330 MPG For Under $20,000!!

[Nbadan]

http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/01/apteraside.jpg
I am so there!


CARLSBAD, Calif. — Accelerated Composites LLC, a small startup company here, said it is developing the Aptera, a two-seat hybrid passenger car delivering 330 mpg at a steady 65 miles per hour — at a price under $20,000.

The company said the car, which may be ready for production in two years, will have acceleration and handling similar to that of the Honda Insight hybrid. The first Aptera prototype may be ready by March.

The prototype under construction will be powered by a single-cylinder, 12-horsepower diesel engine and a 24-horsepower DC electric motor, and will have a continuously variable transmission. Power is delivered through a single rear wheel mounted on a composite swing arm. The car is expected to have an electronically limited top speed of 95 miles per hour and an estimated 0-to-60-mph acceleration of 11 seconds.

Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=108992)

Now that's American engineering at work.


:hat

[exstatic]

The inventor will be assassinated, and the company bought and mothballed.

I think I know their secret, though. That thingy underneath looks like a wind up key. :lol

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Lmao^

Yeah I dont think they will need to assasinate anyone, I doubt people will by a car that looks like that (and Im sure that the one wheel in the back wont be allowed by our government, that would seem to be the easy out for oil execs) it would be to easy for the "its too slow and preformance is awful" knock.

[ChumpDumper]

Looks like they just looped the top off of the Dick Clark Productions logo. They'll probably go broke being sued for that.

[Trainwreck2100]

It doesn't look very safe either, imagine that thing hitting a tahoe.

[jochhejaam]

Modeled after the vehicle Evel Knievel used to try to jump Snake River Canyon.





http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/8d/300px-EvelKnievelX2-2.jpg

[RandomGuy]

The prototype under construction will be powered by a single-cylinder, 12-horsepower diesel engine and a 24-horsepower DC electric motor, and will have a continuously variable transmission.

I think the reporter in this blurb probably neglected one important bit of information. It gets 330 miles to the gallon because you have to recharge the batteries at night.

[RandomGuy]

I take that back.

I looked up the specs and it doesn't have batteries. It goes that far partly because it only weighs 850 pounds.
http://www.acceleratedcomposites.com/apteraspecs.php

[Trainwreck2100]

I take that back.

I looked up the specs and it doesn't have batteries. It goes that far partly because it only weighs 850 pounds.
http://www.acceleratedcomposites.com/apteraspecs.php

That thing would get creamed on the highway

[Nbadan]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. These kinds of vehicles aren't just a choice future drivers will have, we might as well all face facts, the future of cheap oil is bleak. Cars in the near future will all have to be much lighter, made of composites and incorporate some type of hybrid technology. Running into that 3 ton SUV will become rarer and rarer as it become more clear just how bad the world crude situation really is. American automakers have been gambling against hybrid tech for years and have lost, are lost, and willl continue to be lost until they improve their reliability and fuel efficiency. If we go to war with Iran we could be looking at $6+ gas or more, very easily. I congratulate these guys for thinking outside the box.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't look very safe either, imagine that thing hitting a tahoe.


Hmm, it is made out of lightweight composites and probably has more structural integrity than the made-to-crumple tahoe.

Not that 1050 pounds versus the 4,000 (my guesstimate, probably low) of what a tahoe weighs would be a fair matchup, I just imagine that the little car wouldn't be as dangerous as you might think. It would probably need some extra airbags.

[Dos]

I'd rather drive a jetta diesel...

[RandomGuy]

That said,

I would wonder how it would fare in actual crash tests.

Heh, given that they only have the one prototype, that could be a bit problematic to arrange. :lol

[RandomGuy]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. These kinds of vehicles aren't just a choice future drivers will have, we might as well all face facts, the future of cheap oil is bleak. Cars in the near future will all have to be much lighter, made of composites and incorporate some type of hybrid technology. Running into that 3 ton SUV will become rarer and rarer as it become more clear just how bad the world crude situation really is. American automakers have been gambling against hybrid tech for years and have lost, are lost, and willl continue to be lost until they improve their reliability and fuel efficiency. If we go to war with Iran we could be looking at $6+ gas or more, very easily. I congratulate these guys for thinking outside the box.


