The government is sooo STUPID!

[Disinterest]

Originally Posted by MrBurgerking

I'm aware that ozone depletion is hardly caused by us. Natural things such as volcanoes and cow farts (seriously) have a bigger impact on that than us.

Yes, and considering that cows would more or less not exist if we didn't breed them in captivity as a (ridiculously inefficient) source of food, doesn't that make us guilty for those cow farts?

[mad_dog_dallas]

how is a cow an inefficient food source? (not arguing just curious since cows are big).

[Disinterest]

Originally Posted by mad_dog_dallas

how is a cow an inefficient food source? (not arguing just curious since cows are big).

First off, the amount of land required to grow the feed for any given cow could produce much more food (something like four times as much) if it was used instead to grow crops that humans consume directly. This is because the feed that animals eat is not translated directly into their body mass. Much of it is expended as energy for motion, the immune system, the brain and nervous system, or lost as heat, gaseous expulsions, poop, etc.

Second, when compared to carbohydrates, protein is a very inefficient source of energy and should make up no more than 10-15% of your body's energy.

[Stoned Engineer]

There have been lots of solutions to our oil consumption problem for years. But they've been suppressed.

Ethanol from corn is a joke. The energy return of energy investment(EROEI) for corn based ethanol is about 1, with some studies(eg. Pimentel) citing it at even less than that. Ethanol is an energy sink, where you will put about as much fossil fuel energy into making it as what you will get out that's usable. Our use of ethanol from corn is also contributing to food shortages in Latin America. Growing corn rapidly depletes the soil. It requires a lot of pesticides and fertilizers. But Monsanto, ADM, and their ilk are pushing it because they have patents on it. Big oil is pushing it because it will provide the public the illusion that they are trying to reduce oil consumption, without atually reducing oil consumption. Since they throw our politicians campaign money, our politicians listen to them, and not to the scientists and engineers that know what will and will not work.

Ethanol from sugarcane has a positive EROEI(the more realistic studies have it around 3-6, but laughable Brazilian government propaganda much higher), and while America has limited areas to grow it without encroaching on the environment, we could be making use of it much more than we are. Thanks to lobbying by agribusiness, we aren't. Worse yet, countries willing to export it to us end up having their product tariffed to high hell to protect American oil and agribusiness interests, therefore making otherwise cheap sugarcane ethanol from countries like Brazil not economically viable. We could have sugarcane ethanol sustainably replacing about 2% of America's oil demand for use as fuel. It's not much, but it's something. This is possible without further encroaching on the environment.

Flex fuel cars are worthless without a viable, positive EROEI ethanol source to run them. Worse yet, ever try to fill up a flex fuel car with E85 or E100? Not many stations to get it at.

You see, flex fuel vehicles are a loophole in CAFE(Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations. Our automakers can make a flex fuel car and it will be counted in the CAFE standards as having vastly greater fuel economy than it really has.


This way, our automakers have another excuse to not offer consumers the fuel efficient vehicles they want, and can keep shoving on them high profit margin, high maintenance, gas hog SUVs that have been mostly rejected. Then when the foreign 'competition' offers marginally better products that consumers wait in line months to purchase(eg. Prius, Camry, Civic), the US automakers complain that they need government subsidies and import restrictions to stay competitive.

Hydrogen fuel cells are another famous scam. In mass production, just the fuel cell stack would be over $300 per peak horsepower. This doesn't count the compressor, storage tanks, electric motor, batteries, or the chassis itself. Toyota says an optimistic goal is that a mass produced fuel cell car will cost $50,000 by 2020. Today, a mass produced fuel cell car would be in the six figure range. Fuel cells make use of platinum, which we have nowhere near enough of in the world for our auto fleet. Nevermind the range problems of Fuel Cell EVs are much worse than battery EVs, or the fact that battery EVs would be affordable in mass production. But fuel cells are high maintenance and the membranes wear out after about 2,000 hours of operation. Throw in nearly $2 billion in government welfare handouts to the big auto companies for development of fuel cell cars, and you can see why the auto industry likes the idea. Then it will take about $1 trillion to develop the hydrogen refeuling infrastructure across the U.S.

You know what will wean us off of oil? Battery electric cars, conventional cars with clean aerodynamics, biodiesel from hemp, hemp for plastics/textiles/petrochemical replacements, high speed electric rail replacing air travel, electric rail replacing trucking.

Guess where industry profit goes? Down.

The battery electric car, if mass produced, would be affordable. With NiMH(Nickel Metal Hydride), Li Poly(Lithium Polymer) and LiIon(Lithium Ion) batteries, long range has been doable. One study done in 2003, titled "Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or Shell Game", by Stephen S. Eaves, U.C. Davis found a mass produced electric midsize car with 300 miles range, 0-60 mph in 8 seconds acceleration, and $20,000 cost is doable today. Earlier studies in the 1990s also found an electric of similar performance/size/price with 150-200 miles range were doable. One done by Cuenca and Gaines found that in the 1990s, it was possible to build a $20,000, 100-150 mile range midsize car with 0-60 mph acceleration in 11 seconds, using NiMH batteries. Since the 90s, electric cars have been capable of 200-300 miles range, high performance, and cost parity with gas cars around $1.50/gallon, factoring in periodic battery replacement(basically, as long as gas is higher than $1.50/gallon, a mass produced electric car will be cheaper to run than a gas one). With fast charging schemes, it is possible to charge an electric car's battery pack in under 30 minutes. Aerovironment developed in the 1990s a fast charger capable of charging an electric car with a NiMH battery pack from 0-80% in 15 minutes. Mitsubishi demonstrated an electric FTO concept car that could charge in 20 minutes with a fast charger; it travelled over 1,200 miles in 24 hours including the time spend stopping to charge.

Don't believe that electric cars can do the range or performance I claim? Google Search the following:

*AC Propulsion TZero (Li Ion), 300 miles range, 102 mph top speed(electronically limited), 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds, sports car
*Venturi Fetish (Li Ion), 220 miles range, 105 mph(lim), 0-60 in 5.4 secs, sports car
*Tesla Roadster (Li Ion), 250 miles range, 135 mph(lim), 0-60 in 3.9 secs, sports car
*Eliica (Li Ion), 300 miles range, 250 mph(this is not a typo, it really does 250), 0-60 in 4 secs, luxury car
*Mitsubishi Eclipse EV (Li Ion), 250 miles range, 100 mph(lim), 0-60 in 13 secs, compat car
*Volvo 3CC (Li Ion), 180 miles range, 85 mph(lim), 0-60 mph 10 secs, compact
*Electrovaya Maya 100 (Li Poly), 230 miles range, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 14 secs, SUV
*Solectria Sunrise (NiMH), 350 miles range, 75 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 17 secs, midsize
*Solectria Force (NiMH), 250 miles range, 75 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 17 secs, midsize
*GM EV1 (NiMH), 150 miles range, 80 mph(lim, but did 183 on a track with governor removed), 0-60 in 7.5 secs, sports car
*Toyota RAV4 EV (NiMH), 120 miles range, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 16 secs, SUV

The auto industry refuses to make electric cars for the mass market; no oil changes, tune ups, or other maintenance is needed. Electric motors last over 500,000 miles. The U.S. Federal Government, oil industry, and auto industry all stifled the electric car.

How did they suppress it? The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and others in their federal lawsuit against California’s ZEV mandate. Former Chief of Staff and former General Motorist Lobbyist Andrew Card acted as plaintiff against the State of California. The oil industry made blatantly false advertisements and statements about EVs and their technology. The oil industry set up and funded organizations with the declared intent of "stalling or preventing the adoption of battery electric vehicles in California and elsewhere". The oil industry conspired to prevent utility companies from setting up EV fast charging infrastructure along Route 66 and throught the state of California, which would have made long distance travel by electric car practical. Chevron bought control of the NiMH battery and they are setting a restriction on the size of the modules produced, refuse to sell to anyone but OEMs, and charging well above the battery's retail price by the original developer for use in hybrids; this prevents small automakers from using this technology and prevents hobbyists like me from being able to buy a pack of NiMH and put it in my electric car for 200+ miles range. The auto industry spent millions of dollars to spread around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs. The auto industry attempted to suppress information on battery technology and censured the developer of the NiMH, Stanly Ovshinski. The auto industry made misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs, even though a study titled "The Current and Future Market for Electric Vehicles" found the immediate market in California alone with no avertising was over 150,000 cars per year. The auto industry outright refused to lease and/or sell the vehicles they made in the 1990s to willing customers with cash on hand willing to pay the advertised price. Auto industry lobbyists spent millions of dollars printing ads in opposition to EVs that their companies developed. The auto industry artificially inflated the production costs of their vehicles using wholly unconventional accounting methods, and then tried to claim that consumers didn't want them when presented with the inflated price.

Why did they suppress it? The G8 nations make more revenue on oil taxes than OPEC makes in profit. Auto fuel is 40% of America's oil consumption, the oil industry's largest source of revenue. When the car companies were still profitable, aftermarket services/repairs were half of profit margins and electric cars threaten this. Electric cars replacing gas cars would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

We can also do 60+ mpg midsize cars, 30+ mpg full size pickup tricks/SUVs, 50+ mpg minivans, 100+ mpg economy cars, 80+ mpg sports cars with no cost penalty all no problem, if we do the following:

1) Address aerodynamics
2) Use composites and other weight reduction techniques
3) Use a diesel engine or diesel-hybrid drive

None of this is new tech. The aerodynamics were possible since the 1930s. The diesel engines possible in the 1970s. The composites possible in the 1990s.

