Go Yellow
Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: Archived Slugging Topics
Forum Name: Hybrids
Forum Description: This area is devoted to the discussion of hybrid vehicles and their impact to the HOV.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2560
Printed Date: 23 Apr 2024 at 2:26am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Go Yellow
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Subject: Go Yellow
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2006 at 6:30am
Saw an ad on TV for the first time for GM's push for E85 vehicles as a sensible approach to alternative, renewable, clean fuel vehicles.
Their campaign is called "Go Yellow". You can read about it at http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/
Good to see at least one vehicle manufacturer taking a lead in driving towards a real solution to alternative fuels.
Haven't researched it enough yet to know if they're looking to influence the fuel distribution end of the equation too or not. That would be a HUGE success for TRUE alternative fuels.
Not personally too thrilled with GM cars, but maybe...
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Replies:
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2006 at 7:45am
|
NoSB: how is your alternative fuel vehicle working out for you?
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2006 at 7:53am
Great! I get to ride the HOV by myself since VDOT built the HOV for it to be travelled SOV.
I love going past all those pollution-spewing singletons in the main lanes, snubbing my nose at them as I go.
It gives me such a feeling of fulfillment in life to live for me and me alone. Don't have to pick up slugs anymore.
All the while getting less mpg than what they claim the thing is supposed to get and I've paid a premium on my vehicle that I didn't pay by buying an SUV
NoSUV, thanks for selling me a brand new hybrid. I now understand YOUR vested interest in this technology. When you putting in that swimming pool we talked about?
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: 122582
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2006 at 8:33am
I'm thinking about that hybrid pickup. Anyone know if it qualifies for the HOV exemption?
Keep slugging alive - tip your driver today!
|
Posted By: Sparky
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2006 at 6:11pm
quote:
Originally posted by N_or_S_bound
[br]Great! I get to ride the HOV by myself since VDOT built the HOV for it to be travelled SOV.
I love going past all those pollution-spewing singletons in the main lanes, snubbing my nose at them as I go.
It gives me such a feeling of fulfillment in life to live for me and me alone. Don't have to pick up slugs anymore.
All the while getting less mpg than what they claim the thing is supposed to get and I've paid a premium on my vehicle that I didn't pay by buying an SUV
NoSUV, thanks for selling me a brand new hybrid. I now understand YOUR vested interest in this technology. When you putting in that swimming pool we talked about?
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
Excuse me. If this is the case, why did GM kill off the electric vehicles that folks were test-driving in California. Wouldn't let the people keep them. Let me guess--they landed in a landfill.
Don't you think your interests would be better served if you WORKED with hybrid drivers? With this kind of split going on, no wonder HOT lanes are inevitable. See how much you like slugging then.
And before you jump all over me, let me tell you that I'm a former slugger, present hybrid driver who held off driving SOV for two years until the commute got too bad in the regular lanes.
|
Posted By: Sparky
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2006 at 6:34pm
For your reading pleasure:
From: http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/hybrid-daze/greenisblackisyellow
_________________________________________
So now that hybrids and other alternatively powered vehicles are hot, so is the color green. Civic Hybrid commercials feature flowers and little critters. Ford is now featuring Kermit the Frog.
Of course, if you are one of the people trying to ruin GM, then you would come up with the idea of pushing yellow (for corn) instead of green.
The company recently launched an ad campaign based on the tag line, "Live Green, Go Yellow" in the hopes of tapping into the E85 (ethanol) hype. They even made an online game that allows you to drive through the subsidized cornfields of Iowa. (try not to kill the chickens in the field or Pam Anderson'll come after you)
One wonders if the folks at GM know that there are only 600 E85 fueling stations in the US and almost 200 of them are Minnesota.
This whole green is yellow and E85 is our opportunity is emblematic of the utter hell that GM is locked into (see Fortune's recent piece, "The Tragedy of General Motors,") and underscores the need for the company to accept reality and go bankrupt.
From Fortune Magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/index.htm
One Wall Streeter deeply familiar with the company recently stated the challenge starkly: "I would say that turning GM around is a harder logistical and managerial task than the invasion of Iraq."
|
Posted By: dickboyd
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2006 at 8:12pm
quote:
Originally posted by Sparky
[br]For your reading pleasure:
<>
From Fortune Magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/index.htm
One Wall Streeter deeply familiar with the company recently stated the challenge starkly: "I would say that turning GM around is a harder logistical and managerial task than the invasion of Iraq."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/index.htm
http://tinyurl.com/pfycb
The Tragedy of General Motors
The Detroit giant is a weird, scarred combination: a car maker doing poorly, and an insurance company engulfed by its obligations. It's heading for a wreck -- which is why CEO Rick Wagoner has the toughest job in business.
By Carol Loomis Feb 2006
RJB comments: This is a lengthy article. Of note is that the equity held by retirees is greater than the equity held by stockholders. Perhaps the financial solution is to buy back the publicly held equity. The sales or engineering solutions pale in comparison to the funding structure.
The motivation for the players to become prosperous is more pressing when they are more involved.
