I think the national government should sponsor a manhattan type project to provide a new fuel for automobiles which would wean us off oil. I have read that within the not too distant future auto companies will have developed fuel cell technology to the point it will be able to fuel our automobiles and other vehicles. I say to the government the future is now. Start a project in which you will subsidize the companies with the necessary funds to bring this technology on line as quickly as possible. Think of the tremendous benefit this would pay to our country. No more worries about oil price shocks to the economy, a cleaner air to breathe, less money going into the hands of terrorists from Iran. I taught history for a number of years but I make no claim to be a historian but I do know enough from reading the daily news papers and periodicals for the past 30 years that the BIG I inflation has been primarily caused by rapid rises in oil prices. I know there are other causes of inflation and ending our usage of oil will not stop it, but it would be a major factor that we would not have to worry about. I know some are probably thinking fuel cell technology will require a new infrastructure. So what I could care less if we taxpayers have to fund it. I do not consider it a bad deal at all when I think of all the money the national government has wasted over the years. For me this is a no brainer. This is why unity08 is so important. The two major parties who are bought and paid for by big oil will not push for this, in fact they will do nothing. But if this plan is included in unity 08's platform and millions vote for unity 08 I believe the two major parties will gladly endorse it.. This is the beauty of third parties, I know some of you are worried about whether unity 08 is a party or a movement, who cares,I don't care which you call it if the two parties see millions voting for it based on historical evidence (populist and progressives) they will in my opinion embrace it and make it their own. By the way don't fret if you just bought a new car even if the government were to get involved on a massive scale you could keep right on driving it it would require a transistion time for the fuel cell vehicles and we produce enough oil to fuel your car but as time passed your new car would wear out and you would be driving a whole new technology next time you needed a vehicle.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
The energy problem just can't be for cars, but everything and not just for environmental reasons. Environmental reasons won't "sell" to the general public. It usually needs to hit people in the wallet and unfortunately gas prices back down to 2 bucks aren't going to help the atmosphere for that right now. The problem for energy sources isn't necessarily in creating the fuel cell or product for producing the energy, it is with finding a fuel for it that leaves us with a net gain of energy after synthesis. For example we can switch over every car to a fuel cell today but still be screwed because we need to synthesize the hydrogen somehow and that is going to involve more oil or other fossil fuel than hydrogen we get out. It is the same way for corn based ethanol right now last time I knew. I have read of biomass ethanol being a net gain process but with the farm lobby in this country, mass production will be with corn. Unfortunately petroleum products are everywhere from fertilizer for the corn, the farmer's tractor, the truck bringing it to the ethanol plant, and the truck bringing the ethanol to the fueling station. Also lets remember that Big Oil buys alot of patents for these technologies and can easily retard progress without the government stepping in. Something needs to be done but yet again our reactionary government will probably fail to do anything until the absolute crisis moment.
Somebody mentioned a new 'Manhatten Project' to find and institutionalize new sources of energy. All of our current energy ultimately came/comes from the sun. Direct solar, wind, biofuels, fossil fuels. We should focus on solar. Hydrogen can be generated directly by electrolyzing water to produce H2 (and O2). Electricity can be generated directly from solar using photovoltaics. We just need to optimize the processes, built thousands of solar H2 generators and the infrastructure to make it available. Will cost alot to set up and maintain but everything's there for the taking. H2 fuels cell to power cars and homes are already fairly advanced. Just go for it!!
Rich,
I appreciate your enthusiasm and share your zeal for a major change. Solar is not there yet in terms of cost factors or efficiency. It is moving very strongly in the right direction and will be a key component of the solution. I'm not blowing smoke - make my living off the energy market, including wind power, geo-thermal, solar, coal gasification, etc.
You are 100 percent right that the sun is the root source of all our power. We must more effectively and efficiently learn to tap it - from oil, coal, plants, etc., and to duplicate it through the exploitation of nuclear power, hydrogen fuel cells etc. There is an exciting new technology on the market right now to generate hydrogen as a fuel efficient clean-air improvement to our conventional internal combustion engines. www.go-green-fuel.com/
I have one even quicker and simpler method of making an immediate difference - mass transit! I make a six-figure income in a decidedly POV (personally owned vehicle) crazy environment and ride the local buses which get me to and from work efficiently every day, minimizes pollution and saves me about $5k per year.