Don't believe me? Google the following:

*Opel Eco Speedster (diesel), 94 mpg combined fuel economy, 160 mph top speed(electronically limited), 0-60 mph in 8.9 seconds, sports car
*Ford Prodigy (diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 in 12 secs, midsize
*GM Precept (diesel-electric), 80 mpg, 85 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11.5 secs, midsize
*Dodge Intrepid ESX3 (diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 90 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11 secs, midsize
*UC Davis Futuretruck Chevrolet Suburban(gasoline-electric), 35 mpg, 100 mph(lim), 0-60 in 9 secs, SUV
*GM Ultralite (gasoline), 88 mpg, 135 mph, 0-60 in 7.8 secs, compact
*Loremo LS (diesel), 157 mpg, 100 mph, 0-60 in 19 secs, sub-compact
*Loremo GT (diesel), 88 mpg, 138 mph, 0-60 in 9 secs, sub-compact
*VW 1 Litre (diesel), 235 mpg, 78 mph, sub-compact
*Jetcar 2.5 (diesel), 87 mpg, 100 mph, sub-compact
*VW Lupo 3L (diesel), 79 mpg, 102 mph, 0-60 in 12.7 secs, compact
*Mercedes Bionic (diesel), 55 mpg, 118 mph, 0-60 in 7.9 secs, compact
*VW Ecoracer (diesel), 69 mpg, 143 mph, 0-60 in 6.3 secs, sports car
*Audi A2 3L (diesel), 78 mpg, 105 mph, 0-60 in 13 secs, compact
*Renault Twingo SmILE (gasoline), 71 mpg, 93 mph, 0-60 in 14 secs, subcompact
*VW Wundercar II (diesel), 118 mpg, 112 mph, 0-60 in 12 secs, subcompact
*Vapor Fuel Technologies Alé (gasoline), 92 mpg, 140 mph, 0-60 in 5 secs, single person commuter
*Opel Astra ECO4 (diesel), 54 mpg, 109 mpg, 0-60 in 13.5 secs, compact
*Mitsubishi i (gasoline), 62 mpg, 115 mph, 0-60 in 10.6 secs, sub-compact

The typical American midsize sedan accelerates 0-60 mph 10 seconds, tops 115 mph, and gets ~27 mpg on gasoline. Considering the above, isn't that embarassing? Get this, in the 1990s, our government gave the Big 3 automakers nearly $400 million to develop an 80 mile per gallon midsize car with little to no performance or cost penalty over the cars sold at the time. The auto industry developed the cars and the GM Precept, Ford Prodigy, and Dodge Intrepid ESX3 were demonstarted to work and achieve these goals. The catch? The automakers never had to actually sell the cars to consumers, so they didn't. The automakers spent about $200 million of our tax dollars developing these cars by modifying models they already had, and then pocketed the rest of the money. They refuse to leapfrog this technology, even though it's more than doable.

We could have trolley systems connecting urban areas and suburbs together so that cars are not a necessity. America used to have the best mass transit system in the world. Trolleys everywhere, so much so they were as convenient as cars and much cheaper. Only 1 in 3 odriving age Americans owned cars in the 1920s onward to the 40s because they didn't need them! The government wanted to grow the economy out of the depression in the 1940s by inducing consumer spending, and thus allowed the car companies and oil companies to buy off and destroy the extensive mass transit system the United States had, to make the car a necessity instead of an option. This in turn increased spending, more of your money went to them. There were riots in Cincinnati, LA, and elsewhere when the trolleys were torn down, as people didn't want to need cars. Roads, inspection centers all require lots of tax dollars to run. Reducing car use would heavily reduce that and much of the subsidies to the auto companies. Why does our mass transit suck today? Its use over the car would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

Automobile fuel is 40% of our oil consumption in the US according to the energy Information Administration. We could eliminate this outright with today's technology and no sacrifices to the consumer or a change in our way of life.

We could have 20% of our electricity coming from wind without any significant grid problems. The problem is, you don't have to mine, extract, transport, or burn wind and all of these processes have profit margins lined into them. So even though wind electricity is now cheaper than coal, it will make the power companies less money than coal and therefore they are very slow to use it.

We could have high speed electric rail displacing intracontinential air travel while allowing still Americans rapid mobility. High speed rail is almost as fast as air travel, more comfortable, safer, and cheaper. But every time such a system is proposed anywhere in the U.S., the airline industry gets to lobbying to prevent it, and gets their way. The airline industry can't even hold itself up and cries to big nanny government for welfare handouts and violates the fuck out of the civil liberties of all who pay for their services, then lambasts electric rail proposals that would require even less funding. Air travel accounts for ~12% of America's oil consumption. But using high speed electric rail over airplanes would reduce spending, taxes, profit, and economic growth.

