Ha! I could've sworn I saw something yesterday saying he was proposing MPG to be 42, or something. Anywho...this is cool. I mean...it's quite an undertaken, but if worked out efficiently...definitely a good idea. As for gas prices...where are you located Torn. For 1 gallon of regular gasoline it's like $2.19[or somewhere near that] for me. I'm in Northwest Alabama...so unless you live in...geez I don't know the middle of the ocean[or some other completely irrelevant place] you are more than likely paying more than me. Who says living in a small town sucks! 😛

I want mah clown car. Can't wait to see how many of my friends I'll be able to stuff into one. Quick question . Isn't using ethanol more damaging than regular gasoline?

More damaging? I've heard they're both kind of a wash as far as the environment is concerned but if you're trying to imply that ethanol has its own issues, yes it does.

Hmmm...not sure. Ethanol definitely has its own effects to the environment for sure though. I say vegetables and chocolate is what we need! 😛

I'd rather wait until hybrids go mainstream, and then a big petrol tax will phase out the old, inefficient cars.

If the idea is to counteract climate change, why couldn't they just have a fuel tax proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted per amount of fuel burned? To me that would sound a bit more permissive than just banning inefficient vehicles, (since it would leave open the option, as long as they paid for it; obviously some of that money taxed should go to policies to address the effects of climate change) plus a bit fairer as it would tax other uses of CO2-emitting fuels as well.

Also, how far does this reach? Is it just for the car companies that were bailed out with government money, is it a requirement for all cars manufactured in the US, or does it also apply to cars being imported to the US as well?

If the idea is to counteract climate change, why couldn't they just have a fuel tax proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted per amount of fuel burned? To me that would sound a bit more permissive than just banning inefficient vehicles, (since it would leave open the option, as long as they paid for it; obviously some of that money taxed should go to policies to address the effects of climate change) plus a bit fairer as it would tax other uses of CO2-emitting fuels as well.

Also, how far does this reach? Is it just for the car companies that were bailed out with government money, is it a requirement for all cars manufactured in the US, or does it also apply to cars being imported to the US as well?

I believe it goes to all manufactured in the US. Import would be difficult to pull of probably. *shrugs* As for that tax...you know...I don't think anyone would trust paying more money for something...looks at Bernard Madoff. 😛

I see it as a requirement for cars manufactured in the US (Ya know, the ones who stuck to the producing big gas guzzlers even when it made no sense).

America, F*** Yeah! 😛

Ethanol from what I've read is less efficient. We'd be wasting time and land growing all that corn. Possibly even counter productive?

The fuel economy standards will hurt the auto industry even more than they have already.

Even if they did reduce the price of gas, the government would realize it's taking in less money in gas tax revenue, and raise the taxes on it, increasing the price again. It would be a shift of money payments going from your pocket to foreign countries, instead going to your government so it can squander them on pointless programs.

Yea the auto industry is like....damn! Effed up, right now. I don't even want to think about the next decade or so. =/

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

Ethanol from what I've read is less efficient. We'd be wasting time and land growing all that corn. Possibly even counter productive?

The fuel economy standards will hurt the auto industry even more than they have already.

Even if they did reduce the price of gas, the government would realize it's taking in less money in gas tax revenue, and raise the taxes on it, increasing the price again. It would be a shift of money payments going from your pocket to foreign countries, instead going to your government so it can squander them on pointless programs.

I think the gas tax hike would be part of the plan when electric cars, hybrids, et. al. are coming into their own as legitimate rivals to cars running on gas. Gas-fuelled cars will be less expensive than alternative energy cars at the time; to incentivise buying alternative energy cars, a significant spike in the gas tax is one of the government's likeliest options.

Hrrm...so government would probably raise taxes anyway to help hybrid or electric cars compete.
Thaaaat's basically a very roundabout subsidy of cars that can't compete on their own.

Which is what we tried with ethanol and it failed.
Ethanol couldn't compete on its own, it had to have government help .But even then it failed.

It'd be nice if hybrids weren't so expensive as is. Oh and some of them look ugly and you know people don't go for that.

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

Ethanol from what I've read is less efficient. We'd be wasting time and land growing all that corn. Possibly even counter productive?

The fuel economy standards will hurt the auto industry even more than they have already.

Even if they did reduce the price of gas, the government would realize it's taking in less money in gas tax revenue, and raise the taxes on it, increasing the price again. It would be a shift of money payments going from your pocket to foreign countries, instead going to your government so it can squander them on pointless programs.

What about hemp, though? Also, I'd prefer an approach based on looking at which particular government programs are pointless and why, rather than just dismissing them generally as being pointless. And with the US being deep in debt, it could really use that revenue right now.

As for hybrid cars, I'm not that inclined to think of them as good for the environment when they involve the use of toxic metals. They may reduce CO2 emissions, but they could worsen toxic metal disposal problems in the long run. Frankly, I'd rather see more focus on hydrogen cars. Sure, water electrolysis takes more energy than you'd get out of using the hydrogen, but at least it would be in the form of electrical energy, so that the energy for cars could come from the electric grid. (Which in turn gets some energy from fossil fuels, but at least has other sources as well.) Ideally, with efficient enough electrolysis, the difference wouldn't be too severe.

And HS2K3, what do you mean by "trust paying more money for something"? I googled the person you named, and it seems to be a case of corruption, but I think corruption should be confronted more so directly than being used as a reason to minimize money given to the government. (Let alone to prefer banning inefficient vehicles to just taxing the fuels they use)

Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo! Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.

As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? 😛

Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo! Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.

As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? 😛

Actually, I'm not even sure if it's the case. I've just heard of it, and mentioned it as a reason I'm hesitant to think of hybrid cars as good for the environment.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of electrolysis were you saying NASA used?

Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo! Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.

As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? 😛

Actually, I'm not even sure if it's the case. I've just heard of it, and mentioned it as a reason I'm hesitant to think of hybrid cars as good for the environment.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of electrolysis were you saying NASA used?

I've got the paper work somewhere around here...but yea...their looking into using it on the moon. To extract breathable oxygen and water from the lunar regolith. Moon bases here we come!

Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo! Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.

As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? 😛

Actually, I'm not even sure if it's the case. I've just heard of it, and mentioned it as a reason I'm hesitant to think of hybrid cars as good for the environment.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of electrolysis were you saying NASA used?

I've got the paper work somewhere around here...but yea...their looking into using it on the moon. To extract breathable oxygen and water from the lunar regolith. Moon bases here we come!

Ah, as in water electrolysis? I take it you mean to extract breathable oxygen from the water, right?

Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo! Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.

As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? 😛

Actually, I'm not even sure if it's the case. I've just heard of it, and mentioned it as a reason I'm hesitant to think of hybrid cars as good for the environment.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of electrolysis were you saying NASA used?

I've got the paper work somewhere around here...but yea...their looking into using it on the moon. To extract breathable oxygen and water from the lunar regolith. Moon bases here we come!

Ah, as in water electrolysis? I take it you mean to extract breathable oxygen from the water, right?

That is it exactly my good man. My wording was a bit off, huh? lol

Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo! Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.

As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? 😛

Actually, I'm not even sure if it's the case. I've just heard of it, and mentioned it as a reason I'm hesitant to think of hybrid cars as good for the environment.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of electrolysis were you saying NASA used?

I've got the paper work somewhere around here...but yea...their looking into using it on the moon. To extract breathable oxygen and water from the lunar regolith. Moon bases here we come!

Ah, as in water electrolysis? I take it you mean to extract breathable oxygen from the water, right?

That is it exactly my good man. My wording was a bit off, huh? lol

Just making sure, though, since there's other kinds than water electrolysis. For all I knew you could've meant electrolysis of some melted-down compounds from lunar soil, or something like that, to yield water AND oxygen. Not even sure if such a thing is possible though o.o

There're other forms of alternative fuel.

I'm having images of cars being powered by animal waste (supporting and encouraging home grown produce ) or else the good old-fashioned chip fat based biodiesel that's being clamped down on over here (traffic police in some areas having been instructed to act on anything where the exhaust smells like a chippy, since it won't have paid fuel tax ), to do something with all of that fast food waste.

The question is more about how available will these power sources be. Biofuels have limits. Hydrogen is dangerous and cannot be safely distributed from centralized plants.

There're other forms of alternative fuel.

I'm having images of cars being powered by animal waste (supporting and encouraging home grown produce ) or else the good old-fashioned chip fat based biodiesel that's being clamped down on over here (traffic police in some areas having been instructed to act on anything where the exhaust smells like a chippy, since it won't have paid fuel tax ), to do something with all of that fast food waste.

Actually it was changed so that you can produce 2,500 litres of the stuff before Darling pokes his nose in.

The question is more about how available will these power sources be. Biofuels have limits. Hydrogen is dangerous and cannot be safely distributed from centralized plants.

Stored correctly hydrogen can be pretty safe.
Petrol goes boom and covers everything and keeps on burning, hydrogen goes boom + water and nothing gets covered.
Also what about electrolysis?

It takes energy to split hydrogen and oxygen. I never said anything about STORAGE, I was talking about DISTRIBUTION, as in MOVING it around to where it's needed.
Biodiesel has limits. There's only so much of it...

It takes energy to split hydrogen and oxygen. I never said anything about STORAGE, I was talking about DISTRIBUTION, as in MOVING it around to where it's needed.
Biodiesel has limits. There's only so much of it...

If the hydrogen was being made in one location then DISTRIBUTED a suitable and safe method of transportation and STORAGE would be required (petrol tankers but for hyderogen).

And yes, of course energy is required for electrolysis (implied in the name), therefore it could possibly be made at sites (such as the petrol station) of points of sales via the use of fuelcells (in reverse), thus not requiring vast amounts of hydrogen (normally in liquid form) to be shifted about in hydrogen tankers.

Not practical. Do you have any idea how involved L-Hyd transport is? Transporting hydrogen GAS is incredibly stupid, excepting specialized canisters similar to those they use for acetylene, oxygen etcetera, which limits the amount you can transport because of canister mass. You can't pipeline H-gas over long distances because of sealing issues.

As for hybrids; they're made of the same materials as all cars are. Factory-spec batteries are typically NiMH, while aftermarket batteries are usually Li-Ion or LiPo which are a bit less likely to develop memory, but can handle fewer cycles, though.

Not practical. Do you have any idea how involved L-Hyd transport is?

Yes, I do.

Thus why i keep on coming back to the electrolysis scenario, where the hydrogen GAS can be produced at the point at which the customer can purchase it to fill their cars (petrol stations making their own fuel)

?

Do you have any idea what the energy requirements are to make ENOUGH H2 to be commercially viable on a local level? Not to mention the infrastructure involved...

Nearly ALL H2 production IS electrolysis. LNG cracking is the new kid on the bock in H2 tech.

and to answer your question again, yes.
I was not referring to the commercially viability of it yet, but with all technologies this would possibly change within the not to distant future. Another possibility in the future could literally do away with the stations altogether and you could plug your car in at the side of the road with the fuel cell working in reverse to make the gases, or even a hydrogen fuel station in the home, but again would be very expensive and not too efficient yet.

Without commercial viability, it is a dead-end technology. Fuel cells are one-way. If they could be reversed, don't you think they'd have them on the Shuttle or the ISS?