The point is that there doesn't need to be some cataclysmic adjustment - many of the parts of the overall solution are already here at our finger/shoe tips and much more readily available than most of us would imagine. Just put one foot in front of the other heading down the right path - others will follow.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
I agree with you that "many of the parts of the overall solution are already here at our finger/shoe tips and much more readily available than most of us would imagine'. However, the immediate and most acceptable way to double auto gas mileage with NO imported oil needed is with electric cars. Electric cars would also allow more reasonable centralized carbon dioxide collection [at the power plant] -- let's subsidize their purchase to the consumer and capture carbon dioxide at the utility. Use the same amount of money we're subsidizing the ethanol and biodiesel manufactures!
By the way for your mass transit argument, LIRR and NYC subway system used by Long Islanders saves more fuel and offers less carbon dioxide than all the biodiesel manufactured; why is there no subsidy? However, building new systems is too expensive and too controversial. Let's save and expand the existing ones!
As for hydrogen, unless derived solely from water by electricity [why not electric car then]; it is derived from another fuel such as natural gas or biomass generating carbon dioxide and pollution.
P.S. I also make my living off the energy market as an owner of a Green Chemistry R&D company
Great minds think alike, MFV - there is already an organization in place that shares your goals.
http://www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance/
The Apollo Alliance provides a message of optimism and hope by treating clean energy as an economic and security mandate to rebuild America. In 1961, John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to send a man to the moon within a decade. It was an audacious dare. The technology did not yet exist.
Now America has an Apollo project for the 21st century. Today, we face an economy hemorrhaging its highest paying and most productive jobs, cities falling apart with over a trillion dollars in unmet public investment in crumbling schools, transportation, and infrastructure. The middle class is increasingly insecure as career ladders are broken and not replaced in new service sector jobs. And on a global scale we face never before seen environmental disruption, rising social inequity, and the emergence of fundamentalist anger that threatens our very security. We need new leaders of vision, and a new unifying call to action.
To be a successful 3rd Party (movement - whatever), Unity'08 needs a "Killer" issue that will galvanize us - the way anti-slavery rallied the Republicans in 1856 - and put them in the White House 4 years later. In 2024 that issue can and should be Energy Independence.
But in order to get this done, the corrupting influence of money in politics must be dealt with - primarily by publicly funding all Congressional campaigns and eliminating gerrymandering. Otherwise our tax dollars will be squandered in white-elephant boondoggles dreamed up by the shysters on K Street.
Look at the mess the lobbyists have us in already. Detroit has fought fuel economy standards for decades - ironically to its long-term detriment and possible demise. Oil companies have lobbied Congress to drill in ANWAR - not for U.S. energy security, but simply for profits. Archer Daniels Midland lobbied Congress for a 51 cent per gallon corn ethanol subsidy - and a 53 cent per gallon imported ethanol tariff.
We're an "oil-addicted" nation precisely because industry interests - and not the people - are running the country. The Republicans can't take on this issue because they feed at the big money trough of Oil, Detroit, ADM, and other interests. Ditto the Democrats.
If we don't take up this issue, who will?
MFV a TRP Independent
Trombone Erik & Donniebrasco:
Thanks for the comments. Erik you are right campaign finance reform and energy indpendence are the biggies we need to push for and if we could get universal health care that would be outta sight.
Donniebrasco: I didn't ever stop to think where we would get the hydrogen, science was never my best subject, thank you for enlightening me. Wow that shoots my theory down Any ideas on how they could get the hydrogen without having to use fossil fuels? By the way Erik thanks for the Appollo site.
Brazil has done that.
It took them 20 years to become TOTALLY energy independant by using sugar cane to make ethanol. But they were only able to achieve it when Car companies finally began making cars that would accept the ethonol/gas mix.
