I HAVE BEEN BRONZINATED! OH, THE POWER! THE UNLIMITED POWER!

War in the middle east... so soccer mom's can off-road in 10 ton SUV's.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
War in the middle east... so soccer mom's can off-road in 10 ton SUV's.



Don't you understand?! Those kids have to be there in time for practice or the Terrorists win!

*ecologyandenergy

Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient? As far as I can tell they are certainly viable and great alternatives, but can they be *mass produced* and will people around the world really adopt it?

However, investing in reducing bottlenecks and fuel-efficient machines certainly makes sense.

My first top 15! Now on to world domination.

If we burnt every last bit of fossil fuel in the earth, the atmosphere would revert to the way it was before photosynthesis existed. The reason Earth has free oxygen is biological carbon sequestration. We're gonna have to switch to nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro power. Solar power is the simplest and safest variety of nuclear power

Global consumption of oil averages around 4 quadrillion watts, which is roughly the amount of electricity that would be produced on average by a 200km * 200km square of photovoltaics.

>> ^lertad:
second question first
As far as I can tell they are certainly viable and great alternatives, but can they be mass produced and will people around the world really adopt it?

yes, it is possible. after all, people would have been asking the same questions at the beginning of the 20th century about the viability of automobiles when they first appeared.

Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient?

No, it will never be sufficient. Compare Detroit, a typical American city, and Copenhagen, a typical West European city. Both have roughly the same population at about 1 million. However, Copenhagen is about twice as densely populated as Detroit meaning the same amount of people live on smaller area of land. While only being twice as dense, they consume only 1/9th of the energy of their American counterpart. And of course that has to do with better mass transportation as well as higher rates of walking and bicycling. Alternative fuels and hybrid/electric cars are only a small part of the solution.

I laugh at the Ford and GM commercials when they brag about how their car gets up to 28MPG. Hell, my 2005 Volkswagen gets 33... at least. I typically get 40-42 most of the time. The new 2009 coming this summer will get 45 city, 55-60 highway.

And while we're discussing "alternative fuel", there needs to be more public inquiry about Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. Because, in all honesty, they will not help our energy crisis, in the end they will hinder it. Why? Mostly because it takes far more energy to produce, store, and transport Hydrogen, than you will ever get out of using that Hydrogen. Just as an example a Hydrogen Tank stacked up against a Honda Accord:

A Hydrogen tank with 55kg @ 3000psi will weigh approximately 400kg and offer approximately 165 miles of driving range while costing $2000.

A gasoline tank, at 17 gallons, weighing 73kg, will offer 493 miles at a cost of $100.

The reasons for the increased tank weight with Hydrogen is due to the high pressure the Hydrogen must be stored at. The tank must be built heavy, and incredibly strong and durable in order to contain that pressure.

A more viable solution which we can easily invest in and promote would be purely electric cars, running on battery power. I recommend everyone who hasn't seen Who Killed The Electric Car? to run out and rent it as soon as possible.

In my opinion, electric is the only viable long term solution. There are several cars in development right now (including the Tesla which is rolling out their first batch) that have good enough range for a day's worth of city driving, and recharge in a few hours. If we get the power from solar, wind, or nuclear power plants, we can cut oil out of the loop. As opposed to ethanol, which is hotly contested in terms of efficiency, electric motors are proven to be very cost effective.

>> ^lertad:
Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient?>

As aaronfr said, it just part of the puzzle. According to Amory Lovins we can stop using oil, today if we simply use all the reduction/substitution technologies we already have, see:
www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Amory-Lovins

>> ^Raigen:
A Hydrogen tank with 55kg @ 3000psi will weigh approximately 400kg and offer approximately 165 miles of driving range while costing $2000.
A gasoline tank, at 17 gallons, weighing 73kg, will offer 493 miles at a cost of $100.



You make me laugh. Honestly, not trying to slam you or anything, but it's funny how you used the metric system for weights and the English system for distance.
Just odd, is all.

A Hydrogen tank with 121 lbs @ 21 megapascals will weigh approximately 882 pounds and offer approximately 266 kilometers of driving range while costing €1286.

A gasoline tank, at 64 liters, weighing 161 lbs, will offer 793 kilometers at a cost of €64.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
You make me laugh. Honestly, not trying to slam you or anything, but it's funny how you used the metric system for weights and the English system for distance.
Just odd, is all.



I blame the fact that I was educated in Canadian Schools, but have spent a good portion of my last decade working through the Automotive Industry and dealing with American Manufacturers.

*shakes fist*

Those "billions in oil profits" B. Hussein Obama and Billswife are slavering over must be reinvested for more oil exploration and technology. The federal mafia takes 20 cents in taxes per gallon of gas sold; they're already getting their share of the action.

It's government regulations that make building new refineries next to impossible, not the free market.

While it's true that reducing demand would reduce gas prices, he's stated at the beginning that won't happen due to China's and India's increased oil demands.

There's another way prices would lower: by increasing the available supply of oil, but the "hippies" in Congress (including McSame) won't let us tap our own supply (ANWR) because it might damage caribou self-esteem.

Alternative fuels? They're going to have to fight it out. Just like BluRay and HD-DVD...let the free market decide which technology wins between hydrogen and electricity and whatever. All government can do is prop up a loser like ethanol to delay whatever was destined to win.

Do you really favor a would-be President who tells you what you're allowed drive, be it scooter or limo? I don't. It's none of his damned business.

Arrogance without substance.

>but can they be *mass produced*?

fuel cells use Hydrogen as power source. Where can you find Hydrogen? Hint: What is water "made" out of? How much water is there on earth? go figure ;-)

And yes, that's oversimplificated. I do know that there is a notable amount of energy needed to split up the molecules in water. But who says that energy cannot come from photovoltaic, wind etc.

Oh and by the way: Currently (Germany) i'm paying 1.52€/liter, that's 2,38$/liter which equals 9$/gallon. In my 2nd home Ireland it's just a few cents less. So i would be happy with US prices. ...globalization at its best ;-)

"Arrogance without substance."

The irony here is staggering.

Just invest in a Manhattan Project for solar and battery advancement. Pays for itself in a couple years.

>It's government regulations that make building new refineries next to impossible, not the free market.
That's right, poor poor Exxon is struugling to make Trillions in obscene profits off the dead bodies of soldiers in Iraq because of "government regulations". Oil company execs should be thankful they haven't (yet) been dragged out of their houses by vigilantes and hung for the atrocities they're guilty of perpetrating.

^Armed guards.

Why does it matter what kind of car you drive if you're driving it to Wal-Mart to buy products which have been shipped from all over the world, burning untold amounts of fossil fuels. I hear a lot of talk about "reducing demand" by "driving a different car", when the larger picture of consumption is really what needs to be considered!