Experts agree U.S. is addicted to oil, but differ on how to cur...

E ndependence,with ETHANOL

YOUR NEW VEHICLE WILL SOON HAVE EZ-ACCESS TO LONGER, CLEANER MILES.
Energy Efficient, Economical ETHANOL, here today showing the way, and that's...

E-OK, Environmentally and Ecologically good.

I truly hope that bush follows through with THIS one (unlike his 'lets go to Mars inititave).

Bush should take a book from the Carter presidancy, if he wants a good example of alternative energy.

(Carter was not that great a pres, but he's got the best alternate-energy record to date. Unfortunately, most of Carter's alt-energy efforts were dismantled by Reagan at the request of Big Oil.)

In ANY case: Hydrogen looks very promising, too.

Finally, there are at least 2 companies that are working (no, really) on COMPRESSED AIR engines for cars. One has several working prototypes. They typically have a city-driving range of 100 miles or so, more than good enough for most city driving.(And the nice thing about these things, is that when you're at idle, your NOT using up your 'fuel'- so being stuck in a traffick jam will NOT affect your range at all.) The compressed air is recharged by any 110v outlet by an onboard compressor (maker says takes about 4 hours).

IMHO, this beats the battery-electry hands-down, as it has a similar range/performance, but does NOT rely on environment-UN-friendly batteries ...

william b wrote:

E ndependence,with ETHANOL

YOUR NEW VEHICLE WILL SOON HAVE EZ-ACCESS TO LONGER, CLEANER MILES.
Energy Efficient, Economical ETHANOL, here today showing the way, and that's...

E-OK, Environmentally and Ecologically good.

Ethanol does have some promise. But it does have one major down side. It uses up a LOT of land, at least it will if you intend to replace several millions of gallons of gasoline a day.

william b wrote:

E ndependence,with ETHANOL

YOUR NEW VEHICLE WILL SOON HAVE EZ-ACCESS TO LONGER, CLEANER MILES.
Energy Efficient, Economical ETHANOL, here today showing the way, and that's...

E-OK, Environmentally and Ecologically good.

get a donkey or a mule while you can.last time I read such garvage obout energy was back in 73 then they talk like craxy about how to save gas and now they depent more on oil han before,so much thas why they sending your boy to iran,then they keep gping on and on and on.

felix lopez venezuela wrote:

<quoted text>get a donkey or a mule while you can....

Good idea, if you live on enough land to feed your animal.

Unfortunately, most North Americans live in big cities that simply do not have the infrastructure to support animal transportation. In fact many have severe restrictions on the use/ownership of large quadrapeds inside the city limits. Especially when you consider all that "horse exhaust" that would need to be cleaned up daily ...

I have read about 18th century large cities and the serious problem of animal waste on the streets, that I for one, am thankful we are well past that ...

About the President's Energy message.

One thing is for sure....

America will not only meet its present energy needs,
it will surpass them in great and astonishing
ways through American technology that's E-OK and guarantees to amaze.

E-OK Environmentally, Ecologically OK

wm b wrote:

About the President's Energy message.

One thing is for sure....

America will not only meet its present energy needs,
it will surpass them in great and astonishing
ways through American technology that's E-OK and guarantees to amaze.

E-OK Environmentally, Ecologically OK

Relying upon future technological breakthroughs is not wise. There is no telling if, when, or what sort will occur. Policy needs to be based on what we have NOW, not relying on dreams of the future. IF breakthroughs occur, then we can incorporate them in our policy.

I believe we must Press On and solve this problem and consider "real" alternative energies which makes sense. I am Pro-Bush in his efforts to bring our attention back around to this issue.

Lance Winslow wrote:

I believe we must Press On and solve this problem and consider "real" alternative energies which makes sense. I am Pro-Bush in his efforts to bring our attention back around to this issue.

If you look back, Carter said almost the same thing as Bush on this topic. Under Carter, several alternative energy initiatives were started. Then Reagan came into office, and alternative energy was out.

So Bush is finally doing something the Dems wanted done decades ago.

Bush is right that we are addicted to oil. He just failed to mention that he and his oil buddies are the pushers!

Lance Winslow wrote:

I believe we must Press On and solve this problem and consider "real" alternative energies which makes sense. I am Pro-Bush in his efforts to bring our attention back around to this issue.