The problem with such a program in America is both oil and car companies are simply too reactionary to make such radical changes.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I was watching the Discovery Channel's: Future Car mini-series, and was fascinated when they talked about a compressed-air powered engine. Basically, it works by using compressed air push the pistons of the engine instead of a combustion explosion. Now, you would still have to go to a station to get more compressed air, but they also have prototypes for an engine that re-compresses air for power. Now, it is all still in its infancy, but if we can develope those two engines to the point that we can run every-day cars on it, you will NEVER have to fill up on gas(or air in this case) again! The only limit on its range will be how long you can keep driving non-stop.
There are many things we can do to solve the energy crisis.
Nuclear Power +Renewable Power + Electric Cars is one of the best I believe. Nuclear Power has come a long way in the last decade, and renewable sources are going to become more efficient in the next decade. Electric cars have also made huge leaps in the last year alone.
So what we need to do is really simple. Invest in electric car, renewable energy, and nuclear energy technologies. We should start building nuclear power plants right away, because that technology is the most developed. In fact, they have found ways to reduce the waste by 95%, and increase the efficiency by 50% at the same time! And with continued investments, Fusion power (basically having the power of the Sun at your disposal) will become a reality, and eliminating nuclear waste with new technology should become reality as well. Then we invest in electric car technology. They are very near with coming out with full sized electric vehicles (no emissions, no reliance on foreign oil!), and by 2024 – 2024 we should mandate that no gasoline vehicles should be produced. This will increase the demand for electricity. We should not respond with building more coal plants, but by continuing to build our nuclear plants and by building renewable resource plants too. These include solar power in sunny places, wind power in windy wide open places, and other types where they can be of the most use.
By doing this we can assure our independence from oil from the Middle East (and we wont have presidents who think they need to start wars to get more oil, though I don’t think that is why Bush did it), and we will eliminate much of our carbon output.
Developing ways to reduce coal-powered plants would help in the short term while we decommission them over the next 25 to 50 years. It would also help China and India to curb their emissions too.
You are right. The only way to address the energy problem is to look at it in three stages, short term, medium term and long term.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Nuclear energy truth is:
Nuclear energy is not the answer to greenhouse gas emissions
The uranium mining process requires an enormous output of energy. The transportation of the uranium and its waste requires further energy. Unless the uranium is of medium to high grade, the energy required to produce it is greater than the energy it provides. Obviously the highest-grade uranium will be mined first, meaning whatever small gains it may have would diminish to nothing and then very quickly become a negative. This is a non renewable fuel with a very limited future. The UK Sustainable Development Commission found that even if the UK doubled its existing nuclear capacity the best-case scenario would be a small 8% cut in CO2 emissions by 2024 and nothing before 2024. Even Australia's BHP admit in an info sheet about their Olympic Dam at Roxby Downs that the mining and processing of uranium is energy intensive and results in greenhouse gas emissions.
Why replace non renewable fuels with a non renewable fuel?
According to the Centre for Energy Conservation in the Netherlands, if all the world’s electricity was obtained from nuclear reactors, and if all currently known uranium deposits were mined as efficiently as possible, the world would still only have enough uranium to supply electricity for just nine years. At current rates of use it is estimated that there would only be enough uranium to last thirty to forty years. In other words we would still be searching for alternative energy sources. It makes a lot more sense to go down the road of renewable energy now.
Economic madness
For each net unit of carbon dioxide displaced by nuclear energy, wind power would provide the same carbon dioxide reduction at less than half the expense. Even then that figure applies to fully operational nuclear power plants, which take years and considerable amounts of money to build, and does not take into account the significant amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the construction process. Nuclear power is expensive and the industry relies on Government subsidies to survive. As of 2024 the EU was spending 61% of its research and development funding on the nuclear industry despite the fact it contributes only 13% of the EU’s energy supply. In the fifty years to 1998 the US Government spent $67 billion in direct subsidies to the nuclear industry. In June 2024, President George W. Bush has said the nuclear industry needs a ‘kick start from Washington’ – a clear reference to more taxpayers money needing to be given to the economically inefficient nuclear industry.
