Hybrid cars
01-16-2006 | 11:14 AM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
James Robinson wrote:
> The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in making the
> fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production process in the
> first place. It does not increase the supply of fuel. Alcohol is simply a
> transporter of energy, not a new energy source.
Alcohol is a new energy source. The plants that are grown convert solar
energy into carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The problem is that
conventional farming uses fertilizers made from natural gas and that
farm machinery uses oil and that the distillery uses coal or oil or
natural gas. Ideally you want to grow plants that don't need much in
the way of fertilizer or cultivation and are easily converted into
alcohol or oil.
Serious production of alcohol or bio diesel would involve developing new
crops for this purpose. The crops grown today were developed to produce
food.
John Mara
> The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in making the
> fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production process in the
> first place. It does not increase the supply of fuel. Alcohol is simply a
> transporter of energy, not a new energy source.
Alcohol is a new energy source. The plants that are grown convert solar
energy into carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The problem is that
conventional farming uses fertilizers made from natural gas and that
farm machinery uses oil and that the distillery uses coal or oil or
natural gas. Ideally you want to grow plants that don't need much in
the way of fertilizer or cultivation and are easily converted into
alcohol or oil.
Serious production of alcohol or bio diesel would involve developing new
crops for this purpose. The crops grown today were developed to produce
food.
John Mara
01-16-2006 | 11:19 AM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Don Stauffer wrote:
> We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening
> another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse
> for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I
> am all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse
> emissions of using, and more importantly, producing them.
The carbon dioxide released by burning alcohol came from the air by way
of photosynthesis and is being released back into the air where it will
again be converted into carbohydrates by photosynthesis.
The problem with fossil fuel is that the carbon dioxide released was
taken from the air by photosynthesis millions of years ago and is now
being released.
John Mara
> We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening
> another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse
> for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I
> am all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse
> emissions of using, and more importantly, producing them.
The carbon dioxide released by burning alcohol came from the air by way
of photosynthesis and is being released back into the air where it will
again be converted into carbohydrates by photosynthesis.
The problem with fossil fuel is that the carbon dioxide released was
taken from the air by photosynthesis millions of years ago and is now
being released.
John Mara
01-16-2006 | 11:52 AM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Electricity - was Re: Hybrid cars
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
> needs.
>
Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all
forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we
know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to schedule when we turn lights
on and off. In contrast, public grids are a remarkably delicate real-time
balance of generation, loss and load. Some "peaking" generation must always
be held in reserve to maintain the balance, while "base" generation like
coal, nuclear and hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected
minimum demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all.
If base generation is like public transportation and peaking generation is
like private cars, intermittent generation is like hitchhiking. Maybe it
will get you where you are going, but you can't count on it. Worse, factors
that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring
sites in the same way at about the same time.
(The following is specific to US regulations, where present-day FERC rules
demand energy producers and energy suppliers - the people who send you the
bill - must be entirely separate.) Wind farm operators in the US usually
sell only a small fraction of their expected capacity because a broken
promise in electricity delivery means huge penalties. The energy must be
replaced by energy suppliers and the shortfall must be replaced from the
expensive "spot market." By careful estimation of just how much they can
produce some wind farm operators are able to make a profit. Others are not.
In the end, intermittent generation has to be excluded from calculations of
capacity margin. That means that the same amount of peaking capacity has to
be present. Wind or solar may reduce the consumption of natural gas, the
fuel of choice for peaking plants. What it can't do is reduce the ultimate
cost of electricity, since the peaking plants have pretty much fixed
overhead and the costs are simply shifted to whatever power is ultimately
sold... and as long as we aren't scheduling our electricity usage, we need
peaking power. The effect is to increase the overall cost of electricity,
since the energy consumers - you and I - must pay for the construction and
maintenance of the intermittent generation sites in addition to the base and
peaking plants.
All this makes no more sense in an intuitive way than it does you, and I've
worked at an electric utility for two decades. When I started we had our own
generation and could at least coordinate intermittent generation into the
mix. Now leaking information between production and delivery that might
accomplish that means federal prison even for schlubs like me. My #2 son has
it right: "There are two types of 'sense.' There's 'common sense' and
there's 'business sense.'"
Mike
news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
> needs.