For breakfast, the chicken is involved, the pig is committed. Stockholders play a part, but not to the extent of workers. Stockholders may be a thing of the past for GM.
Of the recent articles, none have gone back in history of the negotiations for the choice for supplemental unemployment benefits vice a guaranteed annual wage. Nor have any of the articles commented on the part government should play in deferred compensation. Compensation which, when called "fringe benefits" becomes subject to exploitation by the greedy.
Note fringe benefits are not to be confused with "french benefits". French benefits were fried long ago, hence the term french fries.
[:D]
dickboyd@aol.com
|
Posted By: mroyal
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2006 at 1:33pm
Say what you will about ethanol. It's eliminating Brazils dependencies in foreign oil and building their economy in sugar production. Plus, ethanol is a renewable energy source - dinosaur goo is not.
I applaud GM's production of flexible fuel vehicles for U.S. It, at least provides us a choice and possible path to renewable energy.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2006 at 4:32pm
quote:
Originally posted by mroyal
[br]Say what you will about ethanol. It's eliminating Brazils dependencies in foreign oil and building their economy in sugar production. Plus, ethanol is a renewable energy source - dinosaur goo is not.
I applaud GM's production of flexible fuel vehicles for U.S. It, at least provides us a choice and possible path to renewable energy.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
Can't wait until it goes mainstream. I personally know of no one who owns such a vehicle, and I really don't know where the nearest (well, make that any) refueling station is. On the other hand, I know a couple of hybrid owners and where to get gas.
Don't wait forever - buy a hybrid now, then buy an ethanol vehicle when more readily available. Just quit driving conventional cars UNLESS you have 3 people in them AT ALL TIMES!
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2006 at 1:35pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[brCan't wait until it goes mainstream. I personally know of no one who owns such a vehicle, and I really don't know where the nearest (well, make that any) refueling station is. On the other hand, I know a couple of hybrid owners and where to get gas.
Don't wait forever - buy a hybrid now, then buy an ethanol vehicle when more readily available. Just quit driving conventional cars UNLESS you have 3 people in them AT ALL TIMES!
There are more ethanol ready vehicles on the road than hybrids. Probably twice as many. E85 is available at the Pentagon Citgo.
Once again, all hybrids are not cleaner than conventional cars. There are conventional cars sold in California that are cleaner than hybrids. The 2005 Insight isn't even eligible to get into the HOV lanes in California because it is too dirty.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2006 at 3:42pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wagonman
[br]quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[brCan't wait until it goes mainstream. I personally know of no one who owns such a vehicle, and I really don't know where the nearest (well, make that any) refueling station is. On the other hand, I know a couple of hybrid owners and where to get gas.
Don't wait forever - buy a hybrid now, then buy an ethanol vehicle when more readily available. Just quit driving conventional cars UNLESS you have 3 people in them AT ALL TIMES!
There are more ethanol ready vehicles on the road than hybrids. Probably twice as many. E85 is available at the Pentagon Citgo.
Once again, all hybrids are not cleaner than conventional cars. There are conventional cars sold in California that are cleaner than hybrids. The 2005 Insight isn't even eligible to get into the HOV lanes in California because it is too dirty.
OK Wagonman, quick count - how many of you are using ethanol? Wagonman, are you?
|
Posted By: Sparky
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2006 at 6:56am
quote:
Originally posted by Wagonman
[br]quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[brCan't wait until it goes mainstream. I personally know of no one who owns such a vehicle, and I really don't know where the nearest (well, make that any) refueling station is. On the other hand, I know a couple of hybrid owners and where to get gas.
Don't wait forever - buy a hybrid now, then buy an ethanol vehicle when more readily available. Just quit driving conventional cars UNLESS you have 3 people in them AT ALL TIMES!
There are more ethanol ready vehicles on the road than hybrids. Probably twice as many. E85 is available at the Pentagon Citgo.
Once again, all hybrids are not cleaner than conventional cars. There are conventional cars sold in California that are cleaner than hybrids. The 2005 Insight isn't even eligible to get into the HOV lanes in California because it is too dirty.
I thought that civilians couldn't use the Pentagon Citgo--isn't it part of the Navy Exchange and the last time I had to get gas there, civvies were limited to buying only $3.00 of gas.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2006 at 4:34pm
quote:
Originally posted by Sparky
[br]
I thought that civilians couldn't use the Pentagon Citgo--isn't it part of the Navy Exchange and the last time I had to get gas there, civvies were limited to buying only $3.00 of gas.
Alternative fuel pumps are open to the public. This includes the CNG, E85, and B-20. E85 was cheaper than regular gas the last time I checked but that may have changed.
NoSUV- I'm pretty sure all gasoline car drivers here are using some ethanol. I use another renewable fuel in my vehicle.
NoSuv- here are the ratings for your car(unless you have changed to a different one):
02 Prius NOx .2 NMOG .156 CO 4.2 PM .02 HCHO .048 all in grams/mile
In contrast here is a '06 Ford Explorer with a V8
NOx .07 NMOG .090 CO 4.2 PM .01 HCHO .018 all in grams/mile
So in all categories except CO a big SUV is better than your car by an order of magnitude. Get some perspective. What are you doing to clean up your car?