Another promising fuel is BioDiesel.

There are already a number of web sites on how you can "roll your own" bio-diesel: google.

It has many of the same problems as Ethanol, but it uses the diesel engine cycle which is inherently more efficient.

And, bio-diesel has many fewer exhaust products than fossil oil does, chiefly sulfur, but also a lower soot output.

Another promising tech is Fuel Cells.

These can be configured to run on straight hydrogen as well as nearly any organic fuel (methane, ethane, ethanol, etc).

When running on hydrogen, the ONLY output of a fuel cell is water vapor, heat and electricity. The heat and elec can be used for work, of course.

When running on other organic fuels, there are other byproducts of the conversion of the fuel to hydrogen, but these can be contained and recycled, if desired.(Currently, fuel cells based on these just emit the by products as gases in the exhaust.)

Bob the Unbeliever wrote:

Another promising tech is Fuel Cells.

These can be configured to run on straight hydrogen as well as nearly any organic fuel (methane, ethane, ethanol, etc).

When running on hydrogen, the ONLY output of a fuel cell is water vapor, heat and electricity. The heat and elec can be used for work, of course.

When running on other organic fuels, there are other byproducts of the conversion of the fuel to hydrogen, but these can be contained and recycled, if desired.(Currently, fuel cells based on these just emit the by products as gases in the exhaust.)

Bob, last night on BBC they were talking about hydrogen technologies. They mentioned fuel cells, and said that one of the drawbacks for use in automobiles is that fuel cells are very finicky about contamination.

Their conclusion was that modified piston engines are the best way to apply hydrogen to cars using current technology

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>

Bob, last night on BBC they were talking about hydrogen technologies. They mentioned fuel cells, and said that one of the drawbacks for use in automobiles is that fuel cells are very finicky about contamination.

Their conclusion was that modified piston engines are the best way to apply hydrogen to cars using current technology

I've seen this argument before, in numerous Discovery shows. Mostly it boils down to the methods you use to separate hydrogen from your organic fuel source. Many use a semi-permerable membrane as part of the process, and indeed, these can become contanimated by foriegn particles/chemicals.

Most of the pro-fuel cell people say it's just a matter of engineering (but what, really, isn't? <heh>).

To ME, the biggest disavantage of 'cells is the requirement for rare-earth metals, like paladium, as part of the catalyst reactions. Even the pure hydrogen versions need some sort of rare-earth metal to work.

This requirement is largely why these things are still expensive to fabricate.

Some believe, that if we ramp up the production, though, that other methods will/may be found (as is often the case).

A piston engine is STILL largely IN-efficient. The best get less than 30% "to the road", and most get around 15%.(The "lost" energy is thrown away as heat, out the tail-pipe, out the radiator, etc.)

Another simple efficiency boost that can work with ANY power source, is adding a regenerative braking system. ANY sort of regenerative system can recover a significant amount of energy that is otherwise thrown away during a stop/slow-down.

I understand that some cities have added simple hydraulic accumulators to their busses to assist with "stop-and-go". These can amount to as much as 30% fuel savings (if I remember right). Or, maybe it's just a study, I don't remember.

(The system adds a small hydraulic motor/pump in-line with the drive shaft, and a pressure tank. When the operator calls for a stop, the motor acts like a pump, pumping up oil into the tank, helping to slow the bus. When the operator calls for accel, the pressure is released into the motor, assisting the bus to start up again, reducing the load on the engine.)

So Biofuel is a promising technology. Basically they can make Oil out of anything organic, this includes maneur. So my idea is this. Convert our current sewage processing plants into biodeseil plants. Think about it, the supply chain is alread in place (namely the sewers). Large scale biodesiel could be produced with "minimal" conversion of infrastructure. Just build the refinery next to the sewage plant.

use less... there is a novel concept

My car was just totaled in a hit and run and I am now in the market for a new vehicle. I am really leaning towards a used Ford Escape. Any advice about what year or model I should look for?

stop worrying about oil...mexico has enough to run the u.s. for years...the second largest in the world...lets stop immigration...untill mexico opens its oil...o i forget the price would fall..so lets give mexicans low paying american jobs..so they wont sell oil...and american oil comp..can make record proffits...while mexicans dont got jobs in mexico

I highly doubt that Mexico has that much oil. Where did you get your information?