Until hybrids have batteries that last 300K miles (I've seen them start to fail around 150K miles) there is no economic reason to own one. There is still the issue of battery disposal and other hybrid related components that will wear and fail. I think the future is biodiesel
any renewable fuel will become big, biodiesel is one of a fairly large group. there are people that put down biodiesel because it uses food that people could eat, doesn't matter that it's not true, some people are stubborn in their ignorance. when i discuss alternative fuels i mention carbon cycle length, the amount of time it takes from burning the fuel, to the carbon being removed from the environment. the length of time it takes carbon from biodiesel to be recovered is approximately one growing season, same for alcohols and straw burned as pelletized fuel in furnaces. trees take a few decades, fish and animal oils take a few years, petroleum takes several million years.
How do you claim it's not true that Biodiesel would take from food the people could eat? I understand that Biodiesel can be made for the likes of used oil and such things. But given the limited nature of those sources, a renewable growable source would have to suppliment use french fry oil.
There is no way used oil alone could supply enough biodiesel to run all car and tracks nationwide. So what is the additional source, that is not food?
Don't get me wrong, I'm *FOR* biodiesel. However it is very important we choose the correct source, because whatever source we choose will turn into 'gold' and become subject to the price swings common in the energy market.
how about oil from potato chip makers, contaminated cheese or milk, spoiled wheat, fish skins normally tossed out, fat from the grocer, fat collected from the roasts cooked in restaurants, feed grade corn and olive pits. there may not be enough to replace all the petro diesel, but there's not a lot of hope that everybody with a diesel engine will want biodiesel either. with a tiny bit of imagination there would be enough for everybody, places that process things with fats could supply their own fuel, waste corn and other garbage could supply the rest. granted, i've perhaps jumped to the conclusion that food won't be used to replace all the diesel the world uses, but not every diesel has to be replaced with another diesel, there are plenty of cases where electric trucks would work fine, alcohol fuel takes more(made from feed grain the products are alcohol and high protein feed), there used to be steam trucks and can be again(they'll run on nearly anything), after alternatives to biodiesel are considered there aren't that many that will absolutely need any kind of diesel.
i'm tired, ready for bed, and my ear is bleeding, so i'll just take off now.
I like your thoughts, but sadly reality is bit different.
First, the refining process requires clean sources. Rotten foods, and dirty garbage isn't going to work in a normal refinery.
Second, one refining process for one source (corn) will not work with all other souces (fish skins, contaminated cheese). You would need multiple refineries for each group of supply.
Third, not all sources have equal outcomes. Biodiesel from say corn, has about 90% the energy of 1 gallon of regular diesel. Whereas Biodiesel from olive pits could be in the 50% range. Meaning 2 gallons of olive biodiesel would be needed to go the same distance as 1 gallon of regular. (these are examples, I do not know specificaly about olives)
In this case, a clean dependable, energy rich, source for biodiesel would have to be used. Namely some food source likely. No one is going to open a refinery for biodiesel on the inconsistant source of spoiled foods.
Imagination is good, but at some point there are laws of physics that are not changing anytime soon. No one is going to buy a steam truck. The alternative fuels, other than biodiesel, are a waste. Maybe someday, but for now the technology is not there. I'd love to walk out to my car with a cup of water to run it, but it's not happening anytime soon.
Thanks, for bringing a bit of reality back into this pie in the sky discussion. Your input on this is absolutely rock solid.
And for the people who are saying we could grow food instead of Energy, The EARTH is already FAR beyond the numbers of people it can sustain, We dont need more food, we need LESS PEOPLE. I know this is not a popular subject but this planet can not sustain the population growths projected in the next two generations. Food is only one part of the equation, Clean water, clean air, and energy needs must be met or we will get a look at a future that is far closer to Mad Max than Star Trek.
there's been some info available for a loooong time that shows 1st world countries, especially the richer, better educated in them, have on average, a lot less children than poor, uneducated people. so, lower population by having better education, it'll lead to better jobs, then it'll lead to less children being born. unfortunately when people point at population numbers they usually don't think that it's mostly poor people without cars that are having the most children, so lowering their population would do little to lower petroleum use. it's the stinky rich few who are using the most, consequently also polluting the most, and adding to the population slowest. my cure, in small part, is to have inner city travel be restructured so it's nearly impossible to drive a car there, switch to bike/ped paths, bus only routes, and build markets where the streets once were.
actually I was more refering to world population in reference to food sources and the earths ability to sustain a population more than energy usage. Would love to see public transportation expanded to something actually useful. as it is, it is rarely an option in places like sacramento, where lightrail just gives car theves a place to shop for cars to steal, knowing they are parked all day without supervision and only sporadic patrols by disintersted contract security folks.