While I think war with Iran is a more remote possibility than most seem to assume, I DO think we will see $6.00 gas within ten years.

My personal guess is that the price of oil will rise by about 7-10% per year for the next few years and faster after that. This is based on what I have seen as projected futures prices for oil ten years down the road. This will be a doubling every 6-9 years.

Check out the older thread "why is oil below $50 now" for more thoughts on this.

[T Park]

I'd rather drive a jetta diesel...


Amen.

Biodiesel.

BIODIESEL.

Its ready, its waiting, its right here in front of us.

VW Beetle Diesel gets 50 miles to the gallon.

[T Park]

NBADAN is right.

Damn, I can't believe I said that.


We have seen the end of cheap gas.

[RandomGuy]

Amen.

Biodiesel.

BIODIESEL.

Its ready, its waiting, its right here in front of us.

VW Beetle Diesel gets 50 miles to the gallon.

Biodiesel requires more energy to make than it produces... (the return on invested energy is negative)

Diesels also still produce a LOT more greenhouse gases and other pollutants than conventional gasoline engines do. Even the newer cleaner ones don't completely deal with the extra pollution.

SOOOOO

If everybody switched right now, the air quality in major US cities would plummet.

Save on the gas, but pay for it in lost productivity on a massive scale due to increased health costs from respitory disorders.

[T Park]

Diesels also still produce a LOT more greenhouse gases and other pollutants than conventional gasoline engines do. Even the newer cleaner ones don't completely deal with the extra pollution.

SOOOOO

If everybody switched right now, the air quality in major US cities would plummet.



The diesels are the cleanest and most refined they have ever been.


Save on the gas, but pay for it in lost productivity on a massive scale due to increased health costs from respitory disorders

hearsay and propaganda.

[RandomGuy]

The diesels are the cleanest and most refined they have ever been.

You are correct, and they are still more polluting than the average gasoline engine.

Since you have called me on it, and I have made some claims I will do some research to find the articles that I read on this and get back to ya.

If I mis-remembered what I read, my apologies, but this is based on my best recollection of stuff I have read on the subject.

[RandomGuy]

...and if you doubt that increased air pollution causes increased incidences of respitory disorders, talk to doctors in Mexico City. I can get you articles on that quite easily.

If your disbelief is in the fact that you doubt that productivity will be damaged by people getting sicker, then you are too far gone for me to bother, heh.

[RandomGuy]

Diesel Exhaust and Air Pollution (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089) from the American Lung Association website.



(snip)
For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.
....
[on to the bit about health risks from air pollution]

Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.

The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources. Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence. Truck and traffic intensity and exhaust measured in schools were significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.

...
[full text at linked article--RG]



I hope they qualify as experts on respitory disorders. :lol

Now granted there are new deisel technologies that reduce a lot of this pollution, but I stand by my assertion that the cleanest deisels are more dirty than the average gasoline engine.

Speaking from an economic standpoint, I would say that the economic impact of lost health would be greater than any potential benefits of the conversion. I can't support that with anything other than my own gut instict and the fact that health care costs continue to rise faster than inflation, making the avoidance of those costs an increasingly important public policy issue.

[RandomGuy]

In fairness, the above posted article was from 2000.

Diesel technology has gotten cleaner in the last few years with the addition of some new technology has made them a bit cleaner, but there are some problems that limit the applicability:

Green Diesel: Fact or Fiction? (http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/fdiesel.asp)


...
Diesel exhaust control technology still is unproven in real-world operating conditions
Optimism for cleaner diesel must be tempered with caution. CARB has certified only two diesel particulate filters and one Green Diesel Technology™ school bus. New technologies show the potential to reduce soot emissions to very low levels, but potential and real-world results are not the same. If the new technology fails, degrades, or is disengaged, diesels will continue to pollute the air with black, toxic soot.
...


I trust I have backed my assertion well enough?