Here's a link people might find useful:
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2006 at 12:52pm
|
wagonman, I missed it with all of the data you provided - how many CF vehicles did you say you had? 1 of 2, 3 of 3?
|
Posted By: mikester
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2006 at 3:40pm
|
Data does tend to obscure emotional arguements.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2006 at 5:26pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]wagonman, I missed it with all of the data you provided - how many CF vehicles did you say you had? 1 of 2, 3 of 3?
Do you mean actually clean or fake clean with CF plates? I'm not the one driving around with clean fuel plates, you are.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2006 at 9:12am
quote:
Originally posted by Wagonman
[br]quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]wagonman, I missed it with all of the data you provided - how many CF vehicles did you say you had? 1 of 2, 3 of 3?
Do you mean actually clean or fake clean with CF plates? I'm not the one driving around with clean fuel plates, you are.
So, you don't practice what you preach? I'm surprised.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2006 at 6:09pm
quote:
[i]
So, you don't practice what you preach? I'm surprised.
What do I preach? That hybrids shouldn't be SOV in HOV because they aren't clean? How, may I ask, can I practice that? Buy a hybrid and then don't drive it in HOV? Sorry, I'm not going to be buying a hybrid any time soon. I DO use an alternative fuel and I am a frequent bus and metro rider.
I'm creating far less pollution than you are and using far less petroleum. What are you doing again? Driving a car that's dirtier than a lot of other vehicles and not making up for it by picking up riders? I really don't think you should be pointing fingers at anyone.
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2006 at 6:24pm
Wagonman,
But you don't get to drive HOV solo like NoSUV does. That's the only thing that matters...
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2006 at 7:43am
quote:
Originally posted by Wagonman
[br]quote:
[i]
So, you don't practice what you preach? I'm surprised.
What do I preach? That hybrids shouldn't be SOV in HOV because they aren't clean? How, may I ask, can I practice that? Buy a hybrid and then don't drive it in HOV? Sorry, I'm not going to be buying a hybrid any time soon. I DO use an alternative fuel and I am a frequent bus and metro rider.
I'm creating far less pollution than you are and using far less petroleum. What are you doing again? Driving a car that's dirtier than a lot of other vehicles and not making up for it by picking up riders? I really don't think you should be pointing fingers at anyone.
Can you tell us why YOU don't qualify for CF plates?
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2006 at 8:55am
Only special cars get CF plates. It has nothing to do with emissions, or even mileage.
I take back what I said on Friday. I was clearly wrong.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2006 at 9:16am
Seems as though the process needs to change. Once upon a time, cars ran on regular gas. Then unleaded came along. It was more expensive, so many used regular instead of unleaded. In response, both the gas tanks and the fuel nozzles were modified to be a different and smaller size.
Why aren't people, like mdc and wagonman, working toward a similar modification with automakers and legislators - and telling us how we can help? Could be something as simple as square nozzles and tank holes. That would solve the possibility of people claiming CF while using gas - and allow CF plates to be issued to qualifying vehicles.
Unless those people would rather just complain...
|
Posted By: mikester
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2006 at 9:42am
|
This is the right place for complaining, bitching, whining...and every once and a while having an intelligent debate about issues
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2006 at 10:25am
Many cities in America us ethanol to reduce emissions already. That is mandated at the city govt level to reduce the pollution/smog. Get informed here.
Now, this next part is the challenging one to read (I don't know where to come down on it yet either). Oil companies are buying up ethanol and driving up prices. The public claim in the media is that they are using it to replace a potentially carcinogenic additive currently in oil-based gasoline (MTBH?).
Ethanol in the midwest recently was priced higher than gasoline. They do have the greatest concentration of E85 vehicles in the midwest than any other location in America. It's a distribution challenge. Who owns the distribution channels? E85 vehicles can burn gasoline as easily as 85% ethanol-based fuel.
Brazil has the eighth largest economy of the world. Like any semi-industrialized nation,
there are great differences in income between the rich and poor social classes and different
states/provinces.
Brazil has by far the largest area, population, and economy of South America. It is larger
than the Lower 48 States of the U.S.; its population (160 Million) is approximately 40 percent of
South America’s, and it uses 36 percent of the continent’s oil consumption.
Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane.
Ok, you could buy Beta or you could buy VHS years ago. Which endured? Early adopters are often left hanging with an inferior product which is more successfully marketed. For those who don't know, Beta was better quality than VHS. VHS was marketed better...or Beta wasn't as effectively marketed. Either way, for the time period when they were both avail (prior to DVDs...another discussion altogether), Beta was superior, but couldn't market.
Toyota, Ford and Honda are marketing companies. Hybrids will last although their effective contribution to all forms of environmental conscientiousness is a whole lot less than some will allow themselves to believe---even when faced with the truth.
Hybrids will endure. The marketing and PAC funds are flowing freely. One can assimilate and go "lemming-like" off the cliff. Or take an active stance and proactive action towards adopting more lasting EF technologies like ethanol on the way to hydrogen.
