, capital investment, and perhaps warranty costs. Bloomberg News also reports that by 2005, Toyota projects building up to 300,000 alternative-power vehicles a year on a worldwide basis, including hybrids, battery-electrics and engines powered by fuel cells and natural gas. It's a costly but necessary effort to meet new rules in Japan, Europe and the U.S. requiring automakers to sell more vehicles with zero- or ultra-low-emissions powertrains.[end]

Again, the article makes plain that even Toyota concedes its hybrid cars are made and sold because of government regulation requiring them, or requiring high mileage cars. In effect, auto makers have to sell these unpopular and money-losing cars in order to make a profit on their more popular vehicles.

That's the situation, and it's not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Here's another article on hybrid cars:

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/michaels-030427.html

It's not an ideologic fetish; its called preserving the planet and our species. Can you say 'Global Warming'? Or don't you believe in that yet, either?

You put it the right way, asking if I "believe in it"-- since worries about global warming are so much a test of faith these days.

But, no, speculative harms that will come many decades from now, if ever, are hardly sufficient cause to ruin everyone's quality of life in the present.

But even if they were, it wouldn't change the fact that hybrid cars are just not ready for prime time. They're more expensive, slower, smaller, and less safe than conventional-- and more popular-- designs. Even if we had to cram into a Toyota Prius to "save the planet", we'd be losing a lot of car in the bargain. Not to mention more people in traffic deaths.

"The money for oil does not reach people in those countries. They just make the handful of sheiks rich."

Actually, part of the problem in Saudi Arabia right now is the royal family is too large, and the various "princes" all demand large shares of the oil wealth, which they're not getting. Combine this with a huge underclass and an educational system in the hands of intolerant religious zealots, and you have a country that could very well collapse into chaos in the next few years... and you can bet the next government there won't be as cozy with the western world. Of course, we can always send troops to prop up the house of Saud, who have kept the price of oil low by turning on and off their taps to meet world demand.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Merriwether
It's a wonder nearly everyone buys a car, what with their being so bad for the people who buy them. But I suppose people just need a good dose of government regulation to tell them what's really in their interests.

Ah, here we go, the deregulation crowd has arrived.

As I have posted elsewhere (sorry, I can't remember which thread, or I'd direct you there), IMO, the 'need' for a car is the result of seriously bad land use planning (oh!, no!--more dreaded gov't regulation!) resulting in a suburban dystopia in which cars, unfortunately, have become essential.

But, no, speculative harms that will come many decades from now, if ever, are hardly sufficient cause to ruin everyone's quality of life in the present.

So you're willing to concede that global warming is a possibility, but at the same time are unwilling to do your part to preserve our planet's health and natural resources for future generations, as you exploit them for your own selfish interests?

They're more expensive, slower, smaller, and less safe than conventional-- and more popular-- designs. Even if we had to cram into a Toyota Prius to "save the planet", we'd be losing a lot of car in the bargain. Not to mention more people in traffic deaths.

Ah -- Bigger! More popular! More powerful! A bargain! -- the American way! And safety is relative--if there weren't so many unecessary behemoth SUVs on the roads, smaller cars WOULD be safe. By your logic, how can you ride a bicycle? It's that much less safe than a hybrid...

I think you're trolling this site--why don't you leave us alone and log on to NASCAR, or somewhere similar, where you belong?

Originally posted by Merriwether
You put it the right way, asking if I "believe in it"-- since worries about global warming are so much a test of faith these days.

But, no, speculative harms that will come many decades from now, if ever, are hardly sufficient cause to ruin everyone's quality of life in the present.


If you do not like the words "Global Warming", you may use the term deforestation.

In Portugal a lot of woods are gone due to the unusually hot summer. Portugal claims the national disaster. It does ruin the qulity of life of millions already.

There are other ecological problems caused by the side effects of mass car driving. The life species disappear from Earth hudreds per day. The scientists can not understand why yet, but the main suspect is the Global Pollution. Life, as we knew it, disappear from Earth. Instead new forms emerge - AIDS virus, for example.

I do not see why we shall not play it safe and take measures to reduce the car usage. There are many realistic measures, which could be taken. For example, taxing the gas heavily, introducing the proportional tax for the car weight - the tax is proportional the square of the car weight. The money could be spent on building the cycling infrastructure.

If there are bicycle trails, correctly constructed, which lead to places, people would cycle more. It is not a problem to cycle on the correctly constructed trail even in rain.

The key word is the Tax. Tax them and they will come.

Originally posted by randya
why don't you leave us alone and log on to NASCAR, or somewhere similar, where you belong?

I agree with everything in your post except these lines.

The discussion forum is for the discussion. Let us hear the opposite side too.

I am internally convinced that your point of view is right. But once upon a time I also owned the car and was the "happy" driver.

Something changed my mind later. Maybe this discussion could be this something for Merriwether. And he will drive less.

His point is that seating in the car is cozy and driving is convenient. No argument here. The problem is visible when we look at the effect of million of cars driving inside the limited city space.

Sorry, the NASCAR comment WAS hitting below the belt...but I just couldn't resist...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by randya

As I have posted elsewhere (sorry, I can't remember which thread, or I'd direct you there), IMO, the 'need' for a car is the result of seriously bad land use planning (oh!, no!--more dreaded gov't regulation!) resulting in a suburban dystopia in which cars, unfortunately, have become essential.

Here's a translation for those not consumed with a vague, enviro-rage:

"suburban dystopia": The sort of community in which people can enjoy decent-sized houses, a yard their kids can play in, quiet at night, and freedom from crime, dirt, and urban blight.

Yeah, what kind of nightmare regulatory scheme permits people to live like that!? And worst of all, these people use privately owned transportation to move as they wish from their homes to their jobs, entertainment, shopping, or what you. Just makes you angry thinking about it, doesn't it?

So you're willing to concede that global warming is a possibility, but at the same time are unwilling to do your part to preserve our planet's health and natural resources for future generations, as you exploit them for your own selfish interests?

Even if global warming is nightmare waiting to be realized in 2100, a few more Prius on the road now isn't going to make much difference either way. So, just to be clear, whatever we now say about global warming doesn't have much to do with our original topic.

In any case, acting to prevent global warming by reducing emissions is a serious business. It would induce huge-- and certain-- costs. We'd have to curtail power generation, industrial machinery, and transportation. The result would be unemployment, wage reductions, ******** growth, reduced retirement pensions, more expensive goods and services, all of it. Not to mention the very real impact on health and welfare that result from lower standards of living. These impacts would be even worse in poorer countries, which are less greenhouse-efficient and have much less of an economic cushion to begin with.

It's hard to know for sure, but predictions on the optimistic side have us reducing growth in the U.S. by about 1-2% a year just meeting the Kyoto protocols. Reductions like that will reduce the overall size of the economy, compared to what it would have been, by ~1/5 of its original size in just a decade. For example, that's a $2 trillion dollar loss in growth every ten years starting from today's U.S. economy. And Kyoto would delay the onset of global warming harms-- if there are such-- by only a year or so. Big deal. Reducing emissions far enough to delay harms of global warming by decades or more is a far different matter. We would have to reduce economic activity in a way unlike anything short of the Depression. Double digit unemployment, the likely prospect of high inflation (if the government protected its real tax revenues by raising interests rates), real human suffering.

I know. What are these grubby and mundane harms compared to the exalted goals of nature conservation? If someone loses his job, he should just backpack into the woods and contemplate the very prospect of his worthiness to use any of Mother Gaia's resources.

But like it or not, before we impose dramatic emissions-reduction regimes we ought to be sure that they are necessary.

This caution is more than just waiting to see whether we should "believe in" global warming. It's considering other responses, too. For example, it may well be less costly to continue to increase wealth for the next few decades and just see what happens. If there is a serious problem in the future, we can act when we're richer and have better technology. Ultimately, it may be more efficient just to adjust to whatever climate changes occur in a century than it would be to ****** growth to prevent them. This is particularly true for poorer countries that have so little in the way of wealth now.

Thanks for revealing the perversity of so many environmentalists, though. It's one thing to worry sincerely about the threat of global warming. But if that were all there was to it, you'd at least be willing to concede that people would be losing something important in implementing emissions-reductions programs. But no-- you welcome the prospect of global warming. You relish it. You scoff at the thought of selfish suburbanites worrying about their homes, their standard of living, or their freedom. And you help remind us of what so much of the debate on global warming is about: it's the occasion for college-age socialists to fantasize about cramming suburbanites (their parents?) into crowded city centers at gunpoint. Who cares what these people say they "want"? They're just victims of false consciousness anyway, duped by car manufacturers and other predatory plutocrats. Global warming might just provide the chance for someone to someone to reveal to them their true interests.

Ah -- Bigger! More popular! More powerful! A bargain! -- the American way! And safety is relative--if there weren't so many unecessary behemoth SUVs on the roads, smaller cars WOULD be safe.

Larger cars protect one better in a crash, and not just because of relative weight differences. If everyone drove a large sedan, the death rate from collisions would be lower than if everyone drove a small car, like a Prius.

I don't expect you to see this right away, but think it over and get back to us.


By your logic, how can you ride a bicycle? It's that much less safe than a hybrid...

Oh, yes, I see: because I like bicycling I should prefer a Prius to a larger or faster or safer car. That's a good point. Oh, wait, that makes no sense. That's right, I don't bicycle because of self-loathing or guilt. And, for all your self-righteousness, neither do you.

I think you're trolling this site--why don't you leave us alone and log on to NASCAR, or somewhere similar, where you belong?

No, it's all right; I can just switch windows between the sites.

It's funny how so many on the far left manage to think of themselves as an enlightened vanguard. Yet have they have no use for replies to sober economic or technological remarks other than hyperbole, dismissal, or some other temper tantrum.

Why don't you learn something about economics? Yes, such heresy risks wounding the tender heart of Gaia, but you might come to appreciate the facts that underlie human welfare in the modern world. Then again, misanthropic fantasies couched in enviro-jargon are so much less work, aren't they?

Originally posted by Max
If you do not like the words "Global Warming", you may use the term deforestation.

In Portugal a lot of woods are gone due to the unusually hot summer. Portugal claims the national disaster. It does ruin the qulity of life of millions already.

There are other ecological problems caused by the side effects of mass car driving. The life species disappear from Earth hudreds per day. The scientists can not understand why yet, but the main suspect is the Global Pollution. Life, as we knew it, disappear from Earth. Instead new forms emerge - AIDS virus, for example.


There is more forest now in North American than at anytime in more than a century. And still forests grow, as disused farmland is reclaimed by wild growth in the Northeast and Midwest. Creatures that were rare seventy years ago-- raccoons, white-tailed deer, snapping turtles-- are common now. So, plainly, automobile use is consistent with forest protection.

Yes, old growth forests in the West are threatened, but that's because of consumer demand for wood. It's not because of cars.

AIDS is a little much to lay at the feet of GM, I'm afraid. And extinction rates are not hundreds per day; in any case, environment protection is most successful in developed countries. Why? Because their wealth permits them to pay the costs. Economic growth is likewise the most promising prospect for preserving the natural resources of poor countries.

Ah -- Bigger! More popular! More powerful! A bargain! -- the American way! And safety is relative--if there weren't so many unecessary behemoth SUVs on the roads, smaller cars WOULD be safe. By your logic, how can you ride a bicycle? It's that much less safe than a hybrid...I think you're trolling this site--why don't you leave us alone and log on to NASCAR, or somewhere similar, where you belong?

:roflmao: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Thanks, you made my day!!!

Originally posted by Merriwether
There is more forest now in North American than at anytime in more than a century. And still forests grow, as disused farmland is reclaimed by wild growth in the Northeast and Midwest. Creatures that were rare seventy years ago-- raccoons, white-tailed deer, snapping turtles-- are common now. So, plainly, automobile use is consistent with forest protection.

...snipping


Very true. Air quality in big cities then was worse also.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Very true. Air quality in big cities then was worse also.

Sorry, that I have to disappoint you.

Life does disappear from Earth. It is difficult to calculate the rate exactly, because only 1.6 million of the organisms from the modest estimate of 7 - 10 million are documented. Many disappear without even being discovered. But the rate is in hundreds per day.

Here is the excerpt from the IUCN article on the subject. It was written in 2000, now the situation is much much worse. Scientists speak of the Ecological Collapse.

The world's species face an unprecedented crisis. The rate at which they are being lost is alarming, even when compared with the extinction episode of 70 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared. No-one knows exactly what the current extinction rate is, but recent calculations by leading scientists put it at between 1,000 and 10,000 times greater than it would naturally be. The rate of extinction also appears to be increasing. Species are threatened in every habitat on every continent, though the severity of threat varies from place to place. Evidence suggests that freshwater habitats, particularly rivers, and oceanic islands are very severely affected by species extinction. Tropical Asia and Australia appear to suffer particularly high extinction rates.

Some of the wealthier parts of the world have been successful in bringing about the recovery of certain species and greater efforts have been made to curb the loss of species over the past 20 years. Yet despite some isolated successes, conservation progress has generally been too little, too late, and the global situation continues to worsen.

There are many causes of the current extinction crisis, but all of them stem from unsustainable management of the planet by humans.

You may read the whole article here:

http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/species2000.html

Some more links on the subject:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9902/fngm/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20011129072744/ens.lycos.com/ens/aug99/1999L-08-02-06.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html

I do not see how limiting the weight of the personal car legislatively or economically, by the punishing tax
to 1 ton (typical sedan), as opposte to the SUV's 3 tons, can harm the economy.

If the big SUV hits the normal sedan, maybe the SUV driver is safer, but the sedan's driver is not safer, but on the contrary.

I do not see either how hardware-limiting the speed of the car to, say, 60 km/h inside the city can influence economy negatively. It will impreove it, as there will be less dead and injured drivers, peds, and cyclists. Now it is 40000 per year of dead people. Is it good for the economy tp lose 40000 workers per year in the USA alone?

Humans is just one of the biological species. It may go as good as others one day.

And many times it was not possible to stop the extinction of the particular organism, no matter what was tried.

So the position that "let us continue irresponsible behaviour and handle the consequences later, when the trouble arrives" seems to me unreasonable (at least).

As for the cities - the cities were the pillars of the human civilization. People walked on the glittering streets. Nowadays the cities turn into the giant garages. The current blight is not the fault of the citiy itself.