[scott]

This is just a prototype, obviously, and I wouldn't expect a production vehicle to look like that or get quite as good milage, but this is the kind of innovative thinking that will maximize the use of resources much better than leaning on taxpayer subsidized alternative fuels that would otherwise be uneconomical.

[RandomGuy]

This is just a prototype, obviously, and I wouldn't expect a production vehicle to look like that or get quite as good milage, but this is the kind of innovative thinking that will maximize the use of resources much better than leaning on taxpayer subsidized alternative fuels that would otherwise be uneconomical.

I agree, but even if the mileage is 1/2 of the prototype THAT would help ease the crunch immensely.

I think that light-weight composites are pretty much the cliched "wave of the future".

[scott]

I agree, but even if the mileage is 1/2 of the prototype THAT would help ease the crunch immensely.

I think that light-weight composites are pretty much the cliched "wave of the future".

Hell, 1/10th of the mpg of that prototype would place it among the most efficient production vehicles. 60 mpg should not require hybrid technology, or even a real reduction in vehichle weight or loss of performane. It just takes some innovative engineering. Those who can get it done stand to make a boatload of cash (and then answer for their evil profits to idiot politicians).

[xrayzebra]

You folks really think this thing will do all it claims? I don't.

But once again, old lefty, Dan, wants us to drive sardine cans.

[Nbadan]

You folks really think this thing will do all it claims? I don't.

But once again, old lefty, Dan, wants us to drive sardine cans.

Ever that traditionalist.

:rolleyes

Progressives don't just think it's just possible, they think it's inevitable.

[SpursWoman]

I think I know their secret, though. That thingy underneath looks like a wind up key. :lol


:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Crookshanks]

I know it's only a prototype - but it only seats 2 people! What do people with children do? Even if you have just 2 children, you'd have to have two cars to go anywhere with the whole family. And, would they be safe for children - where do you put the car seat?

Liberals will love them because they're not having many children, but what about those people with 4 kids or more?

That type of car is not going to be popular any time soon!

[greyforest]

It doesn't look very safe either, imagine that thing hitting a tahoe.

nothing is very safe when colliding with a tahoe

thats why people buy tahoes all the time, so that they can be safe when they run in to other tahoes

imo there shouldnt be any goddamn tahoes

[spurster]

These Smart cars are already all over Europe.

http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2002/autobodies/images/smartcar.jpg

[Yonivore]

I know it's only a prototype - but it only seats 2 people! What do people with children do? Even if you have just 2 children, you'd have to have two cars to go anywhere with the whole family. And, would they be safe for children - where do you put the car seat?

Liberals will love them because they're not having many children, but what about those people with 4 kids or more?

That type of car is not going to be popular any time soon!
It's for commuting! I'd replace my Ford Focus with one and I have 4 kids...I also have a minivan.

Get a clue people.

What would something like this mean for the 40 to 60 mile each way commute? Hell, it's better than a motorcycle...and I like motorcycles!

[Nbadan]

Looks like GM needs a clue...

FULFILLING DEMAND: GM to boost output of its large SUVs
March 22, 2006
BY MICHAEL ELLIS
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER


With the new Chevrolet Tahoe selling briskly, General Motors Corp. told workers at three assembly plants that it will increase production of its family of new full-size SUVs by about 11,000 to 12,000 a year, a GM spokesman said Tuesday.

Despite high gas prices, GM expects strong demand for its new large SUVs coming to market, including the new Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Suburban and GMC Yukon XL. They are among the company's most profitable vehicles.

GM will increase the number of large SUVs coming off the production lines at plants in Janesville, Wis., and Arlington, Texas, in June and at Silao, Mexico, in July, GM spokesman Dan Flores said.

Earlier this month, GM said it pulled ahead production of the Suburban and Yukon XL by two to three weeks.

Wall Street analysts expect the automaker to partly rebound from last year's losses of $10.6 billion with sales of large SUVs

Free Press (http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/BUSINESS01/603220415)

also..

The Impala, which carries five people and their luggage just like the trucks mentioned, but gets up to 31mpg on the highway in base trim.


