 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / February 2006SaabUSA Biopower survey
Please answer truthfully, let's hope this helps to ensure that the Saab Biopower becomes available. http://www2.saabusa.com/biopower/default.asp SG > Please answer truthfully, let's hope this helps to ensure that the Saab > Biopower becomes available. > > http://www2.saabusa.com/biopower/default.asp Too little, too late. If they really wanted to make a difference instead of a token gesture they'd produce a solar/plug-in/hybrid/biodiesel. But of course they don't. >> Please answer truthfully, let's hope this helps to ensure that the Saab >> Biopower becomes available. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a token gesture they'd produce a solar/plug-in/hybrid/biodiesel. But of > course they don't. Right. Because a solar car is practical, is that it? Tell me, what power density can we expect from sunlight, please? Kindly compare this to the surface area available, and the power needed to move a street-legal car down the road. Or, I'll save you the math. There's not enough energy in sunlight, even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, to power a safe, streetable car. It just isn't there. Plugin? Great, if you drive 10 miles a day. Next? Hybrid biodiesel. Now we're talking. A diesel/electric hybrid would let people use the existing fuel infrastructure, give the industry more experience with electrical drive systems, and would get us to a point where we can start paying farmers to farm, instead of giving that money to people in parts of the world where they want to kill us. Yes, that seems like a good approach. Plugins, solar cars, and hydrogen, are just distractions. >>> Please answer truthfully, let's hope this helps to ensure that the Saab >>> Biopower becomes available. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > that seems like a good approach. Plugins, solar cars, and hydrogen, are > just distractions. I had to laugh when I read this. It reminded me of the report of a green government official complaining that her government wasn't doing enough to conserve energy because they were unable to provide her with the up-armored Toyota Prius that she requested. Walt Kienzle >> Hybrid biodiesel. Now we're talking. A diesel/electric hybrid would >> let people use the existing fuel infrastructure, give the industry [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> that seems like a good approach. Plugins, solar cars, and hydrogen, are >> just distractions. > I had to laugh when I read this. Which part do you find funny, Walt? >> I had to laugh when I read this. > > Which part do you find funny, Walt? The part I found funny because of its accuracy was snipped. Your statements here are accurate and reminded me of something I stated in my posting. You also snipped that part. You said: > Right. Because a solar car is practical, is that it? Tell me, what > power density can we expect from sunlight, please? Kindly compare this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Plugin? Great, if you drive 10 miles a day. Next? Some of the people in this group think that the effective implementation of alternate fuels can whipped up in minutes, produced in volume, people will buy it and that it can make money. I commend Saab in coming out with the BioPower engine. Too little too late? Maybe Saab took this long so they could get it right - and then learn so they can come up with something better later. Cars that run on E-85 have been around in the US for at least 10 years and at least as long in parts of South America (specifically Brazil where Saab gained much of its knowledge for BioPower). The problem with the early implementations of E-85 was that fuel economy dropped 20% to 30% when compared to gasoline, based on USEPA estimates for certain Ford Taurus, Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Cirrus and various GM SUVs that have been available for several years with E-85 compatibility. For 2006, GM has a newer E-85 engine available in the 3.5L Impala/Monte Carlo that only has a 10% drop in fuel economy with E-85. This is an improvement, but not nearly as good as what Saab promises. I think I would happily pay the extra $1000 for BioPower if it delivers as advertised. I also agree that Hydrogen Fuel cell is pointless technology unless we can get the hydrogen out of water. Right now, we can't so there is no point in making those vehicles. If you happen to have such a vehicle, the most practical way to get hydrogen fuel is to extract it from natural gas. GM offered Cavaliers that run directly on Compressed Natural Gas until the Cavalier was discontinued last year. Honda still offers the Civic GX (http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+GX) and sells a Natural Gas Refueling Appliance so owners can fuel up at home. For those that say "Too little, too late" I ask if you have purchased or at least investigated any of these new technologies. If you have, great. You are encouraging manufacturers to innovate and come up with new alternate fuel compatible products. When I started my investigation, I had to seek out the sales manager for corporate fleet vehicles. He was thrilled that I, as the general public, was asking about this technology. To all in this NG, ask yourself if you have been informing yourself and helping promote knowledge or just complaining that someone else hasn't done enough. >>> Please answer truthfully, let's hope this helps to ensure that the Saab >>> Biopower becomes available. >>> >>> http://www2.saabusa.com/biopower/default.asp >> Too little, too late. If they really wanted to make a difference instead of >> a token gesture they'd produce a solar/plug-in/hybrid/biodiesel. But of >> course they don't. I'm inclined to agree with the "too little too late" statement, since SAAB should have started this bandwagon rolling. I have oft lamented Volvo's bi-fuel or Vauxhall/Opel's dual fuel offerings, but it does seem that SAAB has gone one better with this one. It is late, but I wonder how much of that has been SAAB "going to the man" and saying "here, take a look at this eco-idea" and having them just reject it. > Hybrid biodiesel. Now we're talking. A diesel/electric hybrid would > let people use the existing fuel infrastructure, give the industry > more experience with electrical drive systems, and would get us to a > point where we can start paying farmers to farm, instead of giving that > money to people in parts of the world where they want to kill us. Yes, > that seems like a good approach. Okay, I'm being picky. I spent a day or so thinking about whether and why I should ask you ... Who is trying to kill you (I presume the US, you mean) this time? What do you mean? Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> Hybrid biodiesel. Now we're talking. A diesel/electric hybrid would >> let people use the existing fuel infrastructure, give the industry [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should ask you ... Who is trying to kill you (I presume the US, you mean) > this time? What do you mean? Well, I don't think it's any secret that much (most?) of the oil the US imports, is from arabic countries. And while we're neutral trade-partners with some of them, I'd hardly call them friendly to us (nor us friendly towards them). I'd prefer to have the US work on building up the biofuels industry and infrastructure, which will allow us to support our own farmers rather than supporting people in countries who are uneasy allies at best. The sooner the US starts using it's energy resources that it has, the sooner it can stop having to juggle unstable situations in order to attempt to secure them from elsewhere. >>> Hybrid biodiesel. Now we're talking. A diesel/electric hybrid would >>> let people use the existing fuel infrastructure, give the industry [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > us to support our own farmers rather than supporting people in countries > who are uneasy allies at best. It's a sensible approach. You guys have vast vast vast areas of open space that could well be as devoted to sugar cane or oil seed rape, as barley ... Or windmills? What kind of lobby do you have going nationally? Are there particular states that are more receptive to changing to alternative fuels? It is going to need a sea change, culturally, I would imagine. For example, from a UK (perhaps European) perspective, we see 10 MPG V8s as a cultural right in the US; a view of oil usage which leaves us aghast. Well, following the ethanol example, I see that piston-head culture being sustained through any oil shortage. I love the growl of inefficient engines and the smell of unburned petrol, but I do concede that we all need to change and for now, the ethanol direction seems to be the change we need without losing what we had. > The sooner the US starts using it's energy resources that it has, the > sooner it can stop having to juggle unstable situations in order to > attempt to secure them from elsewhere. Well, I think that would be good for all of us; the UK especially who seem duty bound to follow well, the Bushes, into whatever whichever country they seem to see as the latest sure thing. I wonder how much of the Iran issue is going to be a smokescreen for the next invasion of Venezuela? President Chavez does seem to be unnecessarily "pushing the envelope" when it comes to oil exports to the US. We'll see. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> I'd prefer to have the US work on >> building up the biofuels industry and infrastructure, which will allow >> us to support our own farmers rather than supporting people in countries >> who are uneasy allies at best. > It's a sensible approach. You guys have vast vast vast areas of open space > that could well be as devoted to sugar cane or oil seed rape, as barley ... Yup. I'm being paid to not farm on much of my own land, for instance. Lots of surplus capacity. > Or windmills? What kind of lobby do you have going nationally? Are there > particular states that are more receptive to changing to alternative fuels? It's very spotty as to which states encourage what. There's a huge wind farm not far from here, but it's all private industry not state-owned of course. There may be subsidies, but again, to me that's a wise expenditure of our money. Investment in tech keeps people like me in work, and investment in energy independance is hardly wasted. > It is going to need a sea change, culturally, I would imagine. For example, > from a UK (perhaps European) perspective, we see 10 MPG V8s as a cultural > right in the US; a view of oil usage which leaves us aghast. Well, to be honest, I can count on one hand the number of Hummers or similar vehicles that I've seen on the road, in the last year. We're not talking a significant percentage here, either, and most people look at those folks the same way you seem to. > Well, following > the ethanol example, I see that piston-head culture being sustained through > any oil shortage. I love the growl of inefficient engines and the smell of > unburned petrol, but I do concede that we all need to change and for now, > the ethanol direction seems to be the change we need without losing what we > had. e10 is standard at the pumps in this area. >> The sooner the US starts using it's energy resources that it has, the >> sooner it can stop having to juggle unstable situations in order to >> attempt to secure them from elsewhere. > Well, I think that would be good for all of us; the UK especially who seem > duty bound to follow well, the Bushes, into whatever whichever country they > seem to see as the latest sure thing. I wonder how much of the Iran issue is > going to be a smokescreen for the next invasion of Venezuela? President > Chavez does seem to be unnecessarily "pushing the envelope" when it comes to > oil exports to the US. We'll see. It'd be nice if the people who "feel", rather than "think", wouldn't have so much influence here. We don't have new nuclear power plants because 20 years ago a 40 year old design had a well-publicised non-event, and because 20 years ago a Russian design that has never been used in the US blew up. The general public doesn't distinguish between a Chernobyl-type reactor and a modern design as would be built here, and we're all breathing dirtier air and paying for an expensive exercise because of it. If we had sufficient power from nuke plants, then maybe yes, hydrogen would make sense. But as long as we're just burning or converting a different hydrocarbon fuel to get it, it's a net loss. So yeah, I think it's play in the clutch pedal pivot hole. or whatever the thread was about. >> in article 43v1rpF1p5s53U1@individual.net, Dave Hinz at >> DaveHinz@spamcop.net >> wrote on 27/01/2006 16:59: > > Well, I don't think it's any secret that much (most?) of the oil the US > imports, is from arabic countries. I guess the US government is helping keep that secret. Or maybe it is just false propaganda. According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imp orts/current/import.html of the 15 top oil exporters to the US, Arabic countries contribute less than 25% (Year to date, November 2005 - the latest numbers available). Most of the oil imported by the US actually comes from other countries in the Americas. The most comes from North America: Canada and Mexico which provide 33%. South America exports another 17% to the US. Africa contributes 17% and Europe 9%. Your claim hasn't been true since the oil embargo in the 1970's. I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead of false cliché's. If you wanted to identify were most of the US oil originates, it would be the Americas, not the Arab world. >> Well, I don't think it's any secret that much (most?) of the oil the US >> imports, is from arabic countries. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the 15 top oil exporters to the US, Arabic countries contribute less than > 25% OK, so there's a number. yay. I'd call 25% "much", wouldn't you, Walt? Oh, and it's amusing that you say the gummint is keeping it secret, and then cite a government site to show it. > (Year to date, November 2005 - the latest numbers available). Most of > the oil imported by the US actually comes from other countries in the > Americas. The most comes from North America: Canada and Mexico which > provide 33%. South America exports another 17% to the US. Africa > contributes 17% and Europe 9%. Your claim hasn't been true since the oil > embargo in the 1970's. My claim is "much (most?)". I stand by it as your numbers have verified it. Why the word games, Walt? > I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead of > false cliché's. If you wanted to identify were most of the US oil > originates, it would be the Americas, not the Arab world. You need to work on your reading comprehension before lecturing me on my choice of words. Now then. Did you have anything of substance on the topic, or is it just bullshit and wordgames? Sorry to be blunt, but you're taking me to task for what your inaccurate interpretation of my clear statements is, not for what I said. > OK, so there's a number. yay. I'd call 25% "much", wouldn't you, > Walt? No, I wouldn't. Particularly considering those numbers are only for IMPORTED oil. It doesn't factor in what is produced domestically. Even just looking at imported oil, how can you conclude that 2nd place is in any way "most". Or that half of what is imported from other contries in the Americas "much"? And you should read more closely when you quote me. I said LESS THAN 25%. > Oh, and it's amusing that you say the gummint is keeping it > secret, and then cite a government site to show it. The "secret" part wasn't a cliam on my part, it was an inference based on your prior statement in that you could/didn't come up with any facts to support your claim. >> (Year to date, November 2005 - the latest numbers available). Most of >> the oil imported by the US actually comes from other countries in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My claim is "much (most?)". I stand by it as your numbers have verified > it. Why the word games, Walt? I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Or maybe I am just a stickler for accuracy. >> I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead >> of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You need to work on your reading comprehension before lecturing me on my > choice of words. I read just fine and didn't see any substantiation for your claims. Just bad rhetoric. > Now then. Did you have anything of substance on the topic, or is it > just bullshit and wordgames? Sorry to be blunt, but you're taking me to > task for what your inaccurate interpretation of my clear statements is, > not for what I said. I am taking you to task on false conclusions based on bad and nonexistent facts. >> OK, so there's a number. yay. I'd call 25% "much", wouldn't you, >> Walt? > No, I wouldn't. Particularly considering those numbers are only for > IMPORTED oil. OK, so you're going on the record that we don't import much oil from arabic countries then? I disagree. > It doesn't factor in what is produced domestically. Even > just looking at imported oil, how can you conclude that 2nd place is in any > way "most". I recall writing "much (most?)". Google agrees. > Or that half of what is imported from other contries in the > Americas "much"? And you should read more closely when you quote me. I > said LESS THAN 25%. Great, then we're well into "much" then. None of which changes my central point, which is that I'd rather give money to farmers, than to countries who are unfriendly to us, Walt. >> Oh, and it's amusing that you say the gummint is keeping it >> secret, and then cite a government site to show it. > The "secret" part wasn't a cliam on my part, it was an inference based on > your prior statement in that you could/didn't come up with any facts to > support your claim. Please don't presume to make my points for me, Walt, it's clear that your misinterpretations make you unqualified to do so. >>> (Year to date, November 2005 - the latest numbers available). Most of >>> the oil imported by the US actually comes from other countries in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Or maybe I am just a stickler > for accuracy. And you're off on a irrelevant nitpick on a side issue. Other than that, great post. >>> I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead >>> of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> You need to work on your reading comprehension before lecturing me on my >> choice of words. > I read just fine and didn't see any substantiation for your claims. Just > bad rhetoric. I stand by my statement that we get "much oil" from unfriendly countries and should work to minimize that. If you choose to imagine that I was somehow making a point about the other things you're responding to that I didn't write, well, maybe you're reading a different thread somewhere else or something. I dunno. >> Now then. Did you have anything of substance on the topic, or is it >> just bullshit and wordgames? Sorry to be blunt, but you're taking me to >> task for what your inaccurate interpretation of my clear statements is, >> not for what I said. > I am taking you to task on false conclusions based on bad and nonexistent > facts. You yourself have confirmed numbers that indicate we get much of our oil from arabic countries. If your argument is "No, Dave, that's a bit, not much", well, count me out of the bullshit wordgames. It's a distraction from the central point of using our own resources. Let's use what we can develop, and stop financing countries unfriendly to us. It's really a pretty simple proposal. Reading into it things that I'm not saying, and then taking me to task for them, says an awful lot more about your points than mine. > OK, so you're going on the record that we don't import much oil from > arabic countries then? I disagree. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html " The USA imports about 55% of its oil needs. Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (millions of barrels per day, 2001): Canada: 1.79 - Saudi Arabia: 1.66 - Venezuela: 1.54 - Mexico: 1.42 - Nigeria: .86 - Iraq: .78 - Norway: .33 - Angola: .32 - United Kingdom: .31 - Total: 11.62. (Source: Energy Information Administration). Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (%, 2002): Saudi Arabia: 16.9% - Mexico: 15.1% - Canada: 15.0% - Venezuela: 14.4% - Iraq: 11.4% - Nigeria: 5.9.%. only about 30% of the USA's oil imports came from Arab countries in 2002. Since USA oil imports are about 55% of USA oil consumption, ***********only about 15% of USA's oil consumption is provided by Arab countries.************* About 40% of oil in the USA is used to produce gasoline. " Is 15% 'much' ? Graham >> OK, so you're going on the record that we don't import much oil from >> arabic countries then? I disagree. > http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html > > only about 30% of the USA's oil imports came from Arab countries in 2002. Since > USA oil imports are about 55% of USA oil consumption, > ***********only about 15% of USA's oil consumption is provided by Arab > countries.