How Not to Waste Taxpayer Dollars

completely agree with your comments.

There needs to be more of us.

Some studies also show that Ethanol from corn has an energy output less than the energy input and I agree is definitely not the way to move forward.

I’m not sure why you think unnatural emission of CO2 is not a problem.  The majority of scientific data show that CO2 is one of the problems and even though Methane (CH4) and Nitrous oxide (N20) due cause more global warming on a 1 to 1 comparison, the amount of unnatural CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is a lot greater than the others. 

Can you also please provide some supporting data on you claim that “large battery vehicles take more energy to make”.  Take more energy to make compared to what?  Electric vehicles have the potential to help solve the renewable energy storage problem with technology called vehicle to grid (V2G) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2G  coupled with smart grids.  They also have the potential to reduce tailpipe emissions.  Yes we still have the problem of where we get the electricity from but at least it can be regulated a lot easier and used during non-peak times. 

The hydrogen economy does not make sense right now and is at least 30 to 40 years off.  I agree with you that nuclear fission power plants should be expedited but where are you getting this 40 trillion dollar number from?  Is that in the US? 

I for one don’t really care how much oil is buried but what I do care about is the health risks pollution posses on people especially people of lower income levels.  Would you not pay more to improve your health and the health of others? 

My last point you will never hear the government say is that we need to curb population growth.  I know I am going to get criticized for this but I do not believe it is your “god given right” to have as many children as you want. 

>>Prove to America DOE won't fund ongoing >>mistakes. Immediately drop ethanol research.  >>Ethanol is s corrosive solvent, absorbs water, >>has a short shelf life, causes equipment >damage, and creates more pollution than it >>prevents. 

If ethanol was burned directly in fuel cells it would dramatically increase automobile efficiency.  Only ethanol from corn causes more pollution.  It can be and will be soon produced from cellulosic biomass instead of corn.

>>Algol, or isobutanol, or some other higher >>energy compatible fuel is a better choice.  >>Have the guts to drop programs that don't make >>sense. Also have the guts to be POLITICALLY >>INDEPENDENT! 
I agree with dropping programs that don't make economic sense.  But it doesn't make economic sense to spew cr*p into the atmosphere from now till eternity either. 

>>Admit that CO2 is not the problem. 
Sorry, you're just plain wrong here.  We now spew 30 GIGATONS, heading up to 40 gigatons of co2 yearly.  This is 1% of the 3 teratons in the atmosphere, so over last 30 years we have increased the levels 30% or more minus the amounts dissolved in the oceans as carbonic acid, destroying plankton which produces 70% of the world's oxygen.

>>Rather CH4, N20 (from fertilizer), and water >>vapor are more effective global warming gases >>(if you believe in MMGW). 
This just shows your ignorance.  'if you believe in MMGW'.   Try reading rather than listening to pundits who pull figures out of their nether regions.  Separate the event that is happening from political reactions to it. 

>>The irrigation alone to grow feedstock for >>biofuel dramatically increases atmospheric >>water vapor.  Look at the consequences of >>proposed programs - large battery vehicles take >>more energy to make; escaped hydrogen (in a >>hydrogen economy) depletes atmospheric >>hydroxyls and ultimately increase methane >>concentrations; burning wood for fuel bypasses >>the methane cycle and reduces GWG effect;
Escaped hydrogen would be minimal just as escaped propane in the 'propane economy' of rural areas.  It is too expensive to waste alot.
And we could still have hydrogen powered vehicles by storing hydrogen as water and forming hydrogen on demand with aluminum or magnesium in cars to feed fuel cells in the cars.  Would make future cars safer than today's gasoline cars too as in an accident, 20 gallons of water would gush forth from your tank. 

>>mass produced modular nuclear power plants >>should be expedited.
1) as soon as everyone starts using nuke power yellow cake prices will skyrocket rendering the plants obsolete and expensive.
2) it takes 10 years for design and regulatory hurdles and construction, plus billions of dollars for each plant plus interest on the loan as no juice is produced till it is all done plus 2,400 highly trained personnel for EACH plant.

Certainly modularization would help speed things up, and they are designed to store spent fuel.  The traveling wave reactor proposed would help with the fuel issues as it burns other isotopes and elements.  But the govt is still subsidizing liability insurance for leaked radiation ruining hundreds of square miles around the plant and some security costs.  If a terrorist runs a plane into a solar field or wind farm or steals some solar panels we would be alot less worried than the same events at a nuke plant.


>>And if you want to increase cheap energy, we >>have over $40 Trillion of it buried underground.
REAL CLEVER!!  Just dig up the carbonaceous material still in the ground stored as coal, nat gas, methane hydrate, etc laid down in the carboniferous period.  That would put 7 times the 3 teratons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Might as well call Michael Crighton to clone some Jurassic park dinosaurs to wander around the planet after we turn the earth into a hot fetid stinking mess, as doing this will probably destroy us

I confess! I killed the electric car. I did it deliberately.

I don't want them and have tried to convince everyone I know that gives electric cars some consideration to avoid them like the plague.

I have mobilised considerable political pressure to prevent public funding or extra regulatory support for their development.

I have done this because I am not you. Where I live it is not only hilly but even mountainous. We need the car heated in the winter and air conditioned in the summer. We need wipers for a good part of our driving experience. Even if we got rid of our national safety requirement of headlights being on all the time (it is actually much safer), where I live there is considerable fog. All of these are significant power drains that detract from an already constrained vehicle range.

Hills are an important consideration because it takes exponentially more power to maintain speed going _up_ a hill than is provided by regeneration going _down_ a hill.

Electricity rates where I live are about a third of what the lowest rates are in the U.S. The power comes from nice clean hydro. If most or even many of the cars in our region suddenly went electric we would have to start generating electricity with fossil fuel, or build dams and flood massive forests and valleys with entire cities in them, or build nuclear plants in an earthquake zone. Whatever combination we chose would certainly raise the price of electricity by entire orders of magnitude.

For a time I managed a fleet of vehicles that were a mix of cars powered by diesel, natural gas, propane and gasoline. The drivers' order of preference was gasoline, diesel and propane. Natural gas cars were considered punishment detail. We looked at adding some electric cars and rejected them out of hand. Think about that. We rejected electric cars as too inconvenient and unpleasant for a fleet where natural gas cars were considered punishment for poor driving practices.  

When electric cars can be recharged with the same range in about the same time at about the same cost it takes the alternatives then I might be interested. 

My problem with you considering me to be part of some vast conspiracy is not that you feel free to compel me to do as you think (finance your pet theories of social organisation). It is that you seem to feel free to compel me to think as you do.