Thats not true. They have tried to hinder any progress in less emission vehicles. I know that they(the oil companies) have many different patents on 70's vehicles engines. I know of one guy in Regina, Canada that built a carborator for a GM vehicle and it was getting35-40mpg. Esso oil came to him offered him a huge amount of money(signed a non-discloser agreement about the money) to sell them his patent.
Also GM themselves have had 'test' vehicles that accidently left their facility and were sold to the public that had awsome MPG.
A guy my Dad knows got any car off of the dealers lot that he wanted because he got one of there cars. The only way GM found out about it was that when the mechanic opened the guys hood it was a completly different engine than what was supposed to be there.
Mid-east oil dosen't want anything else to come into their world. If oil wasn't being used any more what would they do. They have nothing else. Oil is their life blood, and if they loose that...well camel racing just might go international then because there would not be any money for them to do anything else.

 

Remember I said a diferent fuel not less fuel, of coarse they hate fuel saving devices, the original cat and your examples are all revelvent. It must be diferent. Or any other way to seem more profitable. the middle east doesn't own the major oil companies jsut the pumping and some refineries. Us dollars run the rest although some of these guys have a higher gdp then the US.

Thats funny ****. Anything that hinders a big company will be crushed if the inventor doesn't patent and / or sells out.

Also don't forget the Oil companies aren't **** compared to insurance companies when it comes to getting exactly what they want from the govenment.

 

Your right. they don't own the oil companies, but any county that has oil on it and is being pumpedby an oil company has to be part of OPEC. Canada which has almost as much oil as the middle east and is part of this little group. They have and will keep trying to keep alternative fuels out of the mainstream until the G8 countries get their act together and force the issue.

 

I don;t think it will matter what the 8 say, I think the only real possiblity other then alternative fuel is the Mid east shutting down its borders to us, which is very unlikely since they'ed starve. But with the conservationist additued of many americans and canadans and our fear of polluting our land I don't think either contry, by the Mexico has more then both put together, will expand pumping oil on its own soil to the level neeeded to maintain us. Good old fashion Not in my back yard additude, good conversation bro

 

It is in our National Interest to be self-sufficient. It is in the Oil Companies immediate interest to keep petroleum flowing.

Unfortunately, the Big Oil folks have the financial resources to explore alternative sources, but they have not focused their attention to such...

Why/ Perhaps b/c of simple economics - as a commodity becomes rarer, then it becomes more valuable. Hence Big Oil can stil make $$$ even as oil supplies dwindle. What they are ignoring, then, is the ability to become true Energy Companies. Though they are currently profitable, and the CEO's, etc. have power and money, this won't be true at some point in the future when the focus shifts to renewables/alternate sources. Thus, in some respects, they are cashing in for the immediate moment at the cost of the corporations' health in the future. This is truly a disservice to their stock-holders, IMO.

Further, if you accept my position that it is a National Interest issue not to be dependent upon foreign energy, then, it is evident that Big Oil is not concerned with the US' position. Instead, we are left with a major lobby that influences political decisions. Is it any coincidence that Cheney's last position was with Big Oil and HE was willing to deal with the Iraqi's, as a private citizen/busineesman?

That fact we beat the war drum for Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is fabrication. It is b/c of Oil. Thus if indeed we move forces there, it is only a subsidy for private business, in a sad, and potentially deadly manner, that will cost multi-billions to the tax-payer (imagine if we spent a fraction of that either researching new sources or subsidizing farmers to produce bio-fuels!)

The WMD argument is becoming more blatantly false as time wears on. Interestingly, N. Korea's announcement of Nuclear weapons (WMD) will not be met with the same response simply b/c they do not have any strategic resources that we demand. I find it hard to believe that we will attack Iraq b/c of suspected WMD programs, yet the N. Korea's actual WMD barely raise an eyebrow. Don't forget, the "other" Axis-of-Evil is Iran, who also has oil and are in a position to seize Iraqi oil fields - hence our concern.

All this could be abated by focusing our resources and knowledge into other realms of energy. Brazil produces about 70 % of transportation fuel from sugar-cane. We, on the other hand, grow excessive amounts of grain, a large percentage of which rots or becomes contaminated with aspirillus (?) ( a fungus which is toxic to humans) when stored long-term in silos. There is a much better use of this grain, namely, ethanol.