The romance with nuclear power has, from the start, been strongly associated with the use of plutonium as a fuel. This is because the most abundant uranium isotope in nature is uranium-238 - more than ninety-nine percent of natural uranium is U-238, which cannot sustain a chain reaction and is therefore not useful as a reactor fuel. The starting reactor fuel must necessarily be uranium-235, which is fissile but constitutes only about 0.7 percent of natural uranium. But U-238 has another property - when placed in a reactor, it absorbs a neutron, undergoes nuclear reactions, and gets transmuted into plutonium-239, which is fissile. Like uranium-235, plutonium-239 can be used to make bombs and fuel reactors. Converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239, in a kind of reactor called a "breeder reactor," can create more fuel than the reactor uses in its power generation mode. This is the "magical" aspect of nuclear power that has fascinated physicists and propagandists alike. About $100 billion have been spent worldwide over half a century in the effort to commercialize plutonium fuel and reactors that will "breed" it from uranium-238. The effort has been a vast economic and technical failure. Plutonium fuel is used to supply part of the fuel of less than three dozen reactors, most of them in France, out of a world total of more than 400 commercial reactors. The fuel is subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers to the tune of about one billion dollars per year in France alone.
Finally, consider an electricity growth rate of two percent, which is far less than that occurring in China and India, but more or less typical of recent U.S. trends. To make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we might hypothesize that (i) all present day nuclear power plants will be replaced by new ones, (ii) half the electricity growth will be provided by nuclear power, and (iii) half of the world's coal-fired plants will be replaced by nuclear power plants. This would mean that about two thousand large (1,000 megawatts each) nuclear power plants would have to be built over the next four decades. That is a rate of about one per week.
P.S. Coal + Electric Cars is the way. Both are currently available and abundant resources and Electric cars allow more reasonable centralized carbon dioxide collection [at the power plant] -- let's subsidize their purchase to the consumer and capture carbon dioxide at the utility using the same amount of money we're subsidizing the ethanol and biodiesel manufactures!
There’s a problem with carbon capture. You still have to put the carbon somewhere, and eventually it will find its way to the atmosphere. And carbon capture does not capture everything. Tons and Tons of Co2 will still find their way into the atmosphere directly from coal powered plants.
Guess what, mining coal requires even more energy for the same amount of output than Uranium! The energy required to mine Uranium is NEVER higher than its output. Where are you getting your information from? And surprise, almost EVERYTHING you do helps in someway to emit green house gasses. It is impossible to totally get rid of our emissions, but with Nuclear and renewable energy, it is possible to reduce it to below the amount that nature can handle. That means nature will naturally be removing more carbon than we put out, reducing the carbon in the air.
Nuclear fuel does not just come from Uranium, there are a number of sources for nuclear fuel, and your scientist is clearly mistaken or, more likely, quoted out of context. There are Thousands of years of Uranium alone. Another possible thing is that your scientist was quoted before the new technologies that recycle 95% of waste were developed. And that raise the energy output 50%. So we are now able to use 5% of the fuel to output 150% more energy. That is a huge gain, and further advances in nuclear energy are on their way.
67 Billion over 50 years is nothing! Especially considering that there are over 100 nuclear plants in the US, and that they have super high security. Look how much funding wind power alone will require over the next 2 years. Look at how much was spent in Iraq. Money is nothing here.
Umm. Are you still living in the 90s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
We have something called construction crews to build buildings. Its not a new thing.
Using nuclear bombs for fuel is a great idea. We just need to make sure that Iran can’t call us hypocrites for using nuclear bombs for energy when that is hat we don’t want them to do.
Electric cars all the way!
If we can focus on all types of ethanol, the one that could displace gasoline, we could finally send the middle east off our backs.
Turnkey plans are available for import today. http://www.theaircar.com/fabrica.html
These will make great commuter vehicles.
Air can be compressed in your garage using home electricity -- an electric car!
source: http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/bullettrains.htm
A variety of technologies are utilized to allow trains to achieve such high speeds. Although Maglev (magnetic levitation) technology is close to implementation, most high-speed systems take advantage of lower-tech solutions such as longer curves, trains that are optimized for length and weight, and eliminating automobiles crossing tracks.
In addition to high-speed rail service that currently connects New York and Washington, D.C., there are quite a few high-speed rail projects planned for the U.S.
The Federal Railroad Administration works with states to implement high-speed routes. Potential future routes include:
Boston to Washington, D.C.