>
Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all
forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we
know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to schedule when we turn lights
on and off. In contrast, public grids are a remarkably delicate real-time
balance of generation, loss and load. Some "peaking" generation must always
be held in reserve to maintain the balance, while "base" generation like
coal, nuclear and hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected
minimum demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all.
If base generation is like public transportation and peaking generation is
like private cars, intermittent generation is like hitchhiking. Maybe it
will get you where you are going, but you can't count on it. Worse, factors
that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring
sites in the same way at about the same time.
(The following is specific to US regulations, where present-day FERC rules
demand energy producers and energy suppliers - the people who send you the
bill - must be entirely separate.) Wind farm operators in the US usually
sell only a small fraction of their expected capacity because a broken
promise in electricity delivery means huge penalties. The energy must be
replaced by energy suppliers and the shortfall must be replaced from the
expensive "spot market." By careful estimation of just how much they can
produce some wind farm operators are able to make a profit. Others are not.
In the end, intermittent generation has to be excluded from calculations of
capacity margin. That means that the same amount of peaking capacity has to
be present. Wind or solar may reduce the consumption of natural gas, the
fuel of choice for peaking plants. What it can't do is reduce the ultimate
cost of electricity, since the peaking plants have pretty much fixed
overhead and the costs are simply shifted to whatever power is ultimately
sold... and as long as we aren't scheduling our electricity usage, we need
peaking power. The effect is to increase the overall cost of electricity,
since the energy consumers - you and I - must pay for the construction and
maintenance of the intermittent generation sites in addition to the base and
peaking plants.
All this makes no more sense in an intuitive way than it does you, and I've
worked at an electric utility for two decades. When I started we had our own
generation and could at least coordinate intermittent generation into the
mix. Now leaking information between production and delivery that might
accomplish that means federal prison even for schlubs like me. My #2 son has
it right: "There are two types of 'sense.' There's 'common sense' and
there's 'business sense.'"
Mike
01-16-2006 | 11:54 AM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Don Stauffer wrote:
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>
>> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and
>> aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV
>> designs. The LS2 engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A
>> buddy of mine has a Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out
>> about 220 HP, and gets around 15 MPG.
>>
>
> In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large
> horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that
> ordinarily a small fraction of the horsepower capability of the engine
> is being used. Light throttle openings are not efficient- in fact, they
> are very inefficient. If it were not for power enrichening, max
> efficiency is at wide open throttle. Because of such enrichening, max
> efficiency in a normal auto engine is at about two-thirds throttle. A
> larger engine than a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle
> opening with a reduction in efficiency.
And an engine with low horsepower has to work much harder during hard
acceleration or going up steep hills, greatly reducing its efficiency. As I
said, horsepower doesn't have nearly as much to do with it as gearing,
aerodynamics (at speed) and the individual driver.
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>
>> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and
>> aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV
>> designs. The LS2 engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A
>> buddy of mine has a Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out
>> about 220 HP, and gets around 15 MPG.
>>
>
> In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large
> horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that
> ordinarily a small fraction of the horsepower capability of the engine
> is being used. Light throttle openings are not efficient- in fact, they
> are very inefficient. If it were not for power enrichening, max
> efficiency is at wide open throttle. Because of such enrichening, max
> efficiency in a normal auto engine is at about two-thirds throttle. A
> larger engine than a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle
> opening with a reduction in efficiency.
And an engine with low horsepower has to work much harder during hard
acceleration or going up steep hills, greatly reducing its efficiency. As I
said, horsepower doesn't have nearly as much to do with it as gearing,
aerodynamics (at speed) and the individual driver.
01-16-2006 | 11:57 AM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Don Stauffer wrote:
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
>>
>>>> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get
>>>> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get excellent
>>> mileage you
>>> have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve aerodynamics,
>>> etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a
>>> mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set up
>>> and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a
>>> similarly geared standard.
>>
>>
>> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always going
>> to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which
>> help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during
>> acceleration.
>
> One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one
> can decide on shift points. Economy driving requires lower rpm and
> wider throttle openings. Automatics COULD be set up for more fuel
> economy, but that is not the way they are currently adjusted. Such
> adjustments reduce performance to a degree, so settings are a
> compromise. With manual shift you can change the "settings" any time
> you want. When gas is high, you can short shift, but you can wind it up
> any time you need a little more oomph.