************* Which you don't consider to be "much"? This is the word-game I won't play. We import a _metric shitload of oil from places who don't like us_. There. Feel free to argue what "metric shitload" means, but you can do it without me. > About 40% of oil in the USA is used to produce gasoline. " > Is 15% 'much' ? Try doing without it. Take a 15 percent pay cut, Graham, and tell me if it was "much", for instance. You're missing my point, which I've made abundantly clear. >I stand by my statement that we get "much oil" from unfriendly countries >and should work to minimize that. Whadaya mean "unfriendly"? The Emirates loves us and send us plenty of oil. Lets face it, they can't sell it to other Arab countries and we have an unlimited appetite, so it's a marriage made in heaven. Iraq loves us now, and if they don't we'll just spend another $200b to kick their a.s to tell 'em that they do (and so Haliburton can make another extra $10b on the side). The Saudi's loves us, we let all the Bin Ladins fly home before they got their a.s kicked on 9-11. But, the Arabian countries don't really sell oil to "us", they sell it to the oil companies who jack the price and screw us all while getting massive US Gov't tax discounts because apparently there's no incentive to develop new oil wells. Go figure. I have to laugh when I hear about "arctic oil exploration" being a resource to lower our costs - like the oil companies are going to cut the cost of oil below market because they like selling to US citizens. Right. Exxon quarterly results in today - 10b quarterly profits largest ever in US History ...following last year's highest ever annual profits in US History. Those US oil companies really care about the country. Lets face it - it does not matter where the oil comes from - we're going to get screwed by the government giving away our resources and tax money and the oil companies making obscene profits. Such is life. I'll just work harder, make more money to pay for my high priced premium gas, and enjoy the turbo. Gotta go work now, my tank is low. Bob >>I stand by my statement that we get "much oil" from unfriendly countries >>and should work to minimize that. > > Whadaya mean "unfriendly"? The Emirates loves us and send us plenty of > oil. Yeah, they really love us. As long as we're giving them money, that is. > Lets face it, they can't sell it to other Arab countries and we > have an unlimited appetite, so it's a marriage made in heaven. Iraq > loves us now, and if they don't we'll just spend another $200b to kick > their a.s to tell 'em that they do (and so Haliburton can make another > extra $10b on the side). The Saudi's loves us, we let all the Bin > Ladins fly home before they got their a.s kicked on 9-11. Please show me a credible cite showing that "we let all the Bin Ladins fly home...". Hint: you can't. Didn't happen. > But, the Arabian countries don't really sell oil to "us", they sell it > to the oil companies who jack the price You also don't understand how oil prices are set. Another free hint: futures market. > ...following last year's highest ever annual profits in US History. > Those US oil companies really care about the country. > Lets face it - it does not matter where the oil comes from - we're > going to get screwed by the government giving away our resources and > tax money and the oil companies making obscene profits. So give money to the farmers instead, Bob. That's my freaking point. >Yeah, they really love us. As long as we're giving them money, that is. Makes the world - and my ex-wife - go round! >Please show me a credible cite showing that "we let all the Bin Ladins >fly home...". Hint: you can't. Didn't happen. How about the 9-11 commission as a credible cite? A slew of Saudi citizens (150?) and 20+ members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out in the week following 9-11 after cursory interviews by the FBI. It happened very quietly. It's in the 9-11 Commission report. All verified facts. Read into it what you want, that's a political issue. I think the Saudi's appreciated it. MHO. >> But, the Arabian countries don't really sell oil to "us", they sell it >> to the oil companies who jack the price > >You also don't understand how oil prices are set. Another free hint: >futures market. I know about the futures market. I also know that regardless of the price that the oil companies are paying when they actually exercise a buy, they are all making obscene profits from jacking prices for gasoline, fuel oil, and natural gas. >> ...following last year's highest ever annual profits in US History. >> Those US oil companies really care about the country. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So give money to the farmers instead, Bob. That's my freaking point. Not bad... but there has to be a better reason than paying them not to grow things. There has to be a valid market and products. Don't expect the current administration of ex- and current oil company executives to be pushing alternate fuel development (again, not a political statement, just a factual observation - it ain't gonna happen). > Not bad... but there has to be a better reason than paying them not to > grow things. There has to be a valid market and products. Don't expect > the current administration of ex- and current oil company executives > to be pushing alternate fuel development (again, not a political > statement, just a factual observation - it ain't gonna happen). well, the money that is now going to them to *not* grow anything could be used to pay them to grow specific non-food energy crops. The point of the current farm subsidies is to (artificially) keep the food-crop prices higher. It would be killing two birds with one dollar, so to speak...  Signature-Fred W > well, the money that is now going to them to *not* grow anything could > be used to pay them to grow specific non-food energy crops. The point > of the current farm subsidies is to (artificially) keep the food-crop > prices higher. Exactly. > It would be killing two birds with one dollar, so to speak... More than two - it would cut down on the amount of funding we give to people who don't like us. >> It would be killing two birds with one dollar, so to speak... > > More than two - it would cut down on the amount of funding we give to > people who don't like us. Maybe they'd like you if you gave them more money? Paul <----- Just ragging you, mate :) 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>> It would be killing two birds with one dollar, so to speak... >> >> More than two - it would cut down on the amount of funding we give to >> people who don't like us. > > Maybe they'd like you if you gave them more money? Oh, sure, I bet a couple thousand years of history could easily be, you know, overlooked, if we'd just buy a bit more oil from 'em. >>>> It would be killing two birds with one dollar, so to speak... >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh, sure, I