We could have hemp biomass sustainably replacing about 15% of America's oil demand, for use in plastics, textiles, heating oil, and diesel. This is possible without further encroaching on the environment. Since the 1920s, industrial hemp has been able to replace many things oil is used for, for cheaper. But the oil, petrochemical, wood paper, pharmaceutical, and other industries lobbied to prevent farmers from growing it in the U.S. and same lobbyists got their way in other nations. Hemp yields about 300 gallons of seed oil per hectare, and can make biodiesel for the equivalent of $.60/gallon. It has an EROEI of about 4-6. The specially bred 'low THC' varieties that certain states are allowed to grow will not work because they also have lower seed oil yields than normal hemp varieties and their fibers aren't very strong. Industrial hemp use over oil would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

We could stop subsidizing the trucking industry so that rail is again a viable option for shipping goods. This will dramatically reduce roadwear and fuel consumption. Your typical tractor trailer induces over 5,000 times more road wear than a passenger car, yet the trucking industry gets a virtually free ride when it comes to road taxes!

We could stop subsidizing factory farms and all the waste they entail so that local farmers can again compete with cheaper and superior products that don't need to be shipped long distances.

We could end the military industrial complex which consumes more oil than does the nation of Greece.

We could design consumer electronics for longevity instead of obsolescence so that less are purchased and more are retained.




With all of the above, we could reduce our oil consumption more than enough to where we wouldn't have to import any, and wouldn't have to drill one damn drop in ANWR.

For the record, ANWR only has 6 weeks worth of oil at current consumption rates, and if we started drilling today, we woulsdn't see a drop of that oil for over 20 years. Our government wants drilling in ANWR, but the American people do not.



See a pattern here? Our government and the corporations that control it are pushing 'solutions' that will do nothing to reduce oil consumption, while they suppress solutions that will reduce oil consumption.




For the record, I'm an engineer. I'm building my own electric car, and I've driven an electric car. The technology works. All of the above you can find for yourself and verify if you do some research. It's no conspiracy theory, it's fact.

Now, do a search on peak oil and the possibility of what is called a 'dieoff'. Then look at the above solutions that can work and how they were suppressed. Look at the war in Iraq. See a connection?

Don't know about you, but all of this pisses me off a huge amount.

[cuatro veinte]

Originally Posted by Stoned Engineer

There have been lots of solutions to our oil consumption problem for years. But they've been suppressed.

Ethanol from corn is a joke. The energy return of energy investment(EROEI) for corn based ethanol is about 1, with some studies(eg. Pimentel) citing it at even less than that. Ethanol is an energy sink, where you will put about as much fossil fuel energy into making it as what you will get out that's usable. Our use of ethanol from corn is also contributing to food shortages in Latin America. Growing corn rapidly depletes the soil. It requires a lot of pesticides and fertilizers. But Monsanto, ADM, and their ilk are pushing it because they have patents on it. Big oil is pushing it because it will provide the public the illusion that they are trying to reduce oil consumption, without atually reducing oil consumption. Since they throw our politicians campaign money, our politicians listen to them, and not to the scientists and engineers that know what will and will not work.

Ethanol from sugarcane has a positive EROEI(the more realistic studies have it around 3-6, but laughable Brazilian government propaganda much higher), and while America has limited areas to grow it without encroaching on the environment, we could be making use of it much more than we are. Thanks to lobbying by agribusiness, we aren't. Worse yet, countries willing to export it to us end up having their product tariffed to high hell to protect American oil and agribusiness interests, therefore making otherwise cheap sugarcane ethanol from countries like Brazil not economically viable. We could have sugarcane ethanol sustainably replacing about 2% of America's oil demand for use as fuel. It's not much, but it's something. This is possible without further encroaching on the environment.

Flex fuel cars are worthless without a viable, positive EROEI ethanol source to run them. Worse yet, ever try to fill up a flex fuel car with E85 or E100? Not many stations to get it at.

You see, flex fuel vehicles are a loophole in CAFE(Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations. Our automakers can make a flex fuel car and it will be counted in the CAFE standards as having vastly greater fuel economy than it really has.


This way, our automakers have another excuse to not offer consumers the fuel efficient vehicles they want, and can keep shoving on them high profit margin, high maintenance, gas hog SUVs that have been mostly rejected. Then when the foreign 'competition' offers marginally better products that consumers wait in line months to purchase(eg. Prius, Camry, Civic), the US automakers complain that they need government subsidies and import restrictions to stay competitive.