True. But my point is the viscous coupling causes less power going from the
flywheel to the wheels, resulting in worse performance and gas mileage.
--
http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
>>
>>>> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get
>>>> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get excellent
>>> mileage you
>>> have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve aerodynamics,
>>> etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a
>>> mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set up
>>> and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a
>>> similarly geared standard.
>>
>>
>> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always going
>> to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which
>> help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during
>> acceleration.
>
> One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one
> can decide on shift points. Economy driving requires lower rpm and
> wider throttle openings. Automatics COULD be set up for more fuel
> economy, but that is not the way they are currently adjusted. Such
> adjustments reduce performance to a degree, so settings are a
> compromise. With manual shift you can change the "settings" any time
> you want. When gas is high, you can short shift, but you can wind it up
> any time you need a little more oomph.
True. But my point is the viscous coupling causes less power going from the
flywheel to the wheels, resulting in worse performance and gas mileage.
--
http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
01-16-2006 | 12:04 PM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
John Mara <johnmara@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in
>> making the fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production
>> process in the first place. It does not increase the supply of fuel.
>> Alcohol is simply a transporter of energy, not a new energy source.
>
> Alcohol is a new energy source. The plants that are grown convert
> solar energy into carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The problem is
> that conventional farming uses fertilizers made from natural gas and
> that farm machinery uses oil and that the distillery uses coal or oil
> or natural gas. Ideally you want to grow plants that don't need much
> in the way of fertilizer or cultivation and are easily converted into
> alcohol or oil.
It will only be a new energy source when those things happen, and even
then, if it becomes a source, it will contribute only a small portion of
the nation's needs. Even today, all of the alcohol produced from land
that can be turned over to energy production will only provide 2 percent
of so of the national need, and that is ignoring the energy used for
production.
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in
>> making the fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production
>> process in the first place. It does not increase the supply of fuel.
>> Alcohol is simply a transporter of energy, not a new energy source.
>
> Alcohol is a new energy source. The plants that are grown convert
> solar energy into carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The problem is
> that conventional farming uses fertilizers made from natural gas and
> that farm machinery uses oil and that the distillery uses coal or oil
> or natural gas. Ideally you want to grow plants that don't need much
> in the way of fertilizer or cultivation and are easily converted into
> alcohol or oil.
It will only be a new energy source when those things happen, and even
then, if it becomes a source, it will contribute only a small portion of
the nation's needs. Even today, all of the alcohol produced from land
that can be turned over to energy production will only provide 2 percent
of so of the national need, and that is ignoring the energy used for
production.
01-16-2006 | 12:04 PM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:S3Oyf.2$9u3.67@news.uswest.net...
>
> We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening
> another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse
> for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I am
> all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse emissions
> of using, and more importantly, producing them.
You touch on an important and volatile point - although the atmospheric CO2
levels are up 37% over medieval levels and about half of that has occurred
since the '50s, C14 dilution from the Industrial Effect is holding around
2-3%. The inescapable conclusion is that 90% of the additional carbon is
from surface sources, not from fossil fuels. If every molecule of fossil
carbon we've released into the atmosphere since 1897 (the base year for the
Industrial Effect) were removed, our atmospheric CO2 levels would still be
higher than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. My own guess is
that feedlot ranching is responsible for much of the sharp increase, but I
am finding historical records of meat production to be too thin to support
that guess.
Mike
news:S3Oyf.2$9u3.67@news.uswest.net...
>
> We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening
> another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse
> for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I am
> all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse emissions
> of using, and more importantly, producing them.
You touch on an important and volatile point - although the atmospheric CO2
levels are up 37% over medieval levels and about half of that has occurred
since the '50s, C14 dilution from the Industrial Effect is holding around
2-3%. The inescapable conclusion is that 90% of the additional carbon is
from surface sources, not from fossil fuels. If every molecule of fossil
carbon we've released into the atmosphere since 1897 (the base year for the
Industrial Effect) were removed, our atmospheric CO2 levels would still be
higher than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. My own guess is
that feedlot ranching is responsible for much of the sharp increase, but I
am finding historical records of meat production to be too thin to support
that guess.