bet a couple thousand years of history could easily be, you > know, overlooked, if we'd just buy a bit more oil from 'em. Well, it's been around 1500 years since the Arabs got religious :) It's more about power, than money. There are echelons of power above which the likes of you or I will ever know. Oil is one of those power bases. It could easily be nuclear power, but as you well know, your government is very vocal about nations trying to adopt nuclear power and spent many years in a very tense debacle with another global power over just that matter. As you rightly say, local empowerment is paramount when one considers global oil usage and the ramifications, thereof. The UK has long been paying its farmers not to farm, but it did not pay its coal miners not to mine! Our government decided that coal miners were practically terrorists when they decided to stand up and "not take it anymore". Farmers in the UK are no doubt very different from farmers in the US, being "land owners" and the last bastion of that layer of conservative power in the UK. After FMD devastated our land, I longed to see livestock back in the fields. It took years! In that slack time, our government decided that paying farmers not to bother was better for our economy, since we could import meat, grain, whatever cheaper from abroad ... Oh! Like the '80s when that bitch Thatcher* killed off British Coal in favour of Argentinean imports from her mate Pinochet, with whom we had some phoney war back then when no-one really knew where that Falklands were. * "Maggie Thatcher ... Milk Snatcher" Some will know ... Some will ask the question :) I cannot see how it makes any actual sense to do that. Where people have vast areas of land that could be given over to beet production for alternative fuels, great! Why the f.ck not do it? All that offal from meat production can make Biogas. It comes down to money ... Simple as that! We don't follow global initiatives to explore alternative fuel sources because it costs too much. Or rather, it costs less to do nothing ... For now. That's the crux. Back to cars ... We do need to shift from oil. Ethanol, bio-gas and bio-diesel are most definitely viable alternatives. By viable, I mean can continue a way of life as we know it with oil. When I visited Trollhättan a couple of years ago, I was thrilled to see the local buses running on biogas (well, really, I was thrilled to see over a hundred classic 900s drive by the hotel in under an hour, but ...) and it got me thinking about why we did not do this in the UK. We have an outstanding public transport service. I know we bitch on that the trains are never on time and so on, but our bus and coach service is excellent, generally. If local authorities could take on biogas powered public transport then we're one step closer to the ideal. I've long been hassling WYPTE (my local public transport executive) to take on bio-powered vehicles and be a UK leader. This really does smack of the Rio summit slogan "Think global ... Act local". They do seem receptive, but I do understand timing is important. Well, I don't but they say so and have not come up with a better fob-off to date. They know it's important to do so, but I suppose corporations do need to get it right when they do make the jump. I'm not sure the Kyoto agreement is all that important, globally, but when I see European nations taking it on and reaching certain goalposts well in advance of "the schedule", I wonder why other parts of the world are not doing so. I did ask about the US in a previous post. Who is receptive to change? Who can drive the environmental agenda in the US? I did read recently about the mayor? or governor? Of New York (sorry, my understanding of the tiers of government in the US is not very good) who seems to have been rubbished for pointing out how many cars could actually run alternative fuels, unaltered but do not. He was pointing out that his area could well drive an agenda of change, if only people would listen. Well ... Maybe he could talk louder? Crap, I've written a lot there. Erm, it's not directed at Dave ... I'm mostly in agreement with Dave on the principles. I've been thinking about the numerous posts on this matter and I suppose that's my brain fart :) Well, I'm going to have a beer now ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ <Respectfully snipped from a much longer article..;> "When I visited Trollhättan a > couple of years ago, I was thrilled to see the local buses running on biogas > (well, really, I was thrilled to see over a hundred classic 900s drive by > the hotel in under an hour, but ...) and it got me thinking about why we did > not do this in the UK. " Hey Paul - that's really encouraging. I'd kind of resigned myself to the the depressing thought that we were about to run out of oil and descend into chaos, war and the new dark ages. I read somewhere that we peaked the oil production curve 2 years ago, and it's downhill from now on, with increasing prices, diminishing resources, and it would all be over in 20 years time. Even if the US started a massive nuclear plant-building program today, there wouldn't be enough juice to go round. Apparently. I could almost see individual households or even small towns running off wind power (no shortage of that up here in Scotland) or solar cells or whatever... but I couldn't figure what would keep all the factories going that produce all the things we need / take for granted. Maybe "biogas" or something will step in and keep the lights on. Enjoy your beer. Although you've probably had too much already? ;) > I'd kind of resigned myself to the the depressing thought that we were > about to run out of oil and descend into chaos, war and the new dark ages. I > read somewhere that we peaked the oil production curve 2 years ago, and it's > downhill from now on, with increasing prices, diminishing resources, and it > would all be over in 20 years time. (shrug) I read somewhere that elvis is still alive. Saw it on tah intarweb so it must be true... > Even if the US started a massive nuclear > plant-building program today, there wouldn't be enough juice to go round. > Apparently. Eh...cite? > I could almost see individual households or even small towns running off > wind power (no shortage of that up here in Scotland) or solar cells or > whatever... but I couldn't figure what would keep all the factories going > that produce all the things we need / take for granted. Maybe "biogas" or > something will step in and keep the lights on. Wind and solar are great augmentation technologies but ya still gotta have enough weather-independant capacity to match your peaks. > Enjoy your beer. Although you've probably had too much already? ;) Hm. Hoping for a nice single-malt Scotch tonight, myself. (shrug) I read somewhere that elvis is still alive. Saw it on tah intarweb so it must be true... (rolls eyes) What do you find so unbelievable? That the black stuff will run out? That we'll reach the point that what's left will be too expensive to get