Oh, E85 is also available at Quantico and yes, you need a mil id card to buy it there too. Remember the question: who owns the distribution system?
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2006 at 5:52pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]
Why aren't people, like mdc and wagonman, working toward a similar modification with automakers and legislators - and telling us how we can help? Could be something as simple as square nozzles and tank holes. That would solve the possibility of people claiming CF while using gas - and allow CF plates to be issued to qualifying vehicles.
Unless those people would rather just complain...
I've written to our elected officials so many times it is kind of sad. They don't want to educate themselves. Status quo is easier. They are more interested in appearing to be doing something than to actually do something.
Automakers only care about making money. The only consideration they give to the environment is meeting government regulations. Do you know why GM has so many E85 ready vehicles on the road already? Because the government gives them alternative fuel credits for those vehicles even though most of them will never see a drop of an alternative fuel. This credit lets them build less efficient and dirtier vehicles than if they didn't have the credit(saving dollars).
I do have an easy solution to helping the environment. If you have a hybrid don't get clean fuel plates and then pick up passengers for HOV3.
N_S_bound is correct about the oil companies buying up ethanol right now and driving up the cost of ethanol. This has something to do with MTBE, but the main reason is that starting in June a new set of requirements for gasoline goes into affect. Our gas will be getting closer to CARB gasoline. The refiners need ethanol to make the gas burn cleaner. At the same time diesel fuel will be getting much cleaner(the trucking lobby has finally lost, it shouldn't have taken 20 years). Fortunately, this rush on ethanol was predicted and there are something like 30 ethanol refineries being built. The real solution is setting high emissions standards and letting the market figure out the best way to meet them. Not politicians giving clean fuel plates to vehicles based on the powertrain type.
NoSUV, flex fuel vehicles cannot receive CF plates. They shouldn't get CF plates. Really, the only vehicles that should be getting clean fuel plates are CNG vehicles. They are so much cleaner than anything else right now. But I know they are not the future. Hybrids have killed them off for all practical purposes.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2006 at 8:53am
Seems like a solution is to NOT have flex fuel vehicles. Make them one or the other. Modify the gas tank hole as well as the fill up nozzle. Makes cheating harder, just like when we converted from regular to unleaded.
Just like back then, the new stuff might well be more expensive. Can you remember the crying over conversion to unleaded?
|
Posted By: mroyal
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2006 at 4:33pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]Seems like a solution is to NOT have flex fuel vehicles. Make them one or the other. Modify the gas tank hole as well as the fill up nozzle. Makes cheating harder, just like when we converted from regular to unleaded.
Just like back then, the new stuff might well be more expensive. Can you remember the crying over conversion to unleaded?
I disagree with your conclusion. I agree that a flex fuel vehicle should not be considered a clean fuel vehicle regardless of the fuel it is using. I've been just about convinced by wagonman's stats that all hybrids probably should not be CF (although I will not hesitate to drive SOV in HOV as long as the law allows it and I will not, for one secound feel guilty or selfish.)
The problem solved by ethanol and flex fuel vehicles is our dependancy on fossil fuel and non-renewable resources (not to mention OPEC and other foreign influence.) Unfortunately, the cost of getting ethanol from corn is a tad too high and we (USA) are not a major grower of sugar cane. I still think it holds promise until we figure out an efficient way of producing hydrogen.
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
|
Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2006 at 6:25pm
|
Finally someone agrees that gasoline is not a "clean fuel"!
|
Posted By: mroyal
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2006 at 7:05pm
It only took two years!
But, truth be known I think it's the nomenclature that is wrong - not the incentive. As I have conceded though, I think the incentive has reached an impass and is no longer needed. Hybrids are now accepted as gas saving vehicles, have proven reliability and will continue to thrive without the HOV incentive. We should now shift the incentive to persuade public adoption of the next generation of fossil fuel independence (which could include flex fuel vehicles IMHO.)
However, HOT throws a monkey wrench in the entire game, doesn't it...
Kindest Regards,
mroyal
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2006 at 6:40am
I don't think I agree with the comment: "the cost of getting ethanol from corn is a tad too high".
I don't have access to the numbers in order to run a cost analysis on the entire chain of events it takes to get a barrel of oil or ethanol to market at the point of distribution, so my comments must be caveated in "generalities".
Corn is renewable. Fossil fuels aren't. Growing corn employs farmlands laying fallow. Oil fields lie fallow after production ceases. The costs to ensure "access" to the places oil is located (foreign and domestic) bear a burden on many levels to many people. Many of these costs are not attributed to the "cost of oil", but should be considered nonetheless.
Any soldier who gives his/her life to further a domestic policy on an international level is part of the cost. Don't know how you put a value on that life although our government does in paying benefits to survivors. Factor this cost in when considering the price of fossil fuels.
Not too many soldiers have had to fight to ensure that farmers grow the crops they are paid to grow, so remove this cost from ethanol's consideration.
Environmentally, in the emissions subcategory, ethanol is a cleaner fuel. Not sure from production to consumption how the 2 sources of fuel stack up, but my inclination is leaning in favor of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane (or potatoes even).
Corrollary benefits to switching to renewable energy sources probably include less need to apply the military instrument of power around the world to ensure access to our fuel sources, increased goodwill with the international community as we don't have to "leverage" access in other ways, cleaner overall environment with the switch from fossil to renewable fuel, and increased emphasis on adequately employing farmers to do what they do instead of providing subsidies to ensure they don't grow crops on their farmable land.
I don't live with some sort of utopian view of things that the ills that occur due to the exploitation and use of fossil fuels will disappear with a switch to ethanol. The excesses that exist in the fossil fuel industry (e.g. big oil) will also exist in an ethanol fuel industry (e.g. agribusiness). It seems from my distant view that we can reduce somewhat the vested interests in our national fuel supply by using a home-based brew to fuel our desire to travel.
Some pedantic rambling for a Tuesday morning. Enjoy your day.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2006 at 3:36pm
Economically, ethinol is marginally more expensive to produce (for now), but still in the ballpark. Of course, as NoSb points out, when you figure in all the subsidies, and other variables like lives lost to foriegn oil, the balance sheet starts lookin' real good for ethinol. There is an issue about energy value per unit of ethinol vs. gas; I think I read that ethinol has about 75% of the energy value per unit, compared to gas at about 120% the cost. But still, there is potential here!
Of course it will not happen until the energy companies can establish a maximum per unit cost that will guarantee profitability. That means that when gas reaches a maximum threshold price that begins to negatively affect the bottom line (lower revenue and profits), they will know the basis price they can charge for a unit of ethinol and will have established it as a per unit cost in the market. Does that mean $5. per gallon, or $10. per gallon? I don't know, what is the most you would pay? And of course, since the oil companies have just finished a banner year, we are a long way from that. There is no motivation for them to distribute ethinol and every motivation to lobby against it. Gas is too profitable.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2006 at 5:37pm
Ethanol from corn isn't the answer. Ethanol from discarded cellulose material will be the answer. It will be much cheaper and the research right now is going to make it possible. Corn ethanol isn't all that efficient, but there are a couple of researchers out there that grossly overstate the energy cost to produce it. They probably get their research money from oil companies.
The comment about not making vehicles flex fuel capable is short sighted. The infrastructure isn't there for only using ethanol, biodiesel, etc. Keeping the vehicles flex fuel capable speeds their adoption. The way to keep them using the renewable fuel is to price it lower than petro. Unfortunately, that would be accomplished by taxing petro products higher and politicians are too chicken#$%! to do what needs to be done. They can't get past the short terms costs to see the long term benefits.
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2006 at 10:02am
Demand may make this a reality yet.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13078150/
NOW, we're talking about COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS and NOT marketing schemes to simply increase profits.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: Max_28756
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2006 at 1:42pm
If I were to buy a hybrid, I'd get clean fuel plates. Can anyone tell me where the clean fuel station is? Since gasoline isn't a clean fuel, hybrids must be fueling up at some secret location only disclosed to those who purchase a hybrid. Those hybrids I see at the gas station must be purchasing a newspaper.
Hybrids on the HOV burn just as much gasoline as any four cylinder engine. Take a look at their MPG stats listing highway mileage LOWER than city mileage. This is because the hybrid technology works best in stop and go traffic. Get in the main lanes and get the most out of your investment! Go Green [xx(]
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2006 at 8:11am
Max,
How amazingly uninformed you are! The Clean Special Fuel that hybrids use is electric power, which comes from a battery. Hybrids in the express lanes during HOV hours do not burn as much as ANY 4 cylinder engine. Check out EPA statistics for the Honda Accord, both conventional and hybrid. Or, if you'd rather, check out my ealier posts where I got it for you.
By the way, can you tell us what you think drives an electric motor?
|
Posted By: Max_28756
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2006 at 1:02pm
NoSUV,
Don't try the SMUG stuff with me! Here are some MPG stats off of a hybrid web site. http://www.hybridcars.com/mileage.html
Notice how the highway mileage is lower (in all but a few cases). Also take a look at those terrible EPA estimates listed for the SUV's (clean fuel hybrids). Once you're done, look at this site http://www.greenercars.com/byclass.html to see autos that perform better than hybrids but don't receive a clean fuel designation. I guess the clean fuel designation has more to do with having a hybrid tag and nothing to do with fuel economy and emissions.
Honda Insight: City 61 Highway 68
Toyota Prius: City 60 Highway 51
Honda Civic: City 48 Highway 51
Toyota Camry: City 43 Highway 37
Honda Accord: City 30 Highway 37
Ford Escape (2wd): City 36 Highway 31
Ford Escape (4wd): City 33 Highway 29
Mercury Mariner: City 33 Highway 29
Toyota Highlander (2wd): City 33 Highway 28
Toyota Highlander (4wd): City 31 Highway 27
Lexus RX 400h: City 31 Highway 27
Lexus GS 450h: City 25 Highway 28
These figures represent EPA test numbers, which are commonly 10 - 20 percent higher than real-world fuel economy for hybrid and conventional vehicles.
