How do you figure this? Coal was the primary source of fuel for industrial and power generation well into the 1950's. Oil made it's mark through cars and plastics. Wood was used in rural areas. That's about it. The reason costs were low was because a) there was still a lot of easily mined/drilled fuel around b) many industries/companies owned their own mines and provided themselves with fuel c) concern for things like emissions and economy were not yet there and d) we weren't using that much of it.

Having 4 different types of fuel infrastructure, two of which cannot be transported via pipeline and don't exist, will only make matters worse. Add on to that gas and ethanol may be run in the same engine, but hydrogen requires a different fuel storage and feed system, and diesel requires a different block and head. Just the manufacturing cost to offer four lines of engines that will be sold at relatively low volume will be enormous.

I already said this in my previous post; in urban environments, electric cars are the answer. The electrical infrastructure exists, and battery technology has improved to the point were it is possible to drive 200-300 miles on one charge and recharge cars in 2-3 hours. We eliminate the energy loss from processing fuel and the associated costs. Sure, electrical generation will need to increase to keep up, but there are many more generation options (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, etc.) than there are transportation fuel options, and all of these options are available right now, not 10 years from now.

 

I can't believe I have to respond to an argument on this...

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you just don't know much and you're spouting, but when cars were first developed noone really knew which powerplant would be most suitable...they used gasoline, electric, steam, ethanol, etc.

I didn't say all in the same car, genius. Maybe Nissan tends to use hydrogen (Sentra, Altima) and gasoline power (Maxima, SUVs), Honda used hydrogen (Insight, FCV, Civic) and diesel (Accord, SUVs) and gasoline (Accord, SUVs, sports cars), GM uses ethanol and hydrogen, etc etc etc. The infastructure will be built when the business strategy is financially sound, just like everything. Extracting oil out of oil sands was never profitable until oil reached $40/barrel, and most said that it would never be profitable. But they found a way. Basic economics, demand of oil will go down as demand for other fuels go up so price of oil will go down...

Okay? So electrical is another competing power source right alongside all the other ones I mentioned. Maybe also natural gas will be prominent. Who cares? The specifics have nothing to do with my extremely general point.

 

I think you're the one who needs to read up on his thermo. Gasoline has always beens the primary fuel for mobile vehicles. Electric had a short run in the early 1900's but was quickly overtaken. Steam cars use *drumroll* oil to produce the steam...steam is just the working fluid, not the fuel. Fuel for vehicles has never been diverse, it has always been primarily oil driven. So your argument that fuel diversity in the early 1900's led to low cost is bunk.

No one is going to build a national infrastructure around a fuel unless every company is willing to standardize to it. There's too much money and risk involved. Unless every car manufacturer (or at least all the major ones) are on board, it's not going to happen. And then, you run into the problems of low volume production that I mentioned in the last post.

Yes it does. You advocate diversifying fuels for vehicles. I say that will increase prices and complicate matters. I say eliminate the fuel entirely by using direct electrical charging. That's my point.

 

I never said that the diversity led to low cost, reading > you. I said that fuel prices will be at similar low levels. As in they'll all be at low levels. Similar. Hard word.

FYI, Steam is generated directly by heat, not oil. Any combustible fuel or heat source can be used. Even, gasp, electricity. Kerosene, soybean oil, diesel, gasoline, etc.

That's why they call them "venture capitalists". There are some very rich businessmen and companies looking to get even richer.

I don't advocate anything, it was my opinion of what will happen within 50 years. I see you have an opinion too, excellent. I don't understand why you're telling me that mine is wrong.

 

I'll refresh your memory.

or Diversity => competition => lower prices. Your words.

In cars, though, fuel oil is the traditional fuel.

Even very rich businessmen can't raise the billions of dollars to build this. This is on par with building the interstate highway system.


I'm telling you why I don't think your way will happen, and I'm telling you what I think should happen. :dunno:

 

Just like america, you've all ignored my post. You have all failed to realize, while we try to figure out other means of power to go from point A to B, we rely on gas....here it is....http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1225184.shtml

 

http://www.theaircar.com/

 

already starting

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&h...wer%22&spell=1

 

Since Jimmy Carter, the democrats have been saying "we're addicted to oil! We're addicted to oil!!"...it took untill 2006 for the GOP to finally admit that we are addicted to oil.

And as far as your gas prices go, Nixon went to the oil companies and gave them a limited price that they could sell there oil at. He warned them that raising prices would raise hell and they would pay for it in the end. Thats a little bit of the democratic house, and a little bit of understanding from the nixon administration. Never thought I'd miss nixon and prefer him over this joke of an embarassment of an administration.

Cheney and Bush, both oil men (with exceptions of Bush failing in the oil business prior to his presidency) have thrown millions of dollars in tax breaks to guy's that are already making record profits...and are now telling the american people that we need alternatives. We as americans became that oil industries saving grace up untill the end. We allowed an administration to make them rich before they bail out and before we bail out and find alternatives.

I love how the administration creates a problem, knowing what they are getting into, and then says, if anyone has an answere, let it be known now. Since bush has taken office, gas prices have hightened to almost 300%.

Now, I understand that it's not just the administration. It's us. We had better fuel efficient cars 15 years ago compared to now. There are record sales on V8's and low MPG SUV's today then yesterday and it doesn't seem to make a difference. People bitch about $3.00 gas but it really doesn't seem to hurt anyone. Imagine the gas prices at $8 a gallon...scary

Look at Europe. People walk, take public transit, have solar panels on there homes and extra energy is sold back to the government. Imagine getting tax breaks on having solar power to power your home and an outlet to power your vehicle and making even more money from selling extra power back to the city.

We need a major change and the current administration is doing nothing.

 

Because what can the administration do? They can throw as much money as they want to the problem, but, as the old saying goes, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The fact is that there is no technology or energy storage mechanism out there that has the energy density of petroleum. None. What does this mean then? It means that do rid ourselves of oil (or even fossil fuel) dependence, we have to realize that we can't have all the benefits that we get from fossil fuel car. Want a hydrogen car? Well you're not going to have a trunk because that's where the hydrogen tank goes. Want an ethanol car? Well, be prepared to pay more for food as large tracts of land are occupied by ethanol producing plants. Americans, especially now, always want to have their cake and eat it too. If we are to ever achieve energy independence, this can't be the case.

As an aside, it really bothers me when people blame the problem of gas prices on the government and oil companies, when they themselves are unwilling to change their lifestyles. Sure, the government is to look after the society's well being, but they can't do everything for you. There are a ton of things people can do for themselves; a lot of these things have been suggested for many years, like carpooling, riding the bus, or riding your bike. People need to give up their infatuation with convenience and realize that if you really want change, it needs to begin with you.