DETROIT -- How do you make more profit while selling fewer vehicles? By controlling inventory and squeezing more revenue out of each transaction.

General Motors is capping production of the Chevrolet Impala sedan at 250,000 units for sale in the United States and Canada this year, a knowledgeable source says. That means GM is sacrificing about 60,000 sales of its best-selling car. GM also will emphasize higher trim levels to increase transaction prices.

Autoweek (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/FREE/60320002/1024/LATESTNEWS)

One can only conclude that at this point both Ford and GM management have mailed in any hope of competing with much more reliable imports, and are now concentrating on breaking their respective companies so they can reorganize under bankruptcy, much like the the Airline industry, without unions, and with no pensions and lower wages.

[scott]

Why does GM need a clue (the list is long, I mean in regard to what you just posted)? The large SUV segment is GM's most profitable. Just because you produce a dinky pedal-car that gets 4000 mpg doesn't mean anyone will buy it.

[RandomGuy]

You folks really think this thing will do all it claims? I don't.

But once again, old lefty, Dan, wants us to drive sardine cans.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


I love my big ass car. I agree with Dan that it is inevitable that big cars will go away and smaller cars will dominate. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality, that's your concern. Let those of us with some foresight do your governing...

[Mama hussker]

In my country, you know, where the thin people live? We call them BICYCLES....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It doesn't look very safe either, imagine that thing hitting a tahoe.


My first thoughts exactly.


Modeled after the vehicle Evel Knievel used to try to jump Snake River Canyon.

really?? A conservative is saying something asanine to belittle it? Really really?


You folks really think this thing will do all it claims? I don't.

But once again, old lefty, Dan, wants us to drive sardine cans.

Really? An old conservative things its all a big lie? Really really?


You guys are looking at this the wrong way.

roflroflroflrofl :rollin

[Cant_Be_Faded]

nothing is very safe when colliding with a tahoe

thats why people buy tahoes all the time, so that they can be safe when they run in to other tahoes

imo there shouldnt be any goddamn tahoes



I think you are destined for great great things. Greatest post of the month. :tu

[hussker]

You guys had to start this shit and now mama is trying to find me a fucking bike!

[xrayzebra]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


I love my big ass car. I agree with Dan that it is inevitable that big cars will go away and smaller cars will dominate. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality, that's your concern. Let those of us with some foresight do your governing...

I love the use of the word: "inevitable". I disagree wholeheartedly. It is
not "inevitable". And as for "foresight" and "governing". We had some of
that for about 40 years and look at what it got us.

[101A]

It can't be produced as is.

No bumpers - since the 60's all cars for sale in this county must have 5 mph impact capable bumpers.

If they left that off...how are they on airbags? Got to have one for both passengers - also side impact protection bars (new since '99 have to be incorporated), and myriad other safety measure mandated by the Fed. on ALL passenger cars sold in the USA; driving up the weight and cost of our vehicles.

[scott]

In a related note, an "X-Price" of sorts for automobiles is in planning. You can read all about it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/ (you may have to look for the Mar 24 posting... that same page gets updated and presumably past articles are lost in cyberspace)

[sickdsm]

Biodiesel requires more energy to make than it produces... (the return on invested energy is negative)

Diesels also still produce a LOT more greenhouse gases and other pollutants than conventional gasoline engines do. Even the newer cleaner ones don't completely deal with the extra pollution.

SOOOOO

If everybody switched right now, the air quality in major US cities would plummet.

Save on the gas, but pay for it in lost productivity on a massive scale due to increased health costs from respitory disorders.


