Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Less oil? GOOD!

Alaska - BP said Monday it discovered corrosion so severe that it will have to replace 16 miles of pipeline at the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field — work that could shut down the nation's single biggest source of domestic crude for months and drive gasoline prices even higher.
I say, great! The less carbon that's being pumped out of the ground, the less will be burned and pumped into our atmosphere, the more incentive people have to conserve.

Democrats want to make an issue about this. They want people to be pissed off and demand lower gas prices, while somehow also demanding that we curb carbon emissions. You can't have it both ways, people.

Now, there is a problem when tax incentives and subsidies for alternative power sources are killed and when electric cars and plug-in hybrids are stymied by the auto/oil lobby in our government. If you are using less gas, but being impeded from using something else, then the economy suffers. The people have to take some things into their own hands.

Check out:

Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away.

Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.
"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."
Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.
Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations.

"They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially."

And that's exactly right. You hear about "The Hydrogen Economy" but where's the hydrogen going to come from? At first from natural gas. The carbon still is released into the atmosphere as CO2. Why not build natural gas cars? (I'm not suggesting it really. Im just pointing out that it's all bullshit.) They have buses that run on it. You don't mine or drill for hydrogen, you have to make hydrogen, and it takes energy to reduce it to the molecular form. Where's that energy going to come from? Anyway, just remember that the Hydrogen Economy is a billion dollar ruse. It's meant to distract people for a decade while fuel emissions standards stagnate.

Meanwhile, less oil is coming out of the ground. The motivations may be 'sinister' and profit driven, but I don't care. Just keep that crap in the ground and out of the atmosphere.


Blogger Lazaro74 said...

My sentiments exactly. It helps a little that I don't have a car, but I'd probably feel this way even if I was still driving.

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? is playing at the local theatre this week and I'll probably go see it; should be interesting.

8/08/2006 2:27 PM  
Blogger beervolcano said...

I think there really wasn't much of a market for it in the 90s. Now, why they didn't let the test market subjects keep or buy their cars is beyond me.

8/08/2006 6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home