Discussions

[1] 2 3 4 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Obama Orders Fuel Efficiency.

• 
  RD
  

  Posts:
  114

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 01:30 AM

  Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency

  Ethanol lowers fuel efficiency AND damages fuel systems AND damages the environment AND costs our economy.  Get rid of it and see improvements across the board (except for you corn growers and politicians on the take).

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    abk
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2009 02:32 PM

    Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency

    You might be missing the point!
    
    When the world economy recovers, the Oil Cartel will be looking forward to the return of the $150/barrel of oil again.
    
    The answer is to find ways to *drastically* reduce the use of imported oil. Brazil runs their cars with 90% of bio-fuels.
    
    So, it can be done.
    
    Of course, making ethanol out of corn is yet another matter. That needs to be fixed too.
    

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      gabrielg01
      

      Posts:
      405

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/27/2009 04:19 PM

      Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency

      "abk" perhaps you are the one missing the point. In order to make ethanol from corn, the way it is grown in the US, one must consume more oil than the ethanol was supposed to replace. Intensive farming with heavily mechanized methods requires tremendous amounts of fuel, fertilizers (made from oil) and pesticides (made from oil).
      
      So, the perversion of this method is that our oil dependence does not decrease at all. And we just added to the oil lobby the agri business lobby, so they can syphon off as much tax payer money as never before.
      
      Your comparison to Brazil is flawed. This country produces ethanol via natural methods, simply because it has the right climate. The US cannot repeat the Brazilian experience, unless we find a way to make sugarcane grow in our cold climate.

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        JarVan
        

        Posts:
        2

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        02/05/2009 09:16 PM

        Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency

        In about 50 years we should be able to grow sugarcane in the lower Midwest (global warming). Until then we can use other crops to make cellulose based ethanol. The problem is legislative. King Corn rules the Midwestern lobbies and Congress. Obama is knee deep in this pork. Hopefully he can break out and fund the research and pilot projects to get us beyond corn ethanol.

        Rate this comment:
        • 
          DE
          

          Posts:
          7

          Avg Rating:
          

          

          Reply

          02/12/2009 12:19 AM

          Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency

          As Ben Stein put it, congressional ethanol mandates have managed the miracle of turning high fuel prices into high food prices. Its a feel good policy that does nothing if not hamper progress.
             Speaking of feel good and progress, why does all energy conservation and environmental protection have to be about global warming? Why can't it just be because it costs less and makes sense? Do people really need to feel like they are saving the planet that badly? Let's try to improve our technology base in industry out of economy, not fear. It may just work out better, and we won't need to fork out 50 billion a year for the big bright green pleasure machine.

          Rate this comment:
• 
  jal64
  

  Posts:
  7

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 02:00 AM

  CAFE = Murder

  CAFE will also result in smaller, lighter cars which are inherently unsafe. The result will be a significant increase in traffic fatalities. If the industry went this way voluntarily anybody want to bet the John Edwards Slip and Sue types won't have a field day?

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    aaabez
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2009 09:11 AM

    Re: CAFE = Murder

    The US car manufacturing industry lagged behind in safety issues when compared with European and Japanese safety standards.  The idea that BIG is safest is erroneous.  Of course, a Hummer crashing into a small Toyota Yaris is a no contest but if you had to get a US made Ute to have a head on collision with a European MPV (even a Ford why not) I have no doubt in which vehicle I would want me and my family to be in, the European MPV. Safety and structural integrity of road vehicles has little to do with size or weight.  If that was the case modern fighter aircraft would have the survivability of a paper plane when compared to WW II aircraft. Safety and structural integrity of road vehicles depends on innovation, design and application of materials technology.  The US car industry were, in my opinion taken for a ride by oil and energy interests.  Your new president is taking the US car industry in the right direction.  As I've written in another comment on renewable energy, the current economic crisis will be more devastating than any seen by the US in recent wars and for much less pain the US had risen to the challenge, won and lead the world.  It is time for the US car industry to rise to the challenge and to aspire to surpass current technology.  Falter on this and the consequences are great.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      millikenresearch
      

      Posts:
      9

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/27/2009 09:14 AM

      Re: CAFE = Murder

      If that was the case modern fighter aircraft would have the survivability of a paper plane when compared to WW II aircraft?
      
      Modern fighter aircraft are much larger and heavier than their WW II counterparts.

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        aaabez
        

        Posts:
        5

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        01/27/2009 02:38 PM

        Re: CAFE = Murder

        If one had to build WW II aircraft with modern materials and use of modern structural engineering the modern version of the aircraft would in fact be much lighter for the same strength.  Conversely, for the same weight of modern aircraft to WW II aircraft, modern aircraft are many times stronger.  As for size – today’s fighter aircraft are in fact multi role aircraft fulfilling the role of WWII medium bombers - at 3 to 10 times the speed!
        Back to cars.  US cars use brute structural components rather than engineered safety comparable to a 50's fighter, definitely not to an F-22 Raptor!  That is where the US car industry has to go.  Unshackled from oil interests, a road-going equivalent of an F-22 could be achieved.

        Rate this comment:
    • 
      umbergin
      

      Posts:
      1

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      05/20/2009 02:11 PM

      Re: CAFE = Murder

      As economist Marty Sullivan wrote this morning on Tax.com
      "With our policy of imposing CAFE standards instead of a hefty gas tax, U.S. policy has stupidly contributed to the downfall of U.S. automakers"
      I totally agree

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    lasertekk
    

    Posts:
    78

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2009 10:56 AM

    Re: CAFE = Murder

    Are you old enough to remember the automotive landscape just prior to 1994?  This is right before a large percentage of the general public decided they wanted work and agricultural vehicles for daily drivers.  We had no issues with vehicle compatibility during collisions.  Except for professionally driven commercial vehicles, the majority of consumers drove similarly sized cars.  All of these cars were close in weight. 
    
    Today, we have 2500 lb cars on one end and 6000 lb + vehicles on the other, being driven by consumers as DAILY DRIVERS.   Do you see the problem?  If the field is once again leveled, as it was pre-1994, then the simple act of driving a light car won't matter.  Odds are you will collide with the same.  Now factor in modern crumble zones and 4th gen air bags, items not available 15 years ago, and you have a very safe car.
    
    To those who really need larger vehicles (work), so be it.  The real intent of this regulation is to get the average driver into a more sensible vehicle.  This group now constitutes a huge number, and altering it will have profound changes in pollution and resource usage, not to mention passenger and property safety.

    Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 4 Next »