I beg to differ on that. As a farmer i've seen all sorts of different stories going back and forth on Biodiesel and ethanol. I've seen formula's where it says it costs 10 cents a bushel to combine the beans. Any farmer knows that's its about a gallon an acre and beans can run 30-75 bushels an acre. I've also seen formulas that say it costs farmers $500 an acre to grow corn. Round here in northern corn belt its roughtly $300 for near 200 bushel yields. The bottom line is that most of those stories are spun. I dont know what the plants use to convert but i do know the growing part is entirely bullshit. Do your numbers relfect the soybean meal after processing the beans? Probably not, You go right on ahead eating your cheap food and pointing that biodiesel is too high and not thinking about that. A 10,000 gallan tanker jacknifed a few years ago into a river in Montana and spilled completely out. The quickly washed the dielsel into the river and it was a quite story. Did they get a huge EPA fine/penalty/liberal bashing? No, it was biodiesel and it was completely hamless to the enviroment, unlike cancer causing petroleum. Was that factored into those figures? The soybean has many more uses even after its processed. Canola is another one that may usurp beans as a better biodiesel ingredient. Most of Europe and Brazil i've heard has been using biodeisel for a huge population for quite some time.

[sickdsm]

Normally i don't listen to Rush ( i hate any type of slanted propaganda) but i caught it yesterday when he was ripping Larry David (seinfeld writer)'s wife, a big time enviromentalist for her barbera walters interview where she was talking about using her hybrid car all the time. He poiinted out that they travel in a private jet alot.

[scott]

cancer causing petroleum

Link?

[Vashner]

Fess up.. what guzzler do you drive Dan? I bet it's a fucking big ass car...

Like Kerry "those are not my suburbans"..

Oh how come they are registered to you. "oh those are my wifes".

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Let's see it proven a viable. And I'm sorry, I'd never buy a car with a tripod design, that's inherently unstable.

[sickdsm]

Link?


On the label of every bulk oil barrell it says may cause cancer on the side, look at the labels of petroleum based stuff.

Do a google for diesel skin cancer. There's an assload of it. Its more carcinogenic then ciggarette smoke.

People who work alot with liquid diesel or gas are at risk too, its not just from the exhaust.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts123.html

How likely are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that one TPH compound (benzene) is carcinogenic to humans. IARC has determined that other TPH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene and gasoline) are probably and possibly carcinogenic to humans. Most of the other TPH compounds are considered not to be classifiable by IARC.

[RandomGuy]

I love the use of the word: "inevitable". I disagree wholeheartedly. It is
not "inevitable". And as for "foresight" and "governing". We had some of
that for about 40 years and look at what it got us.

The price of a barrel of oil will get more and more expensive at a faster and faster rate over the rest of our lives, this rate will exceed that of inflation, and will eventually get to multiples of the inflation rate towards the end of my projected lifespan.

That makes it inevitable that vehicles that use forms of oil for propulsion will have to become more efficient because the larger, more inefficient cars will simply become too expensive for most people to operate.

If you have some alternate data that backs up your disagreement, I would love to see it.

[RandomGuy]

It can't be produced as is.

No bumpers - since the 60's all cars for sale in this county must have 5 mph impact capable bumpers.

If they left that off...how are they on airbags? Got to have one for both passengers - also side impact protection bars (new since '99 have to be incorporated), and myriad other safety measure mandated by the Fed. on ALL passenger cars sold in the USA; driving up the weight and cost of our vehicles.

Yup. That is why this vehicle won't get *quite* the milage its producers say, but will still beat the pants off most cars mass-produced today.

[RandomGuy]

I beg to differ on that. As a farmer i've seen all sorts of different stories going back and forth on Biodiesel and ethanol. I've seen formula's where it says it costs 10 cents a bushel to combine the beans. Any farmer knows that's its about a gallon an acre and beans can run 30-75 bushels an acre. I've also seen formulas that say it costs farmers $500 an acre to grow corn. Round here in northern corn belt its roughtly $300 for near 200 bushel yields. The bottom line is that most of those stories are spun. I dont know what the plants use to convert but i do know the growing part is entirely bullshit. Do your numbers relfect the soybean meal after processing the beans? Probably not, You go right on ahead eating your cheap food and pointing that biodiesel is too high and not thinking about that. A 10,000 gallan tanker jacknifed a few years ago into a river in Montana and spilled completely out. The quickly washed the dielsel into the river and it was a quite story. Did they get a huge EPA fine/penalty/liberal bashing? No, it was biodiesel and it was completely hamless to the enviroment, unlike cancer causing petroleum. Was that factored into those figures? The soybean has many more uses even after its processed. Canola is another one that may usurp beans as a better biodiesel ingredient. Most of Europe and Brazil i've heard has been using biodeisel for a huge population for quite some time.