I'm not against hybrid technology, I'm against using the technology as a way to bypass a system that is designed to move more people with less vehicles.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2006 at 7:52am
Max, All I request is that you make a FAIR comparison. Take 2 identical vehicles, with the only exception that 1 is a hybrid and the other a conventional. You will clearly see that the hybrid gets better fuel economy in all cases. On my earlier post, I compared the '06 Honda Accord, hybrid and conventional, using the HOnda website and the EPA figures.
Shouldn't be too hard for a SLUG to be smart, too - hybrid owners don't have a lock on that.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2006 at 9:25am
NoSUV, if you want to make a FAIR comparison, hybrids do not run on electric power; they run on a combination of a gas engine and "stored" electric power that was generated by a gas engine (and a small % from the intertia generated by your brakes, created by the forward momentum caused by your gas engine).
Most electricity begins its life with fossil fuels, with the exception of solar, hydro, nuclear or wind produced electricity. So unless your hybrid sprouts a sail, has solar panels on the roof or a mobile nuclear power plant under the hood, it also runs on fossil fuels.
And you should compare fuel economy of a hybrid in real world conditions to a comparable car in real world conditions. You may see those "huge" MPG gains claimed by hybrid marketers shrink. But that's OK, you keep telling yourself that you made a smart decision buying the hybrid. Just don't exepct everyone else to believe it.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2006 at 1:16pm
Ah raymond, where to begin, where to begin. Next you'll be discussing in circles on paper or plastic bags for your groceries (well, paper comes from trees and plastic doesn't degrade and energy is used for both). I trust that when you wash your hands, you don't use paper towels or air dryers.
OK, more on point. The discussion is on energy, renewable vs. non renewable sources. I think even YOU agree that once you use a fossil fuel in your engine that it is no longer available for reuse. The battery in YOUR car, as well as mine, has the ability to be recharged, and therefor reused. Instead of wasting so much of the energy of the fossil fuel used to run a car, LIKE YOURS, mine makes far more efficient use of that fuel. FAR, FAR MORE!
And, rather than using emotional arguments about how well one person drives for fuel economy over another, I stuck with statistics. And...what did you stick to? Oh, that's right - nothing. No surprise.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2006 at 8:32am
OK NoSUV, so at least we agree on one thing; renewable fuel is the best long-term solution.
Unfortunately, electricity, while renewable, is not a viable alternate fuel for use in cars, at least not in its current form. Its disappointing that the best solution marketers have so far is gas powered electric generators in hybrid cars; not a big step forward in reaching a long term solution. Present day hybrids are only marginally better than previous "plug-in to recharge" electric cars of yesteryear. Then, the electricity came from coal-fired power plants, now the gas power plant rides around with the batteries under the hood. This is not rocket science! Hybrids also offer dubious improvements in MPG and effeciency over non-hybrids, and at a high cost. Remember, many non-hybrids match or exceed hybrid MPG and ULEV claims.
Unless, of course you fill that hybrid tank with ethanol or biodissel, now we're talking renewable fuel solutions! But if you burn ethanol or biodiesel, why do you need electricity? Hmmmm, You don't! The internal combustion engine is not a bad concept, it reliably does what we expect it to do, and over 15 million cars with ICEs are sold in North America alone. Our choice of fuel is the critical variable here.
And of course you should maximize ridership in those ethanol burining cars, especially in the HOV-3 lanes (BTW, that stands for High Occupancy Vehicle - 3 passenger minimum)!
Emotional arguments? I think not, this is all very logical and reasonable. But it does not support your claims of hybrid supremacy, so I would expect you to disagree. But the personal attacks are not necessary. Let's stick to the issues!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2006 at 9:14am
raymond, once again, let's try using facts. When you go to the websitses of auto manufacturers who have both hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles, you can see the independent agency's mpg rating, as well as the MSRP. I did it just for the Accord, but I'm sure someone like you in an effort to disprove the facts can do it for other vehicles. Simple facts from independent agencies, raymond - not theories and emotion on dubious improvements or questionable statements on MPG/ULEV.
Again, on your non-hybrid vehicle, quite a bit of energy is wasted. Less is wasted on my hybrid. Does that make the hybrid "better?" Why, yes, it does! Is it as good as it will be in 50 years? Why, I don't know, but I hope things will get better! I also hold out hope for improvements in 5 years. I don't have much faith that a breakthrough is going to hit the streets in the next hour or so - do you, raymond?
So, there is a huge difference in plugging in a car (using energy specifically for that purpose) and using energy that is normally wasted (from the internal combustion engine and its primary purpose as the prime mover for moving a vehicle) to charge a battery which in turn assists with the electric motor (you knew that the hybrid uses an electric motor as the prime mover, didn't you?)
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2006 at 9:29pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]raymond, once again, let's try using facts. When you go to the websitses of auto manufacturers who have both hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles, you can see the independent agency's mpg rating, as well as the MSRP.
(you knew that the hybrid uses an electric motor as the prime mover, didn't you?)