Hydrogen fuel cells are another famous scam. In mass production, just the fuel cell stack would be over $300 per peak horsepower. This doesn't count the compressor, storage tanks, electric motor, batteries, or the chassis itself. Toyota says an optimistic goal is that a mass produced fuel cell car will cost $50,000 by 2020. Today, a mass produced fuel cell car would be in the six figure range. Fuel cells make use of platinum, which we have nowhere near enough of in the world for our auto fleet. Nevermind the range problems of Fuel Cell EVs are much worse than battery EVs, or the fact that battery EVs would be affordable in mass production. But fuel cells are high maintenance and the membranes wear out after about 2,000 hours of operation. Throw in nearly $2 billion in government welfare handouts to the big auto companies for development of fuel cell cars, and you can see why the auto industry likes the idea. Then it will take about $1 trillion to develop the hydrogen refeuling infrastructure across the U.S.

You know what will wean us off of oil? Battery electric cars, conventional cars with clean aerodynamics, biodiesel from hemp, hemp for plastics/textiles/petrochemical replacements, high speed electric rail replacing air travel, electric rail replacing trucking.

Guess where industry profit goes? Down.

The battery electric car, if mass produced, would be affordable. With NiMH(Nickel Metal Hydride), Li Poly(Lithium Polymer) and LiIon(Lithium Ion) batteries, long range has been doable. One study done in 2003, titled "Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or Shell Game", by Stephen S. Eaves, U.C. Davis found a mass produced electric midsize car with 300 miles range, 0-60 mph in 8 seconds acceleration, and $20,000 cost is doable today. Earlier studies in the 1990s also found an electric of similar performance/size/price with 150-200 miles range were doable. One done by Cuenca and Gaines found that in the 1990s, it was possible to build a $20,000, 100-150 mile range midsize car with 0-60 mph acceleration in 11 seconds, using NiMH batteries. Since the 90s, electric cars have been capable of 200-300 miles range, high performance, and cost parity with gas cars around $1.50/gallon, factoring in periodic battery replacement(basically, as long as gas is higher than $1.50/gallon, a mass produced electric car will be cheaper to run than a gas one). With fast charging schemes, it is possible to charge an electric car's battery pack in under 30 minutes. Aerovironment developed in the 1990s a fast charger capable of charging an electric car with a NiMH battery pack from 0-80% in 15 minutes. Mitsubishi demonstrated an electric FTO concept car that could charge in 20 minutes with a fast charger; it travelled over 1,200 miles in 24 hours including the time spend stopping to charge.

Don't believe that electric cars can do the range or performance I claim? Google Search the following:

*AC Propulsion TZero (Li Ion), 300 miles range, 102 mph top speed(electronically limited), 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds, sports car
*Venturi Fetish (Li Ion), 220 miles range, 105 mph(lim), 0-60 in 5.4 secs, sports car
*Tesla Roadster (Li Ion), 250 miles range, 135 mph(lim), 0-60 in 3.9 secs, sports car
*Eliica (Li Ion), 300 miles range, 250 mph(this is not a typo, it really does 250), 0-60 in 4 secs, luxury car
*Mitsubishi Eclipse EV (Li Ion), 250 miles range, 100 mph(lim), 0-60 in 13 secs, compat car
*Volvo 3CC (Li Ion), 180 miles range, 85 mph(lim), 0-60 mph 10 secs, compact
*Electrovaya Maya 100 (Li Poly), 230 miles range, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 14 secs, SUV
*Solectria Sunrise (NiMH), 350 miles range, 75 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 17 secs, midsize
*Solectria Force (NiMH), 250 miles range, 75 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 17 secs, midsize
*GM EV1 (NiMH), 150 miles range, 80 mph(lim, but did 183 on a track with governor removed), 0-60 in 7.5 secs, sports car
*Toyota RAV4 EV (NiMH), 120 miles range, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 mph in 16 secs, SUV

The auto industry refuses to make electric cars for the mass market; no oil changes, tune ups, or other maintenance is needed. Electric motors last over 500,000 miles. The U.S. Federal Government, oil industry, and auto industry all stifled the electric car.