Mike
01-16-2006 | 12:06 PM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars HOV Lanes
Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
> If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and
> critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS
> controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending on
> make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system
> computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive... and are about as
> available on the used market and as reliable. Electronics in a car are
> nothing to be scared of these days - the moving parts are still the big
> problems,
The last two cars I got rid of were dumped because they had persistent
electrical system problems; mechanically they were still perfect. The
moving parts in the engine will outlive anything else in the car. The
only weak point in terms of moving parts is the automatic transmission,
in my experience.
> If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and
> critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS
> controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending on
> make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system
> computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive... and are about as
> available on the used market and as reliable. Electronics in a car are
> nothing to be scared of these days - the moving parts are still the big
> problems,
The last two cars I got rid of were dumped because they had persistent
electrical system problems; mechanically they were still perfect. The
moving parts in the engine will outlive anything else in the car. The
only weak point in terms of moving parts is the automatic transmission,
in my experience.
01-16-2006 | 12:43 PM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Electricity - was Re: Hybrid cars
In article <TMWdneurvdmkUlbenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@sedona.net>,
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
> Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all
> forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we
> know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to schedule when we turn lights
> on and off. In contrast, public grids are a remarkably delicate real-time
> balance of generation, loss and load. Some "peaking" generation must always
> be held in reserve to maintain the balance, while "base" generation like
> coal, nuclear and hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected
> minimum demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all.
> If base generation is like public transportation and peaking generation is
> like private cars, intermittent generation is like hitchhiking. Maybe it
> will get you where you are going, but you can't count on it. Worse, factors
> that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring
> sites in the same way at about the same time.
Your entire argument would be correct if there was no way to store
electricity. That is what makes Ethanol so attractive--you use this
otherwise wasted intermittent and off-peak power to produce Ethanol,
then use the Ethanol when needed. It isn't that Ethanol is cheaper
or more efficient than gasoline, but rather, it allows us to make
use of cheaper night time and seasonal hydro power that might
otherwise go unused.
There are other ways of storing electric power. For example, at the
Coolie Dam in Washington, they use unsubscribed power to pump water
from the dam up into a former river channel that is at a higher
elevation. When they need extra power, they use the force of water
falling from this lake to run generators. Plans for similar such
electric storage operations have been planned along the Mississippi
River.
-john-
--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
> Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all
> forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we
> know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to schedule when we turn lights
> on and off. In contrast, public grids are a remarkably delicate real-time
> balance of generation, loss and load. Some "peaking" generation must always
> be held in reserve to maintain the balance, while "base" generation like
> coal, nuclear and hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected
> minimum demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all.
> If base generation is like public transportation and peaking generation is
> like private cars, intermittent generation is like hitchhiking. Maybe it
> will get you where you are going, but you can't count on it. Worse, factors
> that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring
> sites in the same way at about the same time.
Your entire argument would be correct if there was no way to store
electricity. That is what makes Ethanol so attractive--you use this
otherwise wasted intermittent and off-peak power to produce Ethanol,
then use the Ethanol when needed. It isn't that Ethanol is cheaper
or more efficient than gasoline, but rather, it allows us to make
use of cheaper night time and seasonal hydro power that might
otherwise go unused.
There are other ways of storing electric power. For example, at the
Coolie Dam in Washington, they use unsubscribed power to pump water
from the dam up into a former river channel that is at a higher
elevation. When they need extra power, they use the force of water
falling from this lake to run generators. Plans for similar such
electric storage operations have been planned along the Mississippi
River.
-john-
--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================
01-16-2006 | 12:58 PM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
High Tech Misfit wrote:
> John S. wrote:
>
> > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a
> > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage.
>
> Having ridden in my folks' '04 Corolla and my uncle's '05 Prius, I have to
> disagree. The Prius has a bit more interior room than the Corolla, and a
> quite a bit more cargo capacity since it is a hatchback. You must be
> thinking of the old Prius which was smaller than the current one.
No, the current one.
01-16-2006 | 01:00 PM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "James Robinson" <wascana@212.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns974CDB6E2F9ABwascanamailcircuitco@216.196. 97.142...
> > richard1969@usa.com wrote:
> >
> > > That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more
> > > appropriate than natural fuels.
