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

["jonheese" <jonheese@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "timnagin" <timnagin@...> wrote:
> >At what cost? Seems to me that the benefits aren't all that great.
> I don't know; you tell me.  That is what I am wondering.

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

> >What goal are we trying to accomplish by reducing dependency on
> >foreign oil?
> I see it as keeping jobs in the US and being self-sufficient, without
> getting into politics.

No offense, but who cares?  Every country in the world exports and
imports all manner of things, including money, energy, jobs, etc.  No
one will never be totally independent of every other nation, and why
would we want to be?  Do we want to be some huge fortress on a hill
that never lets anything in or out?  I personally don't have any
interest in investing money or land in this goal.

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

> >I never meant to imply that we couldn't be independent of foreign oil.
> >I just don't think domestic drilling is the "answer". It's a
> >pathetic band-aid. Yeah, okay, it has its upsides, but it's more like
> >a back pocket idea. We should be focusing on alternate energy
> >sources, not just where we're going to get our next petroleum fix.
> >
> >I want to solve the energy problem, not just make gas cheaper.
> 
> Domestic drilling would be a significant start, wouldn't it?  If it
is true
> oil is a renewable energy source then why not use it?  I am all for
finding
> new energy sources but I don't see a problem with this one.  What energy
> "problem" are you referring to?

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

See my other post about the renewable nature and significant negative
impact of fossil fuels.

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

> >Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Flex-fuel vehicles (like my
> >old Taurus and my new Tahoe) are dual-fuel vehicles. Engineers don't
> >sit down at a clean drawing board when they design those engines,
> >because at the end of the day, they still have to run on regular old
> >gasoline. They take an existing engine, give it a computer smart
> >enough to "taste" the difference between the two fuels (and any
> >continuously variable mixture of the two) and fuel components hardy
> >enough to take the rigors of E85. It's a compromise, it's not optimal
> >for E85-efficiency.
> >
> >It was my understanding that Bob was referring to engines that could
> >be physically designed from scratch to be optimized to running E85
> >ONLY. I don't doubt that these kinds of engines could be more
> >efficient that regular gas engines (but I don't actually know, just
> >trying to clarify what I thought Bob was saying).
> 
> I guess I don't understand what you are saying then.  An engine that
can run
> on E85 can run on just ethanol or just gasoline, from my
understanding.  My
> understanding is that ethanol itself is less efficient, so if an engine
> using just ethanol was as efficient as a gasoline engine, then running
> gasoline in that engine would make it more efficient.  Again, I am not
> completely sure about this.

Yeah, I don't really know what I'm talking about here either. :)

I was just guessing as to Bob's meaning is his comment about
E85-optimized engines.  I'm certain he is well aware of flex-fuel
engine technology.

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

> >Huh? Are we maybe talking about two different things here? I heard
> >electric vehicles, solar, wind, photovoltaics and nuclear. Where did
> >E85 come in?
> Ok, I forgot to add in the other sources.

Eh, no big deal.  I got it.

> >But in answer to your question, yes, E85 (and energy storage for the
> >other technologies I was talking about) is currently transported the
> >same old way, which contributes to atmospheric carbon and fossil fuel
> >dependency. But surely that doesn't lessen the value or necessity of
> >the concepts themselves. In my mind, it raises it. A paradigm shift
> >to clean(er) energy sources will take care of its own manufacturing,
> >shipping, etc. dirtiness.
> 
> I could accept that as a possibility.  However, it is also true that
> switching to anything like this is going to have more of a negative
> environmental impact until it fully changes over, if the change over is
> proven better for the environment.  In other words, it's ok to
damage the
> environment more as long as the end result is better on the
environment.  We
> can project all we want but we truly will not know until it happens.

So you don't think that that attitude is cutting off your nose despite
your face?

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

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

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

Does that make sense?

Regards,
Jon Heese




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

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

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

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

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