How did they suppress it? The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and others in their federal lawsuit against California’s ZEV mandate. Former Chief of Staff and former General Motorist Lobbyist Andrew Card acted as plaintiff against the State of California. The oil industry made blatantly false advertisements and statements about EVs and their technology. The oil industry set up and funded organizations with the declared intent of "stalling or preventing the adoption of battery electric vehicles in California and elsewhere". The oil industry conspired to prevent utility companies from setting up EV fast charging infrastructure along Route 66 and throught the state of California, which would have made long distance travel by electric car practical. Chevron bought control of the NiMH battery and they are setting a restriction on the size of the modules produced, refuse to sell to anyone but OEMs, and charging well above the battery's retail price by the original developer for use in hybrids; this prevents small automakers from using this technology and prevents hobbyists like me from being able to buy a pack of NiMH and put it in my electric car for 200+ miles range. The auto industry spent millions of dollars to spread around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs. The auto industry attempted to suppress information on battery technology and censured the developer of the NiMH, Stanly Ovshinski. The auto industry made misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs, even though a study titled "The Current and Future Market for Electric Vehicles" found the immediate market in California alone with no avertising was over 150,000 cars per year. The auto industry outright refused to lease and/or sell the vehicles they made in the 1990s to willing customers with cash on hand willing to pay the advertised price. Auto industry lobbyists spent millions of dollars printing ads in opposition to EVs that their companies developed. The auto industry artificially inflated the production costs of their vehicles using wholly unconventional accounting methods, and then tried to claim that consumers didn't want them when presented with the inflated price.

Why did they suppress it? The G8 nations make more revenue on oil taxes than OPEC makes in profit. Auto fuel is 40% of America's oil consumption, the oil industry's largest source of revenue. When the car companies were still profitable, aftermarket services/repairs were half of profit margins and electric cars threaten this. Electric cars replacing gas cars would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

We can also do 60+ mpg midsize cars, 30+ mpg full size pickup tricks/SUVs, 50+ mpg minivans, 100+ mpg economy cars, 80+ mpg sports cars with no cost penalty all no problem, if we do the following:

1) Address aerodynamics
2) Use composites and other weight reduction techniques
3) Use a diesel engine or diesel-hybrid drive

None of this is new tech. The aerodynamics were possible since the 1930s. The diesel engines possible in the 1970s. The composites possible in the 1990s.

Don't believe me? Google the following:

*Opel Eco Speedster (diesel), 94 mpg combined fuel economy, 160 mph top speed(electronically limited), 0-60 mph in 8.9 seconds, sports car
*Ford Prodigy (diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 in 12 secs, midsize
*GM Precept (diesel-electric), 80 mpg, 85 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11.5 secs, midsize
*Dodge Intrepid ESX3 (diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 90 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11 secs, midsize
*UC Davis Futuretruck Chevrolet Suburban(gasoline-electric), 35 mpg, 100 mph(lim), 0-60 in 9 secs, SUV
*GM Ultralite (gasoline), 88 mpg, 135 mph, 0-60 in 7.8 secs, compact
*Loremo LS (diesel), 157 mpg, 100 mph, 0-60 in 19 secs, sub-compact
*Loremo GT (diesel), 88 mpg, 138 mph, 0-60 in 9 secs, sub-compact
*VW 1 Litre (diesel), 235 mpg, 78 mph, sub-compact
*Jetcar 2.5 (diesel), 87 mpg, 100 mph, sub-compact
*VW Lupo 3L (diesel), 79 mpg, 102 mph, 0-60 in 12.7 secs, compact
*Mercedes Bionic (diesel), 55 mpg, 118 mph, 0-60 in 7.9 secs, compact
*VW Ecoracer (diesel), 69 mpg, 143 mph, 0-60 in 6.3 secs, sports car
*Audi A2 3L (diesel), 78 mpg, 105 mph, 0-60 in 13 secs, compact
*Renault Twingo SmILE (gasoline), 71 mpg, 93 mph, 0-60 in 14 secs, subcompact
*VW Wundercar II (diesel), 118 mpg, 112 mph, 0-60 in 12 secs, subcompact
*Vapor Fuel Technologies Alé (gasoline), 92 mpg, 140 mph, 0-60 in 5 secs, single person commuter
*Opel Astra ECO4 (diesel), 54 mpg, 109 mpg, 0-60 in 13.5 secs, compact
*Mitsubishi i (gasoline), 62 mpg, 115 mph, 0-60 in 10.6 secs, sub-compact

The typical American midsize sedan accelerates 0-60 mph 10 seconds, tops 115 mph, and gets ~27 mpg on gasoline. Considering the above, isn't that embarassing? Get this, in the 1990s, our government gave the Big 3 automakers nearly $400 million to develop an 80 mile per gallon midsize car with little to no performance or cost penalty over the cars sold at the time. The auto industry developed the cars and the GM Precept, Ford Prodigy, and Dodge Intrepid ESX3 were demonstarted to work and achieve these goals. The catch? The automakers never had to actually sell the cars to consumers, so they didn't. The automakers spent about $200 million of our tax dollars developing these cars by modifying models they already had, and then pocketed the rest of the money. They refuse to leapfrog this technology, even though it's more than doable.