> > > I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power.
> > > That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines.
> >
> > There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available.
You
> > can't dam up every river in the country.
> >
>
> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
> needs.
NEVER going to happen. Ask the folks in Mass what happened when they
wanted to install windpower out in the bay. Teddy Kennedy and his
friends stood up and shouted NO. Same thing happens all over the
country. Falls into the NIMBA category. I live less than 25 miles from a
wind farm now and there are folks who bitch about it every day. The best
ones are folks who are moving into the area and start complaining about
it. There is also a planned farm just about 2 miles away that I am in
support of, BUT again there are a bunch who are totally against it. Some
of those don't even live in the area or own land here. BUT they get a
LOT of press.
Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No
emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke
folks cry. Oh and before folks bring them up - Chernobyl CANNOT happen
with modern designs, and only happened there because of the poor design
of the plant and even after all is said and done there were still fewer
deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation
leak, and in reality no real danger.
>
> > > Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance
of
> > > fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the
raw
> > > products.
> >
> > There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by
a
> > professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to
> > grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill
the
> > alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you
really
> > don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels.
> >
>
> That is true for any kind of fuel. Even fossil fuels, if you add in
the
> total
> energy that it took to grow the plants what you get out of it is much
> less.
>
> What matters with vehicles is having mobile fuel. Liquid, gas, and
> chemical storage (ie: electric) is are all mobile and are what you got
> to work with. Solid fuel (coal, etc.) isn't mobile unless your
running
> a reaction engine which is horribly inefficient, or your on rails.
Solar
> isn't feasible, since you need to drive your car in the dark at night.
>
> Since just about all energy on Earth comes from the Sun, it must
> be converted into either a liquid, a gas, or a chemical storage to be
> used, that conversion is ALWAYS going to take more solar energy
> input into the system than energy you get out by burning the fuel.
> If you can let nature do some of that conversion it helps, of course.
>
> Ted
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "James Robinson" <wascana@212.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns974CDB6E2F9ABwascanamailcircuitco@216.196. 97.142...
> > richard1969@usa.com wrote:
> >
> > > That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more
> > > appropriate than natural fuels.
> > > I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power.
> > > That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines.
> >
> > There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available.
You
> > can't dam up every river in the country.
> >
>
> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
> needs.
NEVER going to happen. Ask the folks in Mass what happened when they
wanted to install windpower out in the bay. Teddy Kennedy and his
friends stood up and shouted NO. Same thing happens all over the
country. Falls into the NIMBA category. I live less than 25 miles from a
wind farm now and there are folks who bitch about it every day. The best
ones are folks who are moving into the area and start complaining about
it. There is also a planned farm just about 2 miles away that I am in
support of, BUT again there are a bunch who are totally against it. Some
of those don't even live in the area or own land here. BUT they get a
LOT of press.
Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No
emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke
folks cry. Oh and before folks bring them up - Chernobyl CANNOT happen
with modern designs, and only happened there because of the poor design
of the plant and even after all is said and done there were still fewer
deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation
leak, and in reality no real danger.
>
> > > Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance
of
> > > fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the
raw
> > > products.
> >
> > There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by
a
> > professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to
> > grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill
the
> > alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you
really
> > don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels.
> >
>
> That is true for any kind of fuel. Even fossil fuels, if you add in
the
> total
> energy that it took to grow the plants what you get out of it is much
> less.
>
> What matters with vehicles is having mobile fuel. Liquid, gas, and
> chemical storage (ie: electric) is are all mobile and are what you got
> to work with. Solid fuel (coal, etc.) isn't mobile unless your
running
> a reaction engine which is horribly inefficient, or your on rails.
Solar
> isn't feasible, since you need to drive your car in the dark at night.
>
> Since just about all energy on Earth comes from the Sun, it must
> be converted into either a liquid, a gas, or a chemical storage to be
> used, that conversion is ALWAYS going to take more solar energy
> input into the system than energy you get out by burning the fuel.
> If you can let nature do some of that conversion it helps, of course.
>
> Ted
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
01-16-2006 | 01:18 PM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Wt-dnRonJJFQzVbenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> Rob wrote:
> > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can
we
> > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
> >> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's
pockets,
> >> there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
> >>
> >
> > Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration.