Once your on the train you may have a seat but forget getting any work done in the time it takes to get there, (usually twice as long as driving). Yes it is cheeper than driving a car, but if you need a vehicle during the day to do your job, your screwed.
I never have a clue from one day to the next if I will get a call and need to head out of the office to some issue or assignment, so if I took public transportation, I would have all the above, then have to ride PT BACK to my car, (assuming it is still there, and the electrical system has not been destroyed by some JA** stealing my stereo), drive all the way back into town and pick up my gear, then and only then would I be able to begin my journey.
Making it imposible to drive is not the answer, as much as it sounds good, when every third commercial on TV in most areas is a CAR commercial, you have to look at more than just radical public planing.
yeh, missed that.
there's a city in europe, uh, can't remember which, but i think it's that one where pot and houses of ill repute are legal. the mayor used guerrila tactics, blocked off the streets for a few days, tore up all the roads, put down bike and foot paths. looked it up, amsterdam, it's been years since the story was on discovery channel, so i can't be sure, but nobody seemed to have had much trouble with it. the planning just has to be right so people that use cars to get to work in the downtown aren't put out, in the americas it'd be difficut, cars are gods in n. america.
Practically ALL cities in Europe have a good public transport system, while being connected with high speed trains (up to 280 MPH). We pay $7/gallon of gas, so we drive diesel cars with manual transmission. City of London charges some 8 bucks per day to drive in downtown.
Soon we'll get air powered city cars. Well, sometimes I do crank my Audi A6 diesel wagon up to 150 MPH... At 2900 RPM it holds a comfortable 105 MPH cruising speed and is quiet.
More could be done to make the city bus and tram popular. The Finns did something: you can buy the ticket with your cell phone - no excuse not to use a tram or bus in Helsinki.
Living in a small town I use bicycle for all local travel under 5 miles. Snow tires with steel studs are available for bikes, too. Parking is easy etc. I may consider an electric assisted bike some day. That and an air powered car should keep me moving economically.
Several Prius have gone over 200,000 miles, and one has already gone over 300,000, and are still using the original NiMH battery pack. There are 10 year old Prius running around Japan using their original NiMH battery pack. How much longer do you want them to last? Toyota has engineered very good battery management for their hybrids, so battery replacement really isn't a realistic concern.
They logged 200K miles on the things. They write about other items that don't need replacing such as brake pads.
The battery issue is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tossed out by those that don't like the new things.
Bob
A mid-size modern diesel car gets 40 MPG mixed hwy/suburb driving, with manual transmission, of course, which is 99% common in Europe. They are not even noisy or slow anymore.
Yes, they cost more, but if one drives a lot, it pays.
kinda like buying a set of compact fluorescents for your house, they cost a bunch, but they last long enough so that buying incandescents, in the first place, cost more, and they save money on the power bill, double savings. i get my compact fluorescents at the dollar store, standard bayonet base bulbs, no special external ballast lump needed, how bout you folks? so, i guess i have to bring up a closer tie to cars, putting bulbs in cars that use less power, means the car can get along using less fuel. if everybody switched to fluorescents, the grid would be loaded lighter than it is now, so plug in hybrids and grid charge electrics becoming vogue will not require a significant increase in power production, pollution will stay pretty much the same. i was going to say something important, but i forgot what it was.
There are companies that can take a Toyota Prius and turn it into a "Plug-in Hybrid" that will get close to 100 miles per gallon! I've read it is super expensive so far, but if it is possible for small customizers to do it, the big boys can do it for much cheaper.
If GM/Big Oil/The California Air Resources Board hadn't killed the electric car they would be getting several hundred miles per charge of about 2 bucks a day! Rent "Who Killed the Electric Car" it will turn your stomach.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |