Advocacy & Safety - Alt. Fuel

I was reading an article about how Toledo is going to introduce Biodiesel powered public transport. This got me thinking, when/if biodiesel and bio fuels become widely used, will there be a large increase in the amount of cars on the road? I can see the mentality of motorist: "My car isn't polluting, so I can drive it more!!". My question is, do you think better city planning that allows easier use of bicycles and walking, and is resrictive to cars is more favorable than keeping existing plans while introducing less polluting fuels/energy sources? Should both be implemented? Personally, I would rather see better city planning that brings people closer together and promotes a sense of community.

"My car isn't polluting, so I can drive it more!!"
I think this is very true. Once cars start running on Bio-diesel, Hydrogen etc. people will drive them more, and traffic will get even worse. This might not affect the really big cities as they are already congested, but smaller townships, where people might walk, catch public transport or ride, will become busier. I would drive more myself. Sometimes I won't make a short (car) trip because I think about the pollution and leave that errand until I have several to do. With a clean burning car, I would have no reason not to drive short trips. Traffic will get worse.

CHEERS.

Mark

"My car isn't polluting, so I can drive it more!!".
99% of drivers don't even think about pollution. Anyway, Biodiesel is more expensive than regular diesel, so Biodiesel users will probably drive less if anything.

Sometimes I won't make a short (car) trip because I think about the pollution and leave that errand until I have several to do. With a clean burning car, I would have no reason not to drive short trips. Traffic will get worse.


I disagree. I don't think may people think about the pollutants now, so why would they in the future? The main reason most people would not drive shorter trips (and let's be honest, most of them do anyway), would be the difficulty of finding a place to park at the end of it -- and the fact that this just makes it faster and easier to walk. That factor is not going to change.

I disagree. I don't think may people think about the pollutants now, so why would they in the future? The main reason most people would not drive shorter trips (and let's be honest, most of them do anyway), would be the difficulty of finding a place to park at the end of it -- and the fact that this just makes it faster and easier to walk. That factor is not going to change.

Maybe as the technology progresses, people will become aware that they are driving a non or less polluting car, especially people in my generation. These are the people who will have driven a gasolene car, then either knowingly or by default bought a car powered by hydrogen. Either way, they will KNOW that they have to pump hydrogen into their car instead of gas, and subsequently, they will KNOW that they are not polluting as much. I think that traffic would increase, which leads to bigger roads, and parking lots, and hence, more cyclists run off the road. OTOH, people still might not drive more if fuel costs stay the same, even if it is clean. The next 20-30 years are going to be very interesting.

Maybe as the technology progresses, people will become aware that they are driving a non or less polluting car, especially people in my generation. These are the people who will have driven a gasolene car, then either knowingly or by default bought a car powered by hydrogen. Either way, they will KNOW that they have to pump hydrogen into their car instead of gas, and subsequently, they will KNOW that they are not polluting as much. I think that traffic would increase, which leads to bigger roads, and parking lots, and hence, more cyclists run off the road. OTOH, people still might not drive more if fuel costs stay the same, even if it is clean. The next 20-30 years are going to be very interesting.

I think traffic will increase regardless. The issue here won't be the fuel, it will be people's insatiable desire to drive, fueled by advertising rhetoric from car companies. Of course, when one considers that many newer residential developments don't even provide any space for other alternatives, it's hardly surprising.

As I said, making people aware of pollution isn't the issue. Most people are aware of it now (if you don't believe me, challenge 100 people to put their mouth over the exhaust pipe of car while the engine is running, I'd be surprised if anyone actually did). The issue is getting people to care, and the fact is they don't. I genuinely believe that most people would happily sell their own children into slavery if it put fuel in their car for another week, so I don't think a few pollutants into the atmosphere is going to change their mind about it.

Most people are aware of the pollution, but I would say that 99% of those people either don't care or just don't think about it. But, I can also see people not thinking about it when the technology is widely used. Maybe city planning would be the deciding factor in driving.

There is no way the world could grow enough bio-fuels to power all the cars, let alone let people drive more. I read a study somewhere who's author said the USA could grow enough bio-diesel to power all of the commerical transportation, but it would leave no room for agricultural exports.

A couple rants... Since when is biodiesel "non-polluting"? It's a hydrocarbon being fed through an internal combustion engine. I'd venture to guess that the amount of NO, CO, and CO2 are all comparable to a standard diesel engine. And where did the biodiesel come from? Most likely from a corn field grown from fertilizer that used fossil fuels during production. And when did hydrogen engines become "non-polluting". Where does the hydrogen come from? At best it's produced from water by electricity produced by wind power. But more likely it's produced from natural gas, or from water by electricity from a fossil fueled or nuclear powered plant.