I challenge. I like that. Stay tuned, and I will provide some supporting data.

[RandomGuy]

A well researched study by the world energy congress:
PDF file of Tranport and Energy demand in the Developing World (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/congress/papers/bauerm0904.pdf)

Another study by the C.V. Center for Applied Economics
PSF file of "Income's Effect on Car and Vehicle Ownership: Worldwide 1965-2015" (http://www.econ.nyu.edu/cvstarr/working/1997/RR97-33.PDF)

Both of these studies offer data on vehicles per capita in Europe and the United States. Note the higher vehicles per capita in the US.

PDF file of a Montana Department of Transportaion study of biodiesel. (http://www.coe.montana.edu/wti/wti/pdf/425244_Lit_Review.pdf) It is a good primer on it.

It does list an interesting tidbit: Diesel fuel consumed in the US in 2001 30,800M gallons. Biodeisel produced in the US in 2001 35M gallons.

Good thing about biodiesel is that it is less polluting by most factors than petroleum-based diesel. That still makes it dirtier than gasoline.
Read the data from the Montana study and plug that into what the American Lung Association has to say about diesel fuel. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089)

Normal diesel engines produce about 100 time more sooty exhaust than a comparable gasoline engine. The Montana study says that AT BEST biodeisel can reduce 30% of the particulate exhaust, making it 70 times more polluting than gasoline.

[RandomGuy]

From the above two studies we can see that biodiesel production in the United States would have to expand by a factor of 880 times to simply replace oil-based diesel, let alone gasoline.

Without doing further searching it is probably a safe bet that the US uses at least as much gasoline as diesel, so let's put the ramp-up figure at 2000 times.

Where will we grow the crops that will produce 2000 times more biodiesel?

How much water will it use?

Answer me this final bit about biodiesel:

If we completely switched over to biodiesel, how much more air pollution would our primarily vehicle transportation networked cities have?

Biodiesel should be part of a mix, but don't hang your hopes in its ability to meet our fuel/energy needs over the long term.

[scott]

On the label of every bulk oil barrell it says may cause cancer on the side, look at the labels of petroleum based stuff.

Do a google for diesel skin cancer. There's an assload of it. Its more carcinogenic then ciggarette smoke.

People who work alot with liquid diesel or gas are at risk too, its not just from the exhaust.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts123.html

How likely are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that one TPH compound (benzene) is carcinogenic to humans. IARC has determined that other TPH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene and gasoline) are probably and possibly carcinogenic to humans. Most of the other TPH compounds are considered not to be classifiable by IARC.

So.. you have Benzene, the only carcinogen I know of as well (and of course Benzene is sometimes used as a gasoline additive). I don't think that justifies the statement "cancer causing petroleum."

[scott]

Without doing further searching it is probably a safe bet that the US uses at least as much gasoline as diesel, so let's put the ramp-up figure at 2000 times.

Gasoline demand is about 2:1 that of distillate fuel oil demand, and on-road only makes up a portion of that (with heating oil big the other large component of distillate demand). A general rule of thumb is a 4:1 in gasoline vs. on-road diesel for demand.

[Clandestino]

dan, i don't think your tin foil hat would fit in that "car"/three wheeler

[sickdsm]

So.. you have Benzene, the only carcinogen I know of as well (and of course Benzene is sometimes used as a gasoline additive). I don't think that justifies the statement "cancer causing petroleum."


Even though gasoline is possibley carcinogenic, diesel is. I guess a better statement would have been cancer causing diesel.

[sickdsm]

From the above two studies we can see that biodiesel production in the United States would have to expand by a factor of 880 times to simply replace oil-based diesel, let alone gasoline.

Without doing further searching it is probably a safe bet that the US uses at least as much gasoline as diesel, so let's put the ramp-up figure at 2000 times.

Where will we grow the crops that will produce 2000 times more biodiesel?

How much water will it use?