This
> > administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for
> > foreign oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that
buy
> > Hybrids cars, I know because I almost got one and the dealer told
this
> > to me many times. Plus offered ground breaking help from the
Government
> > for people to use Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger
> > grease to burn in his diesel VW and told me about it plus you may
still
> > be able to read about it at the biofuel sites. This is only the
ones I
> > know of first hand and am sure there's more so don't
political
> > trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big
oil
> > in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get
real.
>
> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by
banning
> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion
being
> taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family
for
> decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.
> --
>
You mean the ban on research like the Korean who was touted as being the
leader in the field of stem cell research, that turned out to be FAKE,
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech...3485211780.htm
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opin...1314954040.htm
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-30/36347.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
Yup we need to spend more money on that.....
Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am required
to pay for it?
or the cancer researcher who also faked his data,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm
Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a
course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though it is
NOT against the constitution to teach it.
As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business
and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER
HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments as a
public servant.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
01-16-2006 | 01:44 PM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Wt-> The
administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning
> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion being
> taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for
> decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.
Your welcome to have your own opinions, but before you bash this
administration on stem-cell research, remember this is the first
administration to ever open the doors to do any research at all on stem
cells. And they only put limits form aborted babies.
01-16-2006 | 02:02 PM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Steve W. wrote:
>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by
> banning
>> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion
> being
>> taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family
> for
>> decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.
>> --
>>
>
> You mean the ban on research like the Korean who was touted as being the
> leader in the field of stem cell research, that turned out to be FAKE,
>
> http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech...3485211780.htm
> http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opin...1314954040.htm
> http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-30/36347.html
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
>
> Yup we need to spend more money on that.....
> Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am required
> to pay for it?
Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to post on USENET?
That's right, the Constitution doesn't touch on things that weren't invented
when it was written.
And I don't like spending money on war, but I have no choice.
> or the cancer researcher who also faked his data,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm
>
> Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a
> course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though it is
> NOT against the constitution to teach it.
It is unconstitutional to teach religion as science.
> As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business
> and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER
> HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments as a
> public servant.
Yeah, every company Dumbya ran went bankrupt or lost money. That's really
something to brag about.
--
http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by
> banning
>> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion
> being
>> taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family
> for
>> decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.
>> --
>>
>
> You mean the ban on research like the Korean who was touted as being the
> leader in the field of stem cell research, that turned out to be FAKE,
>
> http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech...3485211780.htm
> http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opin...1314954040.htm
> http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-30/36347.html
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
>
> Yup we need to spend more money on that.....
> Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am required
> to pay for it?
Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to post on USENET?
That's right, the Constitution doesn't touch on things that weren't invented
when it was written.
And I don't like spending money on war, but I have no choice.
> or the cancer researcher who also faked his data,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm
>
> Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a
> course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though it is
> NOT against the constitution to teach it.
It is unconstitutional to teach religion as science.
> As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business
> and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER
> HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments as a
> public servant.
Yeah, every company Dumbya ran went bankrupt or lost money. That's really
something to brag about.
--
http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
01-16-2006 | 02:10 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long
before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and
they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could
take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not
because of the VP.
I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, fishing,
boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or
pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies were
putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world
market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and
just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at all
then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all the
jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right
balance. Stay cool and keep driving high MPG Honda's and maybe Detroit will
get the message one day.
> Wow. Perhaps you should look up what companies our current VP has
> major stockholdings in, and which environmental laws they've
> deliberately relaxed and which business they most affect.
>
> BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the
> windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled
> conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower,
> resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive)
> investment in the vehicle.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Wood
> http://wood.jlansford.net/
before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and
they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could
take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not
because of the VP.
I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, fishing,
boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or
pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies were
putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world
market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and
just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at all
then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all the
jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right
balance. Stay cool and keep driving high MPG Honda's and maybe Detroit will
get the message one day.
> Wow. Perhaps you should look up what companies our current VP has
> major stockholdings in, and which environmental laws they've
> deliberately relaxed and which business they most affect.
>
> BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the
> windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled
> conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower,
> resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive)
> investment in the vehicle.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Wood
> http://wood.jlansford.net/