Rant over...

I'd venture to guess that the amount of NO, CO, and CO2 are all comparable to a standard diesel engine.

I believe that the CO2 output of bio-fuels is equal to the CO2 imput of growing them (minus any fossil fuels burt in the growing, refining & transport of the fuel) thus they could be considered 0 CO2 emitting.

As far as I can tell, most American drivers don't care how much they pollute. They would not be encouraged to drive more with a cleaner auto, or drive less if they had to burn old-fashioned coal to get there.

What motivates folks to drive less is expensive fuel and to a lesser extent expensive autos and other operating costs (parking tolls, insurance, etc).

Most people are slaves to their own short-term comfort and immediate convience. Cleaner air will only be noticed when the problem becomes so bad that people start to choke walking to their cars. At that point it affects their comfort. Currently most folks like the idea of a cleaner environment only in the abstract. That means as long as it doesn't mean *they* have to change anything they currently do.

Dan

Just some thoughts

1) I don't believe people think about polution when they decide how to get someware.
2) Hydrogen is dangerious stuff we would be better off not using it to power cars
3) Use the fuel cell to generate power for stationary things - like homes - no wires
4) We should at least use scrap to make as much biodiesel as possibe - used fry oil
5) I would love it if towns/cities were friendly to travel without a car/truck
6) It might even stop suburban sprall if we made towns easier to move around in.

Joe

why do you say that hydrogen is dangerous? (don't pull that hindenburg crap... the problem with it was they painted it with iron oxide and aluminum powder... otherwise known as rocket fuel. rocket fuel burns orange. hydrogen burns faint blue)

Just some thoughts

1) I don't believe people think about polution when they decide how to get someware.
2) Hydrogen is dangerious stuff we would be better off not using it to power cars
3) Use the fuel cell to generate power for stationary things - like homes - no wires
4) We should at least use scrap to make as much biodiesel as possibe - used fry oil
5) I would love it if towns/cities were friendly to travel without a car/truck
6) It might even stop suburban sprall if we made towns easier to move around in.

Joe

Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasolene. If anything, it's safer! It dissipates much faster than gasolene vapors, and instead of sinking, it rises in air. Gaslene and hydrogen are both explosive, but i seriously doubt that hydrogen is any more so. http://www.depthofzot.com/hydro_safety.html

Hydrogen is the smallest lightest molecule so it's hardest to contain. And it's about as explosive as gasoline. try mixing some (small amount) with some O and a spark or glowing ember. - POP. Also making it is not clean and green unless you use solar or wind power.

There is no way the world could grow enough bio-fuels to power all the cars, let alone let people drive more. I read a study somewhere who's author said the USA could grow enough bio-diesel to power all of the commerical transportation, but it would leave no room for agricultural exports. If 90% of the world's agriculture resources weren't wasted on feeding animals that ultimately feed humans, that is, if humans converted to an agricuture system that directly feeds humans from plants, the surplus agriculture resources could easily provide enough biodiesel. But I digress....

Ah, hydrogen has a bad rap due to the Hindenburg. What everyone seems to miss is that over 1/2 of the passengers on the airship survived.

Hydrogen is very combustible, but it does not sink & puddle like gasoline vapors or natural gas. Everyone will learn to deal with the hazards of refueling with hydrogen just like they (some?) have learned to deal with refueling with gasoline.

People, on the whole, are ignorant, resistant to change & self-centered (unlike the denizens of this august forum) who will change their wasteful ways only when forced to by economics, law, or the Four Horsemen.

It's not my car that pollutes, nor my little garbage, nor my extra 2 degrees of air conditioning or heat. It's everyone else's.

Therein lies the problem. These days no one wants to take personal responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault... ;)

Hydrogen won't happen because the energy balance and economics will never work. It takes a lot of electrical energy to separate water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen molecules. That electricity costs money, has to come from somewhere, and in most instances will be associated with byproduct pollutants.

So your hydrogen car may not be a stinker, but the coal fired generating station that produced the electricity to make the hydrogen to fuel your car sure will be...and the nation's electrical generating capacity would need to be greatly expanded if we expect to keep driving like we do today, the only difference being the use of hydrogen for fuel instead of oil.

Right now, the only logical alternative that makes sense to me is much smaller, lighter and more efficient vehicles using hybrid technology.

whatever happened to methane power? good ole butt power.. yup! :D i'd have plenty o that! :)