at, or kept by "unfriendly" people?? OK, the internet is full of nonsense and personal opinions (as you can see). But I find a lot of the stuff more believeable than my local, cuddly news presenter or any of our politicians. And another thing - don't adopt that "redneck" tone with me. > Hm. Hoping for a nice single-malt Scotch tonight, myself. Now you're starting to make some sense. >> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:13:21 GMT, Nasty Bob <speedypancake@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out? That we'll reach the point that what's left will be too expensive to > get at, or kept by "unfriendly" people?? No, the part where you backed it up with "I read somewhere" type language. > OK, the internet is full of > nonsense and personal opinions (as you can see). But I find a lot of the > stuff more believeable than my local, cuddly news presenter or any of our > politicians. And another thing - don't adopt that "redneck" tone with me. If you don't like my tone, there's an easy fix, isn't there. You're free to take offense at that if you want; wasn't intended to do such, it's fairly common usage "round these parts" as a way of describing the phenomenon you were exhibiting. (shrug) Your choice. > <Respectfully snipped from a much longer article..;> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that produce all the things we need / take for granted. Maybe "biogas" or > something will step in and keep the lights on. At present we have a very cold spell in England together with no wind and no sunshine. Wake up England and get nuclear going again. > At present we have a very cold spell in England together with no wind and no > sunshine. Wake up England and get nuclear going again. Nuclear is a great answer. Unfortunately, people who "feel" about things rather than "think" about things, stand in the way of getting new nuke plants built. > > At present we have a very cold spell in England together with no wind and no > > sunshine. Wake up England and get nuclear going again. > > Nuclear is a great answer. Unfortunately, people who "feel" about > things rather than "think" about things, stand in the way of getting new > nuke plants built. The thing about nuclear in the UK that puzzles me wrt coverage in the media is that there's this assumption that the *government* will decide if we're to have new nuclear plants. It ain't so. Thatcher's government privatised the electricity generating industry so it's entirely up to private investors to decide how to generate electricity now ! No amount of polticicking will change that. Either nuclear is a good investment or it isn't. Of course, the rules may be changed ! Be interesting to watch this one. Same goes for the USA btw. Graham >> Nuclear is a great answer. Unfortunately, people who "feel" about >> things rather than "think" about things, stand in the way of getting new [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that there's this assumption that the *government* will decide if we're to have > new nuclear plants. Well, they have to approve the permit, right? > It ain't so. Thatcher's government privatised the electricity generating industry > so it's entirely up to private investors to decide how to generate electricity now > ! No amount of polticicking will change that. Either nuclear is a good investment > or it isn't. Oh, the production of energy isn't done by the gummint, of course. But they do approve new plants. Or in the case of nuke, they don't. > Of course, the rules may be changed ! Be interesting to watch this one. > Same goes for the USA btw. See above. > >> Nuclear is a great answer. Unfortunately, people who "feel" about > >> things rather than "think" about things, stand in the way of getting new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, they have to approve the permit, right? Maybe I presented it poorly. The govt here is clearly pro-nuclear now but media coverage appears to assume it's their prerogative to built new nuclear stations when obviously it's actually down to the private sector. > > It ain't so. Thatcher's government privatised the electricity generating industry > > so it's entirely up to private investors to decide how to generate electricity now [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, the production of energy isn't done by the gummint, of course. But > they do approve new plants. Or in the case of nuke, they don't. I don't think it'll be a problem now. Assuming any companies want to build them > > Of course, the rules may be changed ! Be interesting to watch this one. > > Same goes for the USA btw. > > See above. I'm wondering if the govt won't assist by offering to cover liability issues. In any event the technology still has to be commercially viable ! Currently it seems not to be. Graham > I'm wondering if the govt won't assist by offering to cover liability issues. > > In any event the technology still has to be commercially viable ! Currently it seems not to be. Again, this is one of those things I'd rather subsidize (or subsidise if you prefer) in order to get to a point where we can be more energy independant. Thatcher's government privatised the electricity generating industry so it's entirely up to private investors to decide how to generate electricity now ! No amount of polticicking will change that. Either nuclear is a good investmentor it isn't. One problem the nuclear industry has had to face is being in competition with comparitively "cheap" fossil fuel alternatives which made them seem expensive or a bad investment. Of course that is all about to change... > > At present we have a very cold spell in England together with no wind and no > > sunshine. Wake up England and get nuclear going again. > > Nuclear is a great answer. Unfortunately, people who "feel" about > things rather than "think" about things, stand in the way of getting new > nuke plants built. Some so-called environmentalists also dislike wind power on account of the 'loss of amenity'. Nimbys seem to rule these days. Graham >> > At present we have a very cold spell in England together with no wind and no >> > sunshine. Wake up England and get nuclear going again. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Some so-called environmentalists also dislike wind power on account of the 'loss > of amenity'. WTF is _that_? > Nimbys seem to rule these days. Well, nothing new there. Hey wind companies? Wanna put up a tower? I've got 30 acres of hilltop with unubstructed views. > >> > At present we have a very cold spell in England together with no wind and no > >> > sunshine. Wake up England and get nuclear going again. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > WTF is _that_? Typically complaints about noise or the spoilt view. > > Nimbys seem to rule these days. > > Well, nothing new there. Hey wind companies? Wanna put up a tower? > I've got 30 acres of hilltop with unubstructed views. You got the wind too ? Graham >> WTF is _that_? > Typically complaints about noise or the spoilt view. Hm. To me, a wind farm is a beautiful thing. >> > Nimbys seem to rule these days. >> >> Well, nothing new there. Hey wind companies? Wanna put up a tower? >> I've got 30 acres of hilltop with unubstructed views. > You got the wind too ? Yeah, sorry about that, that was me. >> Nimbys seem to rule these days. > > Well, nothing new there. Hey wind companies? Wanna put up a tower? > I've got 30 acres of hilltop with unubstructed views. The only man-made structure I can see to the back of my house is a range of windmills about 3 or 4 miles away. I like them. Close-up, I find them quite awe-inspiring and not at all noisy when running. Yorkshire Electricity (the power company in my area) are one of only a handful of power companies in the UK to pay you, the customer, to feed the national grid with your excess power production. The problem for a home user is the ROI when installing something like a windmill, or solar panels. Between a lack of grants and the palm-greasing down at the local council to get planning approval, erecting a wind turbine is pretty costly. At least solar panels can be stealthily installed :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>Please show me a credible cite showing that "we let all the Bin Ladins >>fly home...". Hint: you can't. Didn't happen. > How about the 9-11 commission as a credible cite? That's a great idea. You should read it before citing it when it contradicts your points, though. > A slew of Saudi > citizens (150?) and 20+ members of the Bin Laden family were allowed > to fly out in the week following 9-11 after cursory interviews by the > FBI. It happened very quietly. It's in the 9-11 Commission report. All > verified facts. If by "verified facts" you mean "completely contradicted by the very report you cite", sure. Here's a link with a good analysis. You're, no doubt, familiar with snopes.com? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp > Read into it what you want, that's a political issue. I think the > Saudi's appreciated it. MHO. I think you should get the facts of what didn't happen before deciding why it happened. >>> But, the Arabian countries don't really sell oil to "us", they sell it >>> to the oil companies who jack the price [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > buy, they are all making obscene profits from jacking prices for > gasoline, fuel oil, and natural gas. You just said the oil companies jack the price. It's right up there a few lines. Now you're saying "Oh, they don't jack the prices, they're profiting". If you'd be so kind as to pick a point and stay with it, that'd be wonderful. >>So give money to the farmers instead, Bob. That's my freaking point. > Not bad... but there has to be a better reason than paying them not to > grow things. Bloody f.cking hell. I'm saying to have them _grow crops for biofuels_, Bob. My bringing up the unused farmland was me showing that it's unused capacity that's waiting to be used. > There has to be a valid market and products. Don't expect > the current administration of ex- and current oil company executives > to be pushing alternate fuel development (again, not a political > statement, just a factual observation - it ain't gonna happen). Maybe you should punch the following into google and educate yourself: bush biofuels It's obvious you don't like anything to do with the oil industry. That's fine, that's your choice. But it sounds like your decisions are at least somewhat based on completely wrong information in some cases, and outright ignorance in others. >>>Please show me a credible cite showing that "we let all the Bin Ladins >>>fly home...". Hint: you can't. Didn't happen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's a great idea. You should read it before citing it when it >contradicts your points, though. It confirms exactly what I said - that the Saudi's were quietly allowed to exit the country after light FBI interviews. I'm not sure why you say it contradicts what I said. Go back and read my post. However, I do concede to a typo in my first post where I said "fly home before they got their a.s kicked on 9-11" What I should have said was "fly home before they got their a.s kicked after 9-11". Obviously they did not fly on 9-11 and I don't know of anyone who has alleged that. There are those that have alleged that they flew out before flights out were allowed and I haven't seen any evidence of that. I have seen that they were given some nice personal treatment by the head of the NSC (and that BS about the Pres and Vice Pres not being aware of what the head of the NSC head was doing is nonsense). That personal treatment certainly made them happy as I suggested in my original post. >I think you should get the facts of what didn't happen before deciding >why it happened. It was still preferential and custom treatment by the head of the NSC with the knowledge of the President to help them get home fast. Read the report you cited. >You just said the oil companies jack the price. It's right up there a >few lines. Now you're saying "Oh, they don't jack the prices, they're >profiting". If you'd be so kind as to pick a point and stay with it, >that'd be wonderful. I don't see any difference and I am not changing points. They are buying and selling oil and making record profits. We are getting screwed at the pump. Call it jacking, call it profiteering, it's the same thing in my book. >It's obvious you don't like anything to do with the oil industry. >That's fine, that's your choice. But it sounds like your decisions are >at least somewhat based on completely wrong information in some cases, >and outright ignorance in others. If you buy the political posturing by Bush concerning alternate fuels, so be it. Wanna buy a bridge ? >>That's a great idea. You should read it before citing it when it >>contradicts your points, though. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they did not fly on 9-11 and I don't know of anyone who has alleged > that. Maybe you could quote me the part of the report that you think says what you're saying, because I've read the parts I think you refer to several times and they seem not to back up your claims. > There are those that have alleged that they flew out before > flights out were allowed and I haven't seen any evidence of that. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > personal treatment certainly made them happy as I suggested in my > original post. Severe backpedal noted. >>You just said the oil companies jack the price. It's right up there a >>few lines. Now you're saying "Oh, they don't jack the prices, they're >>profiting". If you'd be so kind as to pick a point and stay with it, >>that'd be wonderful. > > I don't see any difference and I am not changing points. This is tiresome. > They are > buying and selling oil and making record profits. We are getting > screwed at the pump. Call it jacking, call it profiteering, it's the > same thing in my book. THEY DON'T SET THE PRICES. >>It's obvious you don't like anything to do with the oil industry. >>That's fine, that's your choice. But it sounds like your decisions are >>at least somewhat based on completely wrong information in some cases, >>and outright ignorance in others. > If you buy the political posturing by Bush concerning alternate fuels, > so be it. Wanna buy a bridge ? See what I mean? Your type won't even be happy when he does something right. So what part of "develop the biofuels infrastructure within the US so we can give less money to Arabic countries" do you disagree with, specifically, Bob? Can you answer that without more distortions, deceptions, and bias? > So what part of "develop the biofuels infrastructure within the US so we > can give less money to Arabic countries" do you disagree with, > specifically, Bob? Did you see GWB's State of the Union speech ? I got pissed off by the whining about 9/11 and the claim yet again that Iraq had something to do with it but when I came back...... I was gobsmacked that he said the USA has to get off it's dependency on oil and announced funds for research into alternative fuels including the aim to make ethanol 'commercially viable' within 6 yrs. Graham >> So what part of "develop the biofuels infrastructure within the US so we >> can give less money to Arabic countries" do you disagree with, >> specifically, Bob? > Did you see GWB's State of the Union speech ? I got pissed off by the whining > about 9/11 and the claim yet again that Iraq had something to do with it but > when I came back...... Quotes? I didn't see him blaming Iraq for 9/11, but I was doing two other things. > I was gobsmacked that he said the USA has to get off it's dependency on oil > and announced funds for research into alternative fuels including the aim to > make ethanol 'commercially viable' within 6 yrs. I wasn't surprised by that in the least, because I don't automatically assume the worst about the guy and his intentions. And yet there are undoubtedly people who will characterize it as nothing much - just like they don't give him credit for his other accomplishments. It gets tiresome. >Maybe you could quote me the part of the report that you think says what >you're saying, because I've read the parts I think you refer to several >times and they seem not to back up your claims. Read the report. Don't miss the footnotes. I'm not your librarian. >Severe backpedal noted. It isn't a backpedel. It was a typo. That's clear if you read the report (above) and my intention is clear since my statement is based on the report. >> I don't see any difference and I am not changing points. > >This is tiresome. Whatever. >THEY DON'T SET THE PRICES. No, not at all. I hear pump prices are controlled by Elvis. >See what I mean? Your type won't even be happy when he does something >right. He's a politician. Read between the lines. Go look at the Energy Bill and tell me how it splits *my* money between oil companies and alternative energy. >So what part of "develop the biofuels infrastructure within the US so we >can give less money to Arabic countries" do you disagree with, >specifically, Bob? Can you answer that without more distortions, >deceptions, and bias? I can, but I won't. I have no need to engage in a long winded argument over this. I have a life, it's full of pretty women, and I'd rather spend my time emailing one of them that arguing with you about reality. >>Maybe you could quote me the part of the report that you think says what >>you're saying, because I've read the parts I think you refer to several >>times and they seem not to back up your claims. > > Read the report. Don't miss the footnotes. I'm not your librarian. I have. You made a claim that doesn't seem to be backed up by the report. I'm asking what part of the report you think backs up your claim. Seems to me the burdon of proof is on the person making the original claim, not on the person challenging it. >>Severe backpedal noted. > It isn't a backpedel. It was a typo. That's clear if you read the > report (above) and my intention is clear since my statement is based > on the report. If you say so. >>> I don't see any difference and I am not changing points. >> >>This is tiresome. > > Whatever. >>THEY DON'T SET THE PRICES. > > No, not at all. I hear pump prices are controlled by Elvis. The oil companies don't set oil prices, any more than the place you buy gold or silver or any other commodity from, sets _those_ prices. The market determines the price, not the vendors. It's not a tough concept. >>See what I mean? Your type won't even be happy when he does something >>right. > He's a politician. Read between the lines. Go look at the Energy Bill > and tell me how it splits *my* money between oil companies and > alternative energy. I'm not your librarian. Do your own homework. >>So what part of "develop the biofuels infrastructure within the US so we >>can give less money to Arabic countries" do you disagree with, >>specifically, Bob? Can you answer that without more distortions, >>deceptions, and bias? > I can, but I won't. I have no need to engage in a long winded argument > over this. I have a life, it's full of pretty women, and I'd rather > spend my time emailing one of them that arguing with you about > reality. That's fine - enjoy your private reality. Good luck when it happens to intersect with the one the rest of us are in. > I can, but I won't. I have no need to engage in a long winded argument > over this. I have a life, it's full of pretty women, and I'd rather > spend my time emailing one of them that arguing with you about > reality. A bit to late for that now... Signature-Fred W >I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead of >false cliché's. If you wanted to identify were most of the US oil >originates, it would be the Americas, not the Arab world. Walt, if you keep introducing facts into this you are going to piss off those propaganda mills that run elections with rumor and false facts presented so many times that people believe them. > Walt, if you keep introducing facts into this you are going to piss > off those propaganda mills that run elections with rumor and false > facts presented so many times that people believe them. Thank you for the advice; just doing my part. I'm glad to see someone has a sense of humor here. >>I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead of >>false cliché's. If you wanted to identify were most of the US oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off those propaganda mills that run elections with rumor and false > facts presented so many times that people believe them. He's introducing this "fact" in response to a statement that I neither made nor alluded to. (shrug) He's arguing with made-up points. I don't play that game. > > Please answer truthfully, let's hope this helps to ensure that the Saab > > Biopower becomes available. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a token gesture they'd produce a solar/plug-in/hybrid/biodiesel. But of > course they don't. Electric/hybrid isn't suitable for large fast cars. Poor power density. Graham |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.