Keep in mind, that also, by increasing CAFE emmission standards, we would also decrease the demand of fossil fuels for our motor fleet.
Even though states supposedly have rights (via the Constitution) to impose their own regulations, the White House is combatting places like CA and MA from enacting stricter fuel economy because the Administration claims that Clean Air Act is a federal mandate, and can't be made more stringent by the individual states.
Considering that air pollution and energy demands are major national issues, a rational individual would applaud efforts which rectify both problems, simultaneously. Such efforts, though, only negatively impact Big Oil, while improving conditions for every other sector - is it any coincidence, then, which policy we actually follow?

 

One thing people don't tend to think about with these cars is what is really powering them. Electricity. Well where does that come from, your house, which is tied to the grid, which goes right to the generation station. Which produces energy how? Burning coal. Yup, great, can you imagine the pollution when they build about 100 more of those puppies to power your cars? Ballards is better, as it takes hydrogen from fossile fuels, but it still perpetuates the dependance on gasoline. Nuclear isn't exactly an enviromentally friendly source either. Those of us in the great lakes have hydro, but we maxed that source out decades ago.
Electric cars don't solve the pollution problem they just shift it. The choice has to be made on efficiency. Electrics don't have it on the highway, but gas doesn't have it in the city. The solution, hybrids. Expect hybrids to be around for longer than you think. I would bet that most of us will be dead before you see true electrics outnumber hybrids.
Stocker.

 

The consistent interests of the Bush family has always centered around oil-- Old George Sr. loved oil; and went to war for it. The next good 'ol boy, George Jr., also has a fascination with supporting his own personal oil interests, as well as his associates in fossil fuel energy companies. THAT, as Fossil Boy noted, is the REAL reason we're (the U.S., that is) talking about Iraq as such a global threat. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either a foolhardy, mindless, lemming (and there is sadly no shortage of them) or an individual who stands to immediately benefit from protecting current energy standards.

The primary problem with the current political administration is their total inability to see beyond the immediate future. Judging from the intelligence level of Bush Jr., that doesn't come as particular surprise, but for the rest-- There has to be many who understand what's truly going on, but serve to benefit from protecting big oil so they say nothing in opposition. It's reprehensible.

Regarding this war cry, there are other grave problems to consider, independent of energy issues-- Given the Bush Administration's unyielding insistence on toppling Saddam Hussein, there also begs the likelihood of WMD response from Hussein. With our forces closing in and defeat imminent (as would surely happen), what kind of idiot wouldn't expect him to actually USE the weapons he has? I pretty much guarantee he'd use them on us-- What would he have to lose? His regime? Control of his country? He'd lose that anyway-- You KNOW there would be a response, and there's a good chance that response wouldn't simply be limited to the battle field overseas-- We'd likely see some kind of hit AT HOME. For the less thoughtful, guess what that would mean? A lot of civilians killed here at home-- And for what? Archaic, finite, dwindling energy supplies!? That's criminal, and history would look upon such an effort with angry, shameful, derision.

Wait for our attack to begin and let's see how long it takes for my above point to become reality, shall we? It's pretty bloody predictable.

My final point in this post, back to fossil fuel vs. fuel cell energy use:

Opponents of fuel cell technology enjoy spouting off about how we still have to find an energy source to generate the hydrogen in the first place, and that energy will often come from the very fossil fuel sources we're trying to avoid. As true as that is, these same people fail to acknowledge the inherent efficiency in hydrogen fuel. As I said earlier, internal combustion engines top out (in the best case scenarios, which never really happens in the real world) at about 30% efficiency. What that means, again, is that only 30% of the actual energy in the fuel gets used for actual motion-- The rest of the 70% is totally lost in heat, driving cheesy fan belts, gear assemblies, etc.. Compare that to a fuel cell/hydrogen driven vehicle, which achieves upwards of 50% efficiency. Given that, it takes far less fuel (read, fossil fuel) to travel the SAME DISTANCE as you'd travel in an old fashioned gasoline engine car. So even though the ultimate source of that energy (for the time being) would come from fossil fuel, we'd be using billions and billions of tons less per year; we're talking astronomical differences. And on top of that, we'll use even less fossil fuel because in a fuel cell vehicle you don't have to keep changing your nasty motor oil, which also accounts for MASSIVE expenditures per year-- Let alone finding ways to dispose of the toxic crap.