We could have trolley systems connecting urban areas and suburbs together so that cars are not a necessity. America used to have the best mass transit system in the world. Trolleys everywhere, so much so they were as convenient as cars and much cheaper. Only 1 in 3 odriving age Americans owned cars in the 1920s onward to the 40s because they didn't need them! The government wanted to grow the economy out of the depression in the 1940s by inducing consumer spending, and thus allowed the car companies and oil companies to buy off and destroy the extensive mass transit system the United States had, to make the car a necessity instead of an option. This in turn increased spending, more of your money went to them. There were riots in Cincinnati, LA, and elsewhere when the trolleys were torn down, as people didn't want to need cars. Roads, inspection centers all require lots of tax dollars to run. Reducing car use would heavily reduce that and much of the subsidies to the auto companies. Why does our mass transit suck today? Its use over the car would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

Automobile fuel is 40% of our oil consumption in the US according to the energy Information Administration. We could eliminate this outright with today's technology and no sacrifices to the consumer or a change in our way of life.

We could have 20% of our electricity coming from wind without any significant grid problems. The problem is, you don't have to mine, extract, transport, or burn wind and all of these processes have profit margins lined into them. So even though wind electricity is now cheaper than coal, it will make the power companies less money than coal and therefore they are very slow to use it.

We could have high speed electric rail displacing intracontinential air travel while allowing still Americans rapid mobility. High speed rail is almost as fast as air travel, more comfortable, safer, and cheaper. But every time such a system is proposed anywhere in the U.S., the airline industry gets to lobbying to prevent it, and gets their way. The airline industry can't even hold itself up and cries to big nanny government for welfare handouts and violates the fuck out of the civil liberties of all who pay for their services, then lambasts electric rail proposals that would require even less funding. Air travel accounts for ~12% of America's oil consumption. But using high speed electric rail over airplanes would reduce spending, taxes, profit, and economic growth.

We could have hemp biomass sustainably replacing about 15% of America's oil demand, for use in plastics, textiles, heating oil, and diesel. This is possible without further encroaching on the environment. Since the 1920s, industrial hemp has been able to replace many things oil is used for, for cheaper. But the oil, petrochemical, wood paper, pharmaceutical, and other industries lobbied to prevent farmers from growing it in the U.S. and same lobbyists got their way in other nations. Hemp yields about 300 gallons of seed oil per hectare, and can make biodiesel for the equivalent of $.60/gallon. It has an EROEI of about 4-6. The specially bred 'low THC' varieties that certain states are allowed to grow will not work because they also have lower seed oil yields than normal hemp varieties and their fibers aren't very strong. Industrial hemp use over oil would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

We could stop subsidizing the trucking industry so that rail is again a viable option for shipping goods. This will dramatically reduce roadwear and fuel consumption. Your typical tractor trailer induces over 5,000 times more road wear than a passenger car, yet the trucking industry gets a virtually free ride when it comes to road taxes!

We could stop subsidizing factory farms and all the waste they entail so that local farmers can again compete with cheaper and superior products that don't need to be shipped long distances.

We could end the military industrial complex which consumes more oil than does the nation of Greece.

We could design consumer electronics for longevity instead of obsolescence so that less are purchased and more are retained.




With all of the above, we could reduce our oil consumption more than enough to where we wouldn't have to import any, and wouldn't have to drill one damn drop in ANWR.

For the record, ANWR only has 6 weeks worth of oil at current consumption rates, and if we started drilling today, we woulsdn't see a drop of that oil for over 20 years. Our government wants drilling in ANWR, but the American people do not.



See a pattern here? Our government and the corporations that control it are pushing 'solutions' that will do nothing to reduce oil consumption, while they suppress solutions that will reduce oil consumption.




For the record, I'm an engineer. I'm building my own electric car, and I've driven an electric car. The technology works. All of the above you can find for yourself and verify if you do some research. It's no conspiracy theory, it's fact.

Now, do a search on peak oil and the possibility of what is called a 'dieoff'. Then look at the above solutions that can work and how they were suppressed. Look at the war in Iraq. See a connection?

Don't know about you, but all of this pisses me off a huge amount.

Well in response to this topic, we live in a capitalist society. Our government's main priority is money. Nothing more to it than that. They would lose huge amount of profits if they start looking towards Hemp for fuel alternatives. Our honorary government has it too good running all these oil and car companies, why would they want to change that? To quote Antidote, a great punk band, "Fuck Politics".

[Stoned Engineer]

If anything, what our government is doing is anything but capitalism.

Our government is over-regulating small companies like AC Propulsion, Commuter Cars, and Tesla to the point that they probably won't ever have the money to achieve mass production. Without mass production of electric cars, they will never be affordable and competitive at the same time. Foreign automakers who made electric cars even had their products restricted from ever entering the U.S. A few Chinese automakers have been able to get products in; they are making low-volume production runs of 80 mph capable electric cars and utility trucks, and these vehicles end up being restricted to 25 mph here in the U.S. because they don't pass our absurd crash standards. These same standards were lobbied into place by the Big 3 in the 1970s to shut out competition.