The electric motor is not the prime mover of a hybrid. You need to look up the definition. The EPA has admitted that its testing method for MPG is flawed so it isn't much help as an "independant agency".
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2006 at 8:09am
quote:
Originally posted by Wagonman
[br]quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
The EPA has admitted that its testing method for MPG is flawed so it isn't much help as an "independant agency".
But it is consistent in its flaw. It's like a watch that's always 5 min slow - you can say it doesn't give accurate time, but it is consistent on how far off it is. Same when comparing EPA estimates between vehicles.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2006 at 10:52am
So NoSUV, you would use the "even a broken watch is correct twice a day" theory in your reasoning? Not very compelling!
While I agree that hybrids use more of the potential stored energy in a gallon of gas by charging a battery with energy for later use, the increase in effeciency is negligable and cannot be accurately mesured by MPG alone. Hybrids are much more complex and expensive to build, and to buy (incentives and tax credits are bait). What we don't know is how long hybrids will last, how expensive the maintainence and repairs will be (to you pocketbook and to the environment), and what the long term effects will be of thousands of those huge batteries in our landfills. Of course you won't have to worry about that, but your grandchildren will!
At best, hybrids offer baby steps forward from the standard set by the most effecient internal combustion engines. And of course the ultimate goal should be to convert to renewable fuel, like ethanol or biodiesel. Focusing on increasing the fuel effeciency of gas burning engines distracts from the real issues; our insane dependency on foriegn produced, non-renewable, highly-polluting fossil fuels. And don't forget, your hybrid burns the same gas that my car does. Even if your car gets 30MPG to my 20, or 40, or even 50MPG for that matter, that is still very, very ineffecient! And despite your sense of superiority and nobility, it does nothing to solve our problems.
Hybrids are a distraction, a ruse, marketing hype, a boondoggle, just another product to sell, an attempt to perpetuate a fossil fuel culture that is profitable to marekters, a way to appeal to people who want to do the right thing, but don't know how. Hybrid buyers have been duped into thinking that they can buy something that will help the problem, when in fact they are perpetuating the problem.
Sorry, the watch is still broken. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. Alternative, renewable fuels are the answer.
|
Posted By: twothreefour
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2006 at 9:28am
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]Hybrids are a distraction, a ruse, marketing hype, a boondoggle, just another product to sell, an attempt to perpetuate a fossil fuel culture that is profitable to marekters, a way to appeal to people who want to do the right thing, but don't know how. Hybrid buyers have been duped into thinking that they can buy something that will help the problem, when in fact they are perpetuating the problem.
so raymond, if you have not been duped by the marekters, are you in the category of people who do not want to do the right thing, or that of those who know how? I say baby steps are better than no steps, and certainly better than steps backward.
|
Posted By: dilbertian
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2006 at 10:22am
quote:
so raymond, if you have not been duped by the marekters, are you in the category of people who do not want to do the right thing, or that of those who know how? I say baby steps are better than no steps, and certainly better than steps backward.
Twothreefour, I agree with you that current Hybrids are a definite step in the right direction. I believe that one of the key reasons the Electric cars failed was due to lack of low-cost, high-efficiency battery technology. EVs were definitely a step forward in concept but the technology wasn't mature enough given the target consumer price-point so they were dropped. The manufacturers said well...okay given today's battery technology, what can we do that is somewhat viable and won't leave motorists stranded in the middle of the road should their EV run out of juice? I understand how some people see the Hybrid as a step back from the EV, a signal of defeat but I see it as a big step forward proving that multiple drive systems can be fused into a single system. The complexities of a Hybrid are many more times sophisticated then the original EVs.
I think the Hybrid is about to evolve again as shown by a product this website is marketting called a Prius+: http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html
The concept is awesome and thanks to improvements in Lithium Ion battery technology, we should see plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) becoming the norm very soon.
With this Prius+ modification you will spend approximately 9-hours charging the batteries at a cost of about $1.00 (based on todays electric prices) On that 9-hour charge you can drive over 50 miles at speeds up to 35mph without ever firing up your gasoline engine. If you decide to enter the HOV lanes and drive at 65+mph, the electrical system will provide assistance which will help you acheive over 100mpg if not 150-200mpg depending on your speeds, traffic, etc. The replacement Li-Ion batteries are approximately 10x more powerful then the stock Prius batteries.
Assuming best case, that your office was 50 miles from your home on 35mph roads the whole way, and on weekends you also did approximately 50 miles <=35mph of driving for Saturday and Sunday, and you spent $1.00/day to charge it, I come up with a yearly operating cost of $365/year. Compare that to the same scenario with a similar sized vehicle that gets 30mpg at a gas price of $3/gallon and we get $1825.00/year. A net savings of $1460. Now given the cost of the Prius+ of 12k, it would take approximately 8 years and 3 months to break even. However, if gasoline prices continue their current trend, you would probably break even in 4-6 years.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2006 at 1:00pm
Not exactly 234, I know what the "right thing" is and it is not overpaying for another version of a gas burning car.