Fuel cell technology cannot be beaten by any argument in favor of current fossil fuel practice in any way whatsoever. Period. Hydrogen is superior in every way.

 

Saddam Hussein is a genocidal lunitic that cares nothing of human life and everyhting about his power. It will be very interesting to see him use WMD on use when were 20,000 ft in the air bombing the hell out of him. We always utilize air attack first to clear the way for the army. We know he will use these weapons on civilians without reason. Remember Bush challenged and Critizesed the Un before taking any real action. Basicly it a poker game wiht the UN. He intends to make them deal with Saddam and actualy back up there demands this time instead of cowardly backing out of any action.

One of the problems with saying we ONLY, I say this becuase perserving oil flow is always an issue, want Iraq for oil is why did we not just keep going after the gulf war? Why if oil was the only thing did we stop. Simple, it wasn't the only reason not to mention over throwing Saddam will in any short term result hurt oil supply numbers. The long run will be determined by those that take over for him afterwards.

Bush very well may be in the pocket of Oil companies, but I trust that more then CLinton and Gore being in Chinas pocket. Sorry had to add that. Anyway hisup coming actions will soon define his abilities. Although a moron in Public speach giving, I believe him to be far more intelligent then may people like to give him credit for.

Korea does bring up an interesting question. Could one of the reasons we are so interested in Iraq right now be becuase it is still politicaly viable to attack anyone in the middle east where as it is no longer viable to do so in south east asia? Bush's dealing with Korea will define what his real intentions are in Iraq.

TO say Big oil profit from attacking him is very interesting since his people pump the stuff. Also which company specificly utilizes Iraqi Oil, Iran oil? Before blaming everyone you need to be exact on the ties.

If a hydrogen fuel cell is 50% efficient but relies on electrical power whcih you said was only 30% efficient then wouldn't the fuel cell only really be 15% efficient? It looses 70% through chargeing by fossil fuel power either in a car or a power plant and then it looses 50% of that energy creating motion.

I agree each state should be able to enforce stricter pollution laws then the fedal laws. But no less leanent ones.
Also I don't really trust california to do anything intelligent after the electrical power crisis those dip ***** caused. Conserving energy is fine but it has to be possible to live with otherwise the atemp is foolish.

Ethanol, **** electric. Two words . Super stallion. If that bastard can run on Ethanol anything can. Fuel cells as of yet have proven totaly useless on there own. They in no way can be sustained with out fossel fuel in some manner. Not to mention a fuel cell contains chemicals far more toxic then oil. Cut open and dump a few large fuel cells into a water shed. Then your really screwed. Thats not a trade off io can live with and it simply isn't economicly viable.

One simple rule to remember if you can't make money off of it it will never be a useable solution.

Another thing. Hydo power may be to some degree tapped out but. Tidal is only beggining. I hated the beach anyways!

 

MP3 in NH,
i really don't want to tear your arguments apart, but just to clarify one of many things in your argument that are a little muddy: the reason behind the "California energy crisis" was ENRON! they witheld power across the grid and claimed that California residents had to pay more for making them increase their open line capacities. and guess who had a hand in ENRON? good ol' dick cheney... so don't go bashing on california and out "stupidity. sorry for being the center of the technology and research and development for all things modern and convenient.

ok, i gotta take a stab at this one... is it me or is there a DMZ on the 38th parallel between north and south korea? is this because there is a CONSTANT THREAT of a north korean invasion of the south? or are american troops there to stop the south koreans from entering the north to spread capitalism? so with the announcement that north korea is developing nukes, wouldn't it be a little more dire than the attention the current administration is giving it? iraq, on the other hand, will not dare attack any of its other neighbors any time soon. they are still trying to garner anti-american support in the region, especially after the last time they got humiliated. for them to attack another country other than israel would be completely ridiculous and unlikely. and no one in the region is dumb enough to attack israel.

so why are we in iraq? personal vendetta maybe? big bush told TIME magazine he HATES sadaam with every fiber in his body. little bush is just taking care of business for his dad. good boy, isn't he? perhaps his reason is oil maybe? it's definitely not because of the "WMD's". the CIA released a report that said saddaam's use of WMD (if he had any) against americans is highly unlikely but changes to "very likely" if we attacked first. why put american troops at such risks? who knows? he's the genius, not me.

