RE: [DMCForum] Re: the EV1... vs Diesel
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [DMCForum] Re: the EV1... vs Diesel



>Well, it's all estimation right now, both in terms of the amount of
>oil and NG in ANWR, and the environmental impact of drilling there. I
>don't have any hard numbers, but a quick cost-benefit analysis in mind
>comes back inconclusive. Sure, it may be feasible, and it may be
>worthwhile, but is anyone really arguing that it's the answer to anything?


You don't have any hard numbers yet a quick analysis comes back
inconclusive?  I never said it was an answer to solving some "energy crisis"
but at least we would be putting money in our own people's pockets.  People
scream we need to get off foreign oil.  Ok, we drill here.done.  Then they
scream we need to get off oil altogether.  When we get off oil altogether
then they will be screaming we need to get off of whatever it is that
replaced it.  Batteries being manufactured destroys the environment due to
mining.  Wind farms kill birds.


>Do we want to be some huge fortress on a hill that never lets anything in
or out? 

No.


>I personally don't have any interest in investing money or land in this
goal.


I understand that.  Who do you think is going to pay for any changes in
alternative energy sources?  BOB mentioned before that a mere $10k increase
per vehicle would increase efficiency.  Don't take my money to do that.


>I say: do what makes economic sense. And right now, importing oil
>from the OPEC countries makes economic sense. Hailing drilling in
>ANWR as an answer to high oil prices is short-sighted at best, and
>environmentally malicious at worst.


How is drilling ANWR any different than drilling oil anywhere else?  The
environment can be just as harmed in ANWR as anywhere else.  Economic sense
- more oil on the world market makes prices go down.  That oil drilled right
here at home is even better, plus we wouldn't be risking the lives of fish
to ship it across the ocean.  We wouldn't have the added cost of building
and maintaining the ships.


>Significant start to what? Again, I think you and I have different goals
here.


Significant start to reducing dependency on foreign oil, and keeping more
money here in the US, creating jobs, which means more people spend money
which in turn creates incomes and more money to develop anything else we
wish to develop.  As I stated before, I have no problem with finding
alternative energy sources.  Those alternative energy sources are going to
end up being the same thing we have now - Big Oil will become Big Battery,
Big Solar Panel, Big Corn or whatever else you want to call it.



>You know, "The" energy problem... The one where we are almost totally
>dependent on dwindling, dirty fossil fuels to power our lives...?


I will have to find that study that seems to show the source is not
dwindling.  Also, if engine efficiency is increased then oil will not be
"dirty".  I am pretty sure any energy source you can come up with can, in
some way or another, be found to be "dirty".


>I do know that ethanol (and consequentially, E85) has a lower energy
>content than gasoline, which does make it less efficient in flex-fuel
>engines. I'm thinking that Bob's comment about higher-compression
>engines (E85 has a higher octane rating than gasoline, which means it
>can take higher compression without detonation) is key to getting the
>most efficiency out of E85.


As I stated before, burning gasoline in that same engine would make it MORE
efficient.  If you create such an engine it will make more sense to burn
gasoline as you wouldn't have to completely change he infrastructure.


>Is it really all that uncertain whether or not solar (or wind, or
>hydro) is cleaner than petroleum? Nuclear, I'll admit, is not
>perfect, but it's a damn sight better than petroleum on a lot of fronts.


Right now it is less efficient and more damaging to the environment.  You
still have to make the stuff that makes these things work.  Nuclear power is
greatly misunderstood by the public because of some incidents in the past.


>Saying that these technologies are prohibitively dirty to implement
>due only to the dirty technology they are replacing is a huge fallacy
>of logic... It's a catch-22.


Implementing these NOW is not making things cleaner.  The technology needs
to be created to make these things clean.  The manufacture of all of these
things right now requires oil and its byproducts.  One day it very well
could be and I hope so, but to do so will require more negative
environmental impact.  Changing to electric power now will negatively impact
the environment more.  You may drive around in your electric car emitting
zero pollutants, but what did it take to get there and how where those power
plants fueled?

I am not saying it will never happen, all I am saying is that switching to
this will damage the environment more before a benefit is seen if at all.
Like I stated before, we can study all we want but we will not have
real-world data until it happens.  All of the people pushing this need to
realize that they will be causing more harm in the interim for a possible
better future.  Again, I am not against the research.


>Also, I don't see any reason why switching to cleaner energy sources
>will increase pollution at all, even in the short run. "Switching"
>means that the truck that carried gasoline yesterday will carry E85
>today. We're not talking about adding a truck, just re-purposing the
>ones not needed anymore, because of the switch.


You have to look at what it takes to get to that point.  What other waste
will be created to reach the ultimate end goal of clean energy sources?  It
still takes energy to manufacture that truck and keep it on the road.


>Does that make sense?


The problem here may be just reading text.  If we were discussing this in
person it would probably be different.  I don't take offense and I hope you
don't either.  :-)  I enjoy the intellectual pursuit and am always willing
to change my mind based on hard facts.

Greg






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:DMCForum-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:DMCForum-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN


Copyright 2006 ProjectVixen.com.  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive