Dirty little secret is out: We can't have alternative fuels and lower mileage

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 28, 2002 | TOM RANDALL

[lardog]

I'm dreaming of the day I can back my pick-up up to my garden hose. I'm no engineer, but it seems to me the technology is out there to power our rigs with hydrogen. Will somebody more knowlegeable on this subject let me know if this is a possibility, and what it would take to run our vehicles with hydrogen?

[JoshGray]

This guy has to be a shill for the oil companies.

[sixmil]

Why are they talking about mileage? When comparing alternatives to gasoline, wouldn't you want to compare emissions?

[syriacus]

For the most part, all are also fueled from petroleum. The exception would be those trains that are electricly powered, primarily commuter lines.

Thank you for the reply to my questions.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Sure, hydrogen is a good fuel, and it burns clean.
Two problems:

1. Safety (boom).
2. Cost of production. You consume more energy producing it than you get from burning it.

[VOA]

As of today,none of the free yellow bikes they bought with our extracted wages are
here anymore. They were all stolen or vandalized.

Too bad some investigative reporter doesn't get with some business school and
rational environmentalist types (few, but they exist) and calculate the EXTRA damage
done to the environment by
1.the fuel burned (soot created) in the manufacture of the bikes
2. the extra food consumed by the workers who had to work the extra hours to manufacture them
3. the extra "waste" produced by the workers lunch that would have to be handled
by waste systems
4. the fuel burned to transport the bikes to their destination
5. the fuel expended by police investigating the loss/vandalism to the bikes
6. the trees felled to provide newsprint and paper product for the paperwork
submitted for the orders and the newspapers that heralded the "great leap forward"
that the bike scheme would give to environmental Puritanism.

Oh, and I forgot the "rape of the Earth" because either the metals for the bikes had
to be gouged from the ground...or lots of organic solvent waste was probably
created for the plastic and/or carbon fiber components of the bike.

I think I've found an environmental SuperFund situation!

[CedarDave]

And I understand it will take longer to get there (traffic jams aside) due to the lowering of speed limits to 55 mph (elsewhere in Texas, 70 mph), which is also an environmentalist concoction. (BTW, the speed limits on I-40 and I-25 in ABQ will go from 55 to 65 mph in May -- go figure!!)

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

We, here in Houston, are getting shafted starting Wednesday, May 1st, with new emissions standards.

Welcome to my world. We here in Massachusetts have been on the ridiculously expensive and strict emissions testing scheme for 3 or 4 years now. If your vehicle doesn't have all wheel drive, it must be put on a Dynamometer and run up to 40 mph while being tested. Costs us 30 bucks and takes 30 minutes. It's even more expensive if it doesn't pass.

[baseballmom]

I've reread this article twice and still did not see President Bush's name mentioned. What's your point? Do you have a point? Or is this just another hit and run Bush Bashing moment? Please, comment on the article.

[timestax]

bump

[Amerigomag]

Two problems with the article.

The first is simple logic. "Mileage" as a measure of "cleanness" is not revelant unless the fuels are very similar. As an example buring LPG may not produce the same amount of "dirty exhaust components" per gallon of fuel than let's say gasoline produces.

Second, there are conventional, gasoline powered cars that produce milage in excess of the 35city/40highway that the greens desire. These cars are ideal for the typical commuter application and seat 4 adults comfortably for trips under two hours. Their use is a matter of public will not government policy.

[thinktwice]

it is the energy contained in the fuel, not just the fuel itself, that moves you down the road.

The answer for greater fuel efficiency might lie in our space program fuels.

Ammonium perchlorate (AP) comes to mind; it's the oxidizing agent in composite solid propellants for rockets, booster motors and missiles -- rather dangerous in collisions, though.

[Amerigomag]

but having the government force us to drive stuff we dont want to drive will seriously damage the economy and put tens of thousands out of work.

Regardless of your passion your statement fails the logic test.

Logically we must conclude from your statement that the populus will go without a car if they are forced to drive "little tuna cans".

Logic dictates that the populus will grudgingly drive little tuna cans if the more popular alternatives are not economically feasible.

[logician2u]

Good as far as you went, but I think we should add the fuel (i.e., food) consumed by the bicyclists in their pursuit of nirvana.

Bikes take energy to move, just as all vehicles do. The calories expended in riding have to be taken in as food, which then adds to all the other parts of the pollution cycle you've outlined.

And then there's the emissions of greenhouse gas . .

(But we don't need to go to that detail.)

[lds23]

Since the average citizen seems to be the focus of these energy saving and alternative energy ideas, maybe the government should just pay more people to do nothing. This way, they wouldn't have to use fuel to commute. And in order to save fuel on shopping trips, they should all be clustered close together, like in a city. The government could subsidize their food and shelter, and even provide mass transportation.

And since we can't expect people to just get something for nothing, all the government will ask in return is that these people vote them back into office.

Oh, wait, Democrats already do that. Never mind.

[medved]

The future looks increasingly like natural gas and hydrogen, rather than petroleum. New studies indicate that there are limitless supplies of natural gas under the Earth, and not just in Saudi Arabia. As for mileage, just have people park the stupid vans and suvs unless doing something which actually requires them, and have something more rational to commute and run errands in. The day when we tell Saudi Arabia to screw off will be worth whatever it took to get there.