 

Thats not true. Canada has way more oil on it than Iraq ever will. Iraq only supplies something like 10-17% of the worlds supply. The US gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico.
The US is allies with Isreal. Who do you think will put a SCUD(nuclear) into there if he gets a chance? Isreal is the only Democratic government in that whole area, and they have been harassed by every country around there since their re-conception.The US is protecting it intrests(Isereal) in the mid-east.

If your really concerned about oil prices and the enviorment. A short term solution would be to use Boi-diesel(seperated canola oil).VW already uses a engine that can use it. If times get tough you could go to the local grocery store and buy a gallon jug and use that.

And to comment on the use of renewable resorces(Hydro power), alot of Saskatchewan is useing hydro plants. There are very few here that burn coal. We are the province of 100,000+ lakes.

 

from bomber:

i don't know where you are getting your facts from, but the US is NOT getting most of its oil from mexico and canada. canada's not even on the top 10 oil producing countries of the world. iraq is. here's the list of top 10 oil-producing countries:

1) Saudi Arabia
2) US
3) Russia
4) Iran
5) Mexico
6) Venezuela
7) China
8) Norway
9) UK
10) Iraq

interestingly, the US and China import more oil than they export (they consume more than they produce), whereas Saudi Arabia, Norway and Venezuela exports 90% of their oil. see where Saudi Arabia is on the list? do you know where Saudi Arabia is on a map? of the top 10 countries producing oil, 3 are in the middle east region. the US imports more oil than it produces. see a correlation yet?

 

Never hesitate, i questioned just as much as i stated.

But Enron didn't cuase the Power crisis. California legislation to conserve energy while regulating energy prices along in direct opposition tot he laws of supply and demand. So Enron and the other energy producers said, "We'll show you conservations"

And do know why no one could do anything about it?
Becuase Enrons real CEO was non other then David Lo-Pan Himself!

 

actually, it was the DE-regulation of the power industry under gov. gray davis that set off power bid wars. for a while, power was actually pretty cheap. but giants like PG&E and Southern Edison were putting the little independents under. so along comes enron, who is supplying both PG&E and Southern Edison with the bulk of the power, decides to jack up the price ARTIFICIALLY. there was no reason for it except corporate greed. instead of opening the power grid to meet demand (they were more than capable of doing this), they decided to bottleneck the few lines they had open before the power crunch. then on top of that, at its worst, only 1 in 3 power plants were up and running because of "maintenance and upgrades." i guess building a plant that can be 33% more efficient is good... but why do it during the power crunch? oh well... there's big business for you again. ripping off the general public so a few big wigs on top can make billions...

 

I think a misconsception here is that Fuel Cells require elctricity and hence need to be "charged"..
There is a BIG difference b/n electric cars (which need charging from sources of whatever origin) versus Fuel Cells which actually create their own electricity from combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce Water vapor and a free electron. Yes, some hydrogen sources, currently, rely upon fossil fuel, but, the goal is for Hydrogen Fuel. Hydrogen can be isolated from the photo-dissociation of water - and as well, hydrogen is also the most common element in the universe. Thus, it is most likely a limitless source of enregy, one we're likely to use at some point..

 

I am a little confused, hence the questions. I know every hybrid today requires the gas engine to recharge its electric motor. As for fuel cells although Hydrogen is aboundant, in pure elemental form is not.
Is pure Hydrogen required?
Where does it come from?
The cell must use a fuel of some kind, what is it?
Is that mixture aboundat?
Is that mixture ecologicly sound?
Is the by products ecologicly sound?
Is the fuel cell itself ecologicly sound for when the car gets T-boned and explodes?
This brings up, is the mixture, being that hydrogen is very reactive, a bomb?
If the cell was to be ruptured what would be the ecological effect?