Sorry folks, I'm a hold out. When they turn on the bio-diesel or ethanol pumps, I'll be the first in line to buy a car that runs on these fuels. But until then I will not continue to fund a flawed system by buying another version of what I've already got. 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!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2006 at 5:39pm
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br] I don't care what your MPG is, it is not ok to continue to burn fossil fuel!
Great stand, raymond! I would expect you to live by your words and NOT use fossil fuel - even to get to the slug line.
Oh - did I take what you wrote out of context? Try taking those baby steps. Don't be one of those people always waiting for the next best thing. I'm surprised you don't use 8-tracks waiting for the next generation Ipod.
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2006 at 6:52am
Ok, to use the successful marketing logo of Ipod instead of the generic term mp3 player tells quite a bit about a person.
Why do folks buy ipods? Simply because marketeers told them they were "the way" to go when wanting to listen to digital sound.
More discerning people buy mp3 players which cost roughly 30% of what ipods sell for at a given capacity.
Sorry to take this to that level, but the same thought process applies to gas/elec cars. Folks buy them because marketeers have been successful at convincing folks they are cool, energy efficient and a solution to any number of current challenges on the table.
Think for yourself. If you can do the research and still decide to buy based on objective criteria, do so. Otherwise, admit it is about buying into an "image" instead of providing effective solutions to the current bag of challenges we face--one of those being congestion. SOVs don't reduce congestion.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2006 at 7:00am
|
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?
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date 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!
|
Posted By: twothreefour
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date 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.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date 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.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date 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.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date 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 nation’s 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 — the equivalent of taking more than a million vehicles off the road, according to a speech made at February’s 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.
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date 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.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date 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!
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date 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....
|
Posted By: n/a
Date 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!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2006 at 3:33pm
|
raymond - did you ever get around to reading that Post article about ethanol and how it won't work? Had much to do with stuff like insufficient quantities, soil conservation, and world hunger. But they said it better.
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2006 at 7:35am
Who pays the advertising for the paper that ran the article? May I suggest oil companies know better than to mount a frontal assault against ethanol. Sniping, doubt-inducing potshots taken obliquely only serve to erode the mounting support for TRUE alternative fuels to feed our ever-increasing demand for energy.
Insufficient quantities? Hmm, tell Brazil that. How many acres is our govt paying farmers to NOT grow certain crops...like corn? Those numbers are available, go find them yourself and become informed.
Soil conservation? Agribusiness has already depleted the nutritional quotient in our soil to such an extent that "going green" in your food choices will ultimately mean "growing and rolling your own" instead of depending on AB to bring you fruits and veggies out of season. Organic backyard gardens would go a long way toward holistic approaches to a multitude of problems. Examples: exercise brought thru gardening, organic fruits and vegetables with richer nutrients, less fuel burned to ship grapes from Cuba year round. One can easily read in the geopolitical ramifications of going (and growing) local produce.
World hunger? GMAB! Those most in the know on this subject know the real problem is one of distribution, not one of production.
Who you going to believe? I'm thinking it's time to start thinking about how you think and what you think about. Think differently...and rationally. "Information distribution" is easily manipulated if you tell people that only certain media are to be trusted while all the while these media's bills are paid by those with ulterior motives.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2006 at 8:21am
Victory gardens! What a concept!
Yes, NoSUV I read the article and several others in the Post archives; revelations of where their loyalties and affiliations lie (in the hip pockets of the petro lobbies). No I don't dismiss the science and I agree there are challenges to any new technology, but these these options have real potential, and we are good at solving problems!
NoSb you are right about government farming subsidies. And there is a whole generation of tobacco farmers who sit on some of the richest farm land in the world, but have a shrinking market for their product. These farms could be converted to grow corn, soybeans or sawgrass for ethanol or biodiesel, instead of becoming the next example of suburban sprawl. Many of these crops, if rotated properly, could replenish farm soil nutri-content. If only there was a market for it, instead our government pays subsidies to farmers to let their land lie fallow, artificially inflating market prices. And what about biomass? Organic consumer waste that currently feeds landfills; could be used for alternative fuels. Now there's a sustainable alternative fuel supply. These options address so many issues. See what happens when people start thinking instead of just throwing money at problems.
BTW, where do you think the government incentives for hybrids comes from? Same place the farming subsidies come from; the pockets of American taxpayers! We need to stop paying to support a broken system and start think of ways to address our problems.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2006 at 5:15pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]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.
Ugh, stop your misinformation campaign! Go look up the emissions ratings for the Insight (bin 5 and bin 9). Go compare a 2005 or older Honda Civic hybrid to almost and other car its size. The ones that were sold here are dirtier in a straight comparison. Do you know how many SULEV vehicles there are available out there that are just plain old gasoline vehicles?
You're as bad as the ACEEE. They put out some "Green Book" for "clean" cars and some of their "superior" picks have Tier 2 bin 9 ratings! Welcome to bizarro world! They heavily weight mileage over emissions and obviously don't care about air quality. Bin 9 gets phased out next year becuase it is too dirty and the ACEEE is selecting these cars as "superior". What a load of bullpoop.
|
|