California - from Sacramento and San Francisco to San Diego
Detroit to Chicago
Upstate New York
Charlotte to Washington D.C.
Seattle to Portland
Chicago to St. Louis
Chicago to Minneapolis
GM in 2024 killed all electric cars. They did have full electric cars on the market for lease for sometime. The Oil Company would not make money they react swiftly with our current president to literally destroy all this cars and remove them from the market. I did found an electric car possible to buy in late 2024 in US. New car is called Tesla and is pure electric up to 200mils on one battery charge for $100k to buy. I bet you probable could make less nice looking car with lower price. As long car manufactures will not be forced to do anything by government this plans will stay berried for public. It just speculation but I bet that our current government car representatives get good amounts for protecting there business and holding the true form public. Let’s not mistake this with hybrid junk.
Documentary movie: Who killed electric car.
Thank you
Cheney, Card, General Motors & Texaco killed this electric vehicle. Do you know why? IT WORKED!!!
Very little maintenance, (goodbye Mr Goodwrench) no oil consumption, didn't use gasoline, and they had developed batteries to extend the distance it was able to travel. Guess who bought the battery division? Oil giant Texaco, now in the words of the "church lady" Isn't that convenient. Then they appointed (the Bush Whitehouse) some dude to the Hydrogen commission in CA so he could kill this vehicle program in California. But guess what, GM and Texaco are going to end up the big losers, thats right folks, the Japanese have done it again. You know the name, Toyota. They have developed an electric car. To be available 2024-2009.
The Big 3 automakers can't afford to build cars in the US, as it was to expensive, so they lobbied Clinton and alas NAFTA was enacted. Wonder why their plants were already under construction when the bill hadn't even been signed? (chuckle) But all of the foreign company's come here to make quality cars and pay good wages and benefits, wonder why the Big 3 couldn't? Funny why they went and bought up all of the foreign car makers that weren't here, when they couldn't afford to build cars & trucks here, so they went to Mexico. So we lose another assembly line that could have provided jobs, but we will get the electric vehicle after Japan fixes it oil dependent problem. When the PHD's write the white paper on Ethanol, the American public will learn that the savings in oil consuption will be less than 3 % unless you can get the vehicles to burn it at a 60-40 blend which is up to the automakers. As a reward to General Motors, Bush signed Tax cuts for businesses up to 100K to purchase Hummers. He's really looking out for the middle class don't you think? Visit this website http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
check out this site.
http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/12/mark_phelan_electric_car_kille.html
Personally, I won't buy an electric vehicle till they make then safe enough in real world collisions and have better performance. I would prefer hydrogen IC engines, but liquid hydrogen scares me for two reasons. 1. it's very cold, bad cold. 2. It explodes, don't have the figures in front of me (at work). It's actually about half the power of TNT. It's around 2024 meters per second in liquid form, TNT is about 7500 at room temp. Power doubles for each 10 degree celcius. So hydrogen at room temp is a lot more powerfull. Of course it's in a gas state at that temp.
1. Walk or ride a bike as often as possible (think how much better you will feel after getting some exercise.)
2. Live closer to work, shopping, and entertainment (who needs urban sprawl.)
3. Take mass transit whenever possible (relax and work or read while traveling.)
4. Use energy saving behavior and devices at home and in the work place (insulation, floresant lighting, even smaller houses.)
5. Control the urge to buy new toys you really don't need (like a TV in every room, or a new car every 3 years.)
6. Slower and lighter vehicles (do you really need to do 80 mph in an SUV.)
7. Buy locally (the farmer's markets, etc.)
8. Ship more goods by rail or barge (When it absolutely doesn't have to get there overnight.)
9. Engage in less pre-emptive wars that waste lots and lots of fuel (playing LOTRO on my computer is enough fighting for me.)
10. Tell congress to cut back on the pork barrel spending (a vehicle bridge to nowhere in Alaska.)
I could go on, but I'm beginning to step on some toes already. It is really easy to think of ways to save energy but they also make for some inconvenience. After a person has a heart attack the doctor will suggest a change in lifestyle. With climate change and higher gas prices, we need a change in lifestyle now or suffer even worse consequenses later.