Further, all the welfare handouts to GM, Exxon, Standard Oil, Monsanto, Ford, Chrysler, Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, Betchel, Raytheon, and all of them? Corporate welfare totals about $200 billion a year according to Public Citizen.

What our government is doing isn't capitalism. It is fascism. If the economy were truly capitalist, the smaller businesses would easily be able to put to the market vastly superior products to the shit big business peddles and these products would be affordable with all the overhead removed. The consumers would invariably chose those products, forcing the major companies to either change their methods or go out of business.

We don't have that in the least.

In a true free market, consumers would have the option to buy an electric car, farmers would be able to grow hemp without fear of reprecussions, and big business wouldn't have its hands in our tax dollars. In a true free market, companies wouldn't be able to spew their filthy pollution into your back yard without compensating you for the damages. In a true free market, the military industrial complex couldn't even exist.


Instead, we have what could more accurately be called a corporate police state. Big business is given all the rights of individual people, without the responsibilities, while individual people are seeing ever increasing responsibilities as their rights dwindle.

[Alphå]

when you burn any hydrocarbon, yes it does yield a LOT of energy, but your still making CO2 and water vapor (assumign your in a 100% O2 enviornment)

We need to get rid of hydrocarbons altogethor.

The only problem is, I thin kthe oil and auto companies are witholding the technologies that could make hydrocarbons a thing of the past.

They're doing it for the money at the cost of our enviornment.

I really hope theres a nuclear holocaust where most of the earth dies. Honestly we need a mass extinction to kinda start over again and get back to our roots.

[Stoned Engineer]

In the short term, we probably won't be able to get rid of hydrocarbons altogether, but by doing the things I list above, we can reduce the amount we use by more than 70% before we have any living standard reduction. As technology progresses(and it is very rapidly progressing), we would theoretically need to use less and less.

The electric car, for example, even getting its electricity from a coal fired plant, will produce about 90% less NOx, HCs, and CO and produce about half the CO2 per mile of a comparable gasoline-powered car. Well to wheels, an electric car is about 2 times as efficient as a gas powered one.

Nevermind the fact that the amount of electricity used in refining the crude oil to run our gasoline powered cars is more than enough to run a fleet of electric cars if they were to replace gasoline ones.

You are right. The technologies are being and have been witheld, and I have proof of it(I can PM it to you if you wish, but I will be eventually posting stuff here later). But don't take my word for it, there's a plethora of information out there. Hell, even Chris Paine's recent documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" goes into much more depth than I have here, and every one of the claims is backed by documentation.



The whole source of our problems is those who occupy the top political, military, and corporate positions in our society. They don't want to see any deviation from the status quo, regardless of what the other 99% of us want and regardless of how the other 99% of us will be affected.

Instead of a sustainable society with free choice and decentralization, we get a corporate police state with oil wars, diminishing civil liberties, unconstitutional drug wars, and a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest in society.

It's sick, but it's happening. Something must be done or it will be too late to change.

[cuatro veinte]

I see your point, dood. But we're still a Capitalist Society.

[Bukley]

Thats capitalism for yah buddy.

[Still Smokin]

I believe that when the Bush Administration joined the lawsuit against the Electric Car is when they failed at any hope of an efficient alternative fuel source. Electric cars opperating on batteries has already proved to be far superior to this bullshit hydrogen. It was a combination of the Bush Administration, Oil Companies and Car Companies that killed the electric car when they realized the threat it posed against them.

The Bush Administration has failed to act in the public interest to limit pollution and require increased fuel economy, has promoted the purchase of vehicles with poor fuel efficiency through preferential tax breaks, and has historically redirected alternative fuel research from electric towards hydrogen even though battery operated vehicles (electric cars) are far more efficient and battery technology is far more superior to hydrogen technology.

Oil companies were fearful of losing business to a competing technology, they supported efforts to kill the electric car. They also bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in US electric cars.

Car companies are guilty of negative marketing and canibalizing their own product program. They also failed to produce electric cars to meet existing demand. Also, their unusual business practices with regards to leasing versus sales is very controversial.

You need to see this movie! http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1018011

edit: Bukley- regardless of my argument, your right...this is how capitalism works

[Xero77x]

Hyperdimensional physics, anyone?

I do totally agree, its facism. This country could become early 1900's Germany and no one would care. As long as TV and the internet are still considered a "right," then who cares what the government does?

Invade Iraq, Bomb Iran, Nuke Korea... I just want to watch Vikings football when the time comes back.