[jhfsdhf]

Basically it would mean in 13 years the US would catch up to the standards the rest of the world already achieve today. If anything its a bit to modest but still a large improvement.

Let's hope Bush doesn't once again attempt to block progress.

[Michael-jeckson2]

The reality is this is the single most intelligent thing we can do right now. Reducing our consumption of foreign oil decreases global warming, improves America's balance of trade, improves our national security, and most importantly means we won't be giving as much money to foreign dictatorships some of whom want to kill us. It's a no brainer with nothing but positive effects for both our nation and the world.

[OgrGlgHu]

Doubt it. More like 12-15.

Still, it makes the point that the automotive industry never bothers to make progress on fuel economy or emissions unless the government forces them. It's about time for America to get a pro-active government in place so we can start dealing with the back log of problems Bush & Co have allowed to pile up.

[bensabath]

It's a fungible commodity. Reducing American consuption effects prices every where so it will have an impact on middle eastern producers.

[Konservir]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's a fungible commodity. Reducing American consuption effects prices every where so it will have an impact on middle eastern producers. I am talking purely from the point of strategic oil supplies.

If the price increases you'd soon find that alternative energy sources would be used more - so there is still no great concern from a strategic point of view to swap now. Additionaly oil suppliers don't want high oil prices as they would lose out in the long term as people move to cheaper alternatives.

[fenter1]

Originally posted by PLATO
Hydrogen fuel cells are ready now. If anybody had any real desire to do so, we could be off gasoline as a fuel very easily in the next 13 years. hydrogen fuel cells are still horribly expensive, and the hydrogen still needs to come from hydrocarbons....

What we could do right now is have completely viable electric cars to replace most of the internal combustion fleet of passenger vehicles (work vehicles and trucks being the main exception). Yes, the additional electricity needs to come from somewhere, so you still get burning fossil fuels, but it would cut inner city smog. Not going to happen because electric cars need less parts, overall less maintenance, and the whole fuel delivery system (fuel pumps and stations and such) would disappear, but still, electric is a far better alternative to fuel cells.

[Soresbox]

Isn't there some concern about hydrogen cells making global warming *worse* because of the fact that they release a very potent global warming exhaust - water vapor?

[botagozzz]

Plant things.

[wowwieholmes]

Fuel cells are not ready for prime time yet, but, IIRC, there were some recent advancements a couple of weeks back that looked like they will make it a lot more practical.

[pymnConyelell]

I thought it was self-apparent. Silly me.

[Crilosajsamq]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


But what about the actual energy problem? What do you mean?

[Idonnaink]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


What do you mean? Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a method of storing energy. He is asking where will the ultimate (renewable) source come from?

[colmedindustry]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a method of storing energy. He is asking where will the ultimate (renewable) source come from? PLATO already said nuclear and I agree. Not renewable but it will last for at least a century or two.

[jokilewqs]

Much more then a century or two.

[gymnAnemoe]

The supply is essentially unlimited since both breeder and fast breeder reactors produce both energy and plutonium. Not to mention we "spent" nuclear fuel still has 90% of its energy left so if we started recycling it, the way the French already do & what the Japanese plan on doing in 10 years, then we once again have several thousand years worth of fuel. The problem is it is currently cheaper to buy new fuel then to bother recycling but that is simply a matter of proper government regulation.

Recycling & use of breeder reactors is good on another level too because it means virtually no long term waste problem. There simply isn't a problem.

http://www.potentialenergyuk.com/?p=47
http://science-community.sciam.com/t...adID=300004045

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Doubt it. More like 12-15.

Still, it makes the point that the automotive industry never bothers to make progress on fuel economy or emissions unless the government forces them. It's about time for America to get a pro-active government in place so we can start dealing with the back log of problems Bush & Co have allowed to pile up. Not to defend Bush & Co. but the backlog was there before they ever got into office.

ACK!

[AriaDesser]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22048959/

As predicted Republicans are acting against America's best interests and the best interests of the world.

[new-nickname-zanovo]

Personally, I think we should expand our rail service tremendously, ease auto and air travel problems. Hell, in Europe and Japan they have trains that go 250+ mph!

ACK!

[lisualsethelp]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Amtrack should show signs of profitability before we talk about expansion. You cannot starve a company to success. The reality is mass transit becomes viable only when it is fast, safe, affordable, and connects enough locations which consumers want to go to.

The same is true with cars. Without the investment in interstates and freeways they become much less useful. Build the network and people will use it; don't and they won't. It's that simple.

Originally posted by BlackCat


Maybe they need to improve performance to be able to show signs of profitability. OMG! Blackcat said something intelligent, meaningful, and on topic!

[HonestSean]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ethanol is a great idea but not if we're using corn to produce it. If we do use corn then it is stupid because we use more oil to produce the corn then we save by making ethanol. Republicans want to buy votes in fly over country so they raise this red herring and keep the tariff on sugar unreasonably high.

If we really wanted to reduce oil consumption we'd stop subsidizing useless corn production and start importing sugar cain from Latin America and Africa then use that sugar to make ethanol. THAT is how you make ethanol which actually produces more energy then it uses. Where's the subsidy to US farmers in that? You really haven't thought about this have you?