Answer me this final bit about biodiesel:

If we completely switched over to biodiesel, how much more air pollution would our primarily vehicle transportation networked cities have?

Biodiesel should be part of a mix, but don't hang your hopes in its ability to meet our fuel/energy needs over the long term.


Ahhh, people said the same thing about corn production for the ethanol demand decades ago. If the demand is there, farmers can produce it. You underestimate the agri-business. Severe droughts in illinois and indiana produced over 120 bu corn yields, where not too long ago that was exceptional. Roundup beans have been pushing farther in farther west towards the rocky mountains. No till, no fuss, no work, on ground that was previosly cattle pasture. You obviously aren't aware of Matto Grosso in Brazil, whether its wrong or right the rain forest is being demolished for bean acres. They are able to double crop corn and beans but the problem is the transportation system. If/when they develop roads, you won't be worrying about the bushels, trust me.


Like ANY/EVERY alternative energy, it isn't going to happan overnight, why do you assume it has do with biodiesel?

[Spurminator]

Yo, sickdsm...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38209

[sickdsm]

I'm sorry though, i didn't read any of your links, i don't have time, but looking at your summary it appears your basing your argument on the amount of biodiesel needed. That seems a skewed thought because to replace the biodiesel in diesel fleets at the current rate means paying more per gallon (although fleet managers that have done it have sworn they've come out ahead due to the higher lubricity and less overhaul/service done on the engines) and also doing it to dozens/hundreds/thousands of fuel tanks at a time.

Whereas to buy a VW jetta diesel and filling it up with bio at the pump is alot more achievable to a single family.

[Nbadan]

Gallup Surprise: Most Americans Now Say They May Buy Hybrid Cars


NEW YORK A Gallup poll released today shows that nearly half of all Americans have cut back "significantly" on their driving due to high gas prices--and in a surprise, 57% say they will consider buying a hybrid car when replacing their current vehicle.

About half of Americans report economizing in general in order to compensate for the increase in gas prices over the past year.

Those favoring hybrids show little gender or regional differences, but "hybrids appeal much more to younger and middle-aged Americans than to seniors," Gallup reports. Upper-income Americans are slightly more likely than lower-income Americans (62% vs. 55%) to say they would seriously consider buying a hybrid when purchasing their next car.

According to the poll, 48% say they have cut back significantly on the amount they drive and 54% says they have reduced their household spending on other items because of high gas prices.

Gallup (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002314621)

Somebody call Ford and GM.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry though, i didn't read any of your links, i don't have time, but looking at your summary it appears your basing your argument on the amount of biodiesel needed. That seems a skewed thought because to replace the biodiesel in diesel fleets at the current rate means paying more per gallon (although fleet managers that have done it have sworn they've come out ahead due to the higher lubricity and less overhaul/service done on the engines) and also doing it to dozens/hundreds/thousands of fuel tanks at a time.

Whereas to buy a VW jetta diesel and filling it up with bio at the pump is alot more achievable to a single family.

I base my arguments that biodeisel (or any other crop-based fuel) is not feasible in the long run on several things:

1)The amount of arable land available is limited. Yes agribusiness in the US can crank out large amounts of crops, but I highly doubt that we could replace gasoline entirely with either ethanol or biodiesel and still have the same number of cars or combustion-engine miles driven.

2) Water, the ultimate limiting factor. Agriculture in the US consumes more water than is used for all other purposes, such as flushing toilets or bathing. If you want to prove to me that crop-based fuels will be where humanity will turn when oil gets REALLY expensive, show me where we will get the water for the TRILLIONS of tons of extra plant mass you want to produce for this fuel.
Your turn to provide some proof.

for biodeisel exclusively:
3) Biodeisel will NEVER replace gasoline in ANY sane scenario. As the simple data I found and presented shows, that would increase particlulate matter (soot aka SMOG) by a factor of 70 times for each gasoline engine it replaced.

We could simply switch a lot of current crop production from sugar to using that sugar for fuel, and make vehicles more efficient. We will have to accept higher food prices as the demand for sugar-based fuels adds to the demand for sugar in foods. Hell, a $20 donut might actually be GOOD for a chronically overweight country like the US.

