Slug-Lines.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Archived Slugging Topics > Hybrids
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Go Yellow
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedGo Yellow

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Message
N_or_S_bound View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 20 May 2005
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote N_or_S_bound Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2006 at 8:51am
NoSUV,

If you consider ONLY one vehicle traveling by itself, you may be correct (I'm not going to go do the research).

Consider though that none of us live isolated from the rest of NoVA. Your SOV contributes to congestion which increases pollution as more cars (both conventional and hybrid) sit in overcrowded conditions than would be the case were there only HOVs in the HOV lanes.

Now, to use some more of your logic, the one where you rightly address the "other" driving you do in addition to commuting. You're rightly looking at an end-to-end consideration when evaluating the claimed efficiency of hybrids. Consider though how you depart from that logic by ONLY evaluating your lone SOV hybrid in both the area of congestion AND post-use disposal. Hybrids aren't designed to last as long as "conventional" vehicles and therefore are NOT cleaner as they fill up landfills with toxic substances at a greater rate than conventionals.

Can't compare ANY system without looking at it holistically. Overemphasizing any one aspect, which may be good in and of itself, while disregarding potential downsides is irresponsible if not misleading (depending on which side of the marketing equation you're on).

Oh btw, I own 2 MP3 PLAYERS and no Ipods. Didn't buy into the marketing sloganeering there either. Might I also remind you of a bit of history, Sony Beta was superior technologically to VHS, but Sony missed the marketing boat (or conversely the proponents of VHS more successfully leveraged their marketing efforts). So, we got stuck with something that would do the job, but wasn't as capable. World didn't end, but which would you rather have: something that is better or something that is worse for comparable $$?

NoSb

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
Back to Top
twothreefour View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote twothreefour Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2006 at 3:20pm
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br] Why should I buy a hybrid and commit to 5 - 10 years of owning a vehicle that perpetuates the status quo? Our current (gas and hybrid) technologies are perpetuating the myth that its ok to burn fossil fuels. I don't care what your MPG is, it is not ok to continue to burn fossil fuel! Hybrid marketers present their product as a "solution" and distract people from the reality that gas is the wrong fuel.

My next investment will be in an alternative fuel vehicle. This technology is right around the corner! When it hits, all gas burning cars (including hybrids) will be obsolete before you know it. And hybrids will soon be just a quirky display in a museum next to the "house of tomorrow!" Hybrid owners are driving the 8-tracks of tomorrow!



raymond, I agree with you that the future needs to be non-fossil fuel, and I hope you are correct that it is right around the corner, but I don't see the commitment by manufacturers or the infrastructure to support a quick change. Why would manufacturers invest so much pushing alternative fuel technologies when we will continue to buy gas guzzlers, waiting for something "better" to come along. Marketing aside, hybrids are an improvement...and currently available.
Back to Top
Wagonman View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 05 Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wagonman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2006 at 4:29pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]NoSB: So, which is better - an 8-track or an Ipod? Let's face it - the FACT is that hybrids as SOV pollute less than conventional cars as SOV in the same class. The commuter lot SHOULD be full of hybrids, as well as the roads. Unless we sit on our...hands...and wait for the next best thing. How long do we wait? And how's that 8-track?



But we know this is not the case so why do you keep making this assertion? It isn't fact.
Back to Top
NoSUV View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NoSUV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2006 at 3:42pm
Actually wagonman, we know it IS the case. Hope everyone read the article in Sunday's (7/2) Post (Outlook) about how ethanol isn't an option - the authors did the research fairly extensively. Seems that going yellow causes far more problems than it solves. And yet, there are still people who think the earth is flat and hybrids are no better than conventional vehicles. Guess we should refer to them as hybrid hating flat earth 8 track owners.
Back to Top
n/a View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote n/a Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2006 at 8:30am
NoSUV, I actually think 8-tracks are kind of cool, in a retro kind of way! (Just like hybrids will be in a few years)

And I'll go back and read that article, because I believe that all information is good, but I have already read several interesting pieces on this subject that support renewable alternatives as the next significant step in fuel technology. I suspect that this article will present a balanced debate on the benefits and challenges of alternative fuel technologies, as opposed to your discouraging description.

And I agree with your walk the talk challenge, that there will come a day when we will not drive fossil fueled cars. But unfotunately, that day is not today. Our infrastructure is built around fossil fuels and it will take time and effort to change it. For now the best options for most people are to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, and to communicate to marketers that we want renewable fuel alternatives. The best way to communicate to marketers is with our $$, to reduce our investments in fossil fuel consuming products.

We need to open our eyes to the reality that auto and fuel companies will sell us whatever is most profitable for them, not necessarily what is the best thing for our environment or our pocketbooks. If we demand more alternative fuels and flex-fuel cars, they will build them.
Back to Top
n/a View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote n/a Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2006 at 9:31am
This from and article in the June 19, 2006 issue of Crain's Detroit Business:

"Suppliers fuel up to fill demand for ethanol, by Anjali Fluker, June 20, 2006. Proponents cite many advantages of ethanol, produced from crops such as corn. It burns cleaner than gasoline, is a renewable product, and is made in U.S., which reduces the nationís dependency on foreign oil, among other things.

Last year, ethanol displaced 170 million barrels of oil, lowered consumer gasoline prices about eight cents a gallon and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 8 million tons ó the equivalent of taking more than a million vehicles off the road, according to a speech made at Februaryís National Ethanol Conference by Bob Dinneen, president of the Washington-based Renewable Fuels Association."

The article discussed how more and more gas station owners are preparing to carry ethanol based fuels.


Back to Top
SpongeBob View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SpongeBob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2006 at 9:48am
I'm not a scientist (just an invertebrate), but all of these "burning" technologies are just variations on a theme, aren't they? We extract fossil carbon from the ground, burn it as gasoline in our cars, release the carbon thereby back into the air where the corn or trees trap it via photosynthesis, then we burn the corn and release it back into the atmosphere, and so on.

I know, I know: corn-burning is not re-introducing fossil carbon into the big greenhouse, but neither is it reducing the planet's atmospheric carbon load. It is an equilibrium strategy at best.

What we really need is safe nuclear-generated electricity, tide/wind farms, and bigger, better batteries in our vehicles. Imagine a true zero-emissions vehicle... I know you can.
Back to Top
n/a View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote n/a Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2006 at 12:48pm
Sponge, did you actually use "safe" and "nuclear" in the same sentence? Hmmmmm. I think there are about a million families living near three-mile island who would have doubts about that. Could you imagine millions of cars with little onboard nuke power plants driving around the US? Scarry!

I agree with your reasoning, though, and agree that there are better alternatives to power our cars than the internal combustion engine. And while auto R&D teams work out the details on the hydrogen powered car, we still need a reliable, realistically implementable and sustainable fuel to power our vehicles for the next century. And I think we all agree that oil is not it. Hybrids don't really address the issues either. So is the answer ethanol, bio-diesel, or "plug-in-electric?" I really don't care which, as long as we do something smarter than we are doing now, and soon!

On a wider scale, I agree that we should harness hydro, wind, solar, etc. energy sources for our power needs. Think of all the wasted space on the roof of your house that could be used for solar panels and passive solar water heaters. I'd even be willing to cut off Dominion Power and mount a windmill on my chimney if I could!
Back to Top
SpongeBob View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SpongeBob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2006 at 3:41pm
Yes, I used safe and nuclear in the same sentence. Are we so dumb (or scared?) that we cannot build safe nuclear plants? The issue isn't the technology, that is old hat -- as anyone in the industry will tell you, the problem has always been political. NIMBY, in other words. You cannot build or replace nuclear plants because you cannot win the PR battle.

Is there any other country better equipped to develop reliable and safe nuclear power than the U.S.? We certainly lead the world in building nuclear weapons, right? Are we proud that we invented the stuff, unleashed it on the world, and now are too bumbling to use it correctly except to threaten our planet with annihilation?

And why do you think 100 years is any kind of reasonable timeframe? Do computer companies think that way? Why should the energy companies, or the U.S. government? We put a man on the moon in ten years using slide rules and a computer smaller than the one in your car. But we can't build a safe nuclear plant like the Japanese? We can't figure out a good disposal system?

Why?

Well, just consider where Bush and Cheney hail from, after all....
Back to Top
n/a View Drop Down
New Slug
New Slug


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Location: VA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote n/a Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2006 at 10:21am
WHY? Because oil is still so profitable. And as you said, the oil PR battle is still easier to win than with nuclear power.

And I just said 'century' because we have been driving cars around with the current fossil fuel based internal combustion technology for about that long. Sure, I hope we come up with viable alternatives sooner! But nuclear cars? Imagine if every fender-bender had the risk of nuclear fallout. There has got to be a better way!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.