BUT

Simple physics precludes corn-based ethanol from ever replacing ANY fuel. It takes more energy to plant, care for, harvest, transport, and process than you get in the end. Cane-based sugar is something else entirely, and I have no data on that, but it is safe to assume that the NET energy out of that isn't that much better. It may be slightly positive, but I really really doubt it could even come CLOSE to providing the energy requirements of our civilisation.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry though, i didn't read any of your links, i don't have time, but looking at your summary it appears your basing your argument on the amount of biodiesel needed. That seems a skewed thought because to replace the biodiesel in diesel fleets at the current rate means paying more per gallon (although fleet managers that have done it have sworn they've come out ahead due to the higher lubricity and less overhaul/service done on the engines) and also doing it to dozens/hundreds/thousands of fuel tanks at a time.

Whereas to buy a VW jetta diesel and filling it up with bio at the pump is alot more achievable to a single family.


As for it seeming skewed how so?

You say that biodeisel will solve everything and have NO data to back it up.

I say that biodeisel isn't as great as you think it is, and I provided quite a bit of data and a lot of sound arguments based on that data.

Our civilization uses more energy than can be feasibly had by using crop-based fuels for transportation, and simple thermodynamics can back that up, even ignoring the issue of water. You can argue with a lot of things, but physics ain't one of 'em.

[scott]

Don't forget the difficulties of transporting ethanol. It can't be blended with gasoline at a refinery to travel through a pipeline because of its affinity for water. It needs to be trucked or sent by railcar. There are huge competitive disadvantages for ethanol just from the logistics alone.

[RandomGuy]

Gallup Surprise: Most Americans Now Say They May Buy Hybrid Cars



Gallup (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002314621)

Somebody call Ford and GM.


GMC is in for a rude shock. Ford will be saved by the R & D that Henry's grandson pumped into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and other such things before stepping down as CEO.

Wait until gas costs $5 a gallon. I estimate that this will happen by 2013, and will double again in a bit under five or six years, making $10 a gallon the norm before 2020.

The US economy will become more energy efficient because it will be too expensive not to be, but standards of living are going to take a big hit as the cost of energy goes up.

It sucks, but that is what my take on the situation will be.

[RandomGuy]

Don't forget the difficulties of transporting ethanol. It can't be blended with gasoline at a refinery to travel through a pipeline because of its affinity for water. It needs to be trucked or sent by railcar. There are huge competitive disadvantages for ethanol just from the logistics alone.


Yup. It always comes down to physics. Return on invested energy, baby.

Middle East oil 30+ remember fossil fuel quality varies
Tar sands 1.5
Hydro power 45
Coal 25 according to accessibility (suspect figure)
Nuclear 5 – 20 according to assumptions (suspect figure)
Wind 4 – 10
Solar 5
Corn methanol negative therefore, subsidised by the crazy US government!

diminishing returns

In any human activity, there tends to be what is often referred to as the Law of Diminishing Returns. This means that for any activity, the first part of the process produces the greatest profits or advantages. For example, when a successful oil well is sunk, the oil gushes up under considerable pressure. As the oil reservoir depletes, so more energy has to be applied to extracting what remains. And this energy amount increases as the depletion grows.

It is normal, in human behaviour, to go go for the easier and cheaper returns first. Hence, the easily extracted oil in the Middle East will tend to be at a premium relative to the deep-sea returns from the North Sea, or the heavier oils in Venezuela.

In general, the oil and gas will be extracted before the coal and tar sands. [6] When it comes to any particular resource, such as coal, the easier fields will be exploited first.

Read this dammit!!! (http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp)

[Clandestino]

did nba dan ever say what kind of vehicles his family owned?

[RandomGuy]

Don't get me wrong on this.

I think that crop-based fuels will indeed play a part in our future energy supply, and quite possibly a big part.

BUT

They are far from able to supply our civilisation with its current energy needs, let alone our future (larger) energy needs.

Renewables, like crop-based fuels will have to shoulder an increasingly large portion of the burden of supply.