well with the highest percentage of poor people and those on disability, we shouldn't need cars that much longer as the "cattle" population increases
LEMONT, Ill. — President Barack Obama is pushing Congress to authorize $200 million a year for research into clean energy technologies that can wean automobiles off oil.
Obama proposed the idea of an energy security trust last month in his State of the Union address, but he was putting a price tag on the idea during a trip Friday to the Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago — $2 billion over 10 years. The White House said the research would be paid for with revenue from federal oil and gas leases on offshore drilling and would not add to the deficit.
The money would fund research on "breakthrough" technologies such as batteries for electric cars and biofuels made from switch grass or other materials. Researchers also would look to improve use of natural gas as a fuel for cars and trucks.
White House officials said the president's proposal would not require expansion of drilling to federal lands or water where it is now prohibited. Instead, they are counting on increased production from existing sites, along with efficiencies from an administration plan to streamline drilling permits. The government collects more than $6 billion a year in royalties from production on federal lands and waters.
Obama's push for the energy trust came as the Environmental Protection Agency released a new report Friday indicating that fuel economy standards rose last year by 1.4 miles per gallon — the largest annual increase since EPA started keeping track. The agency said the improvement was due to better availability of high-performing cars and more options for consumers.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggested that rather than encouraging research on fuel-efficient cars, the government should focus on making diverse fuels more available and improving transportation infrastructure.
Argonne is one of the Energy Department's largest national laboratories for scientific and engineering research, staffed by more than 1,250 scientists and engineers. White House officials said it was chosen as the site of the president's speech because of its tradition of research into vehicle technologies.....snip~
Obama wants research to wean vehicles off oil - Americas - Stripes
By MATTHEW DALY and NEDRA PICKLER The Associated Press <<<<<More here!
We did hear Obama say about taking care of infrastructure. So why isn't he listening to the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers on that point. I don't have a problem with Government State, local, and Fed, moving their Vehicles to natural gas. Anybody else? Thoughts?
well with the highest percentage of poor people and those on disability, we shouldn't need cars that much longer as the "cattle" population increases
Most "poor" people can afford to own a car and lots of people on "disability" are just carpet bagging because their unemployment ran out.
Yeah I know.....I was thinking of investing in some of these.....figured it would helps out with the Obesity problem they say we have too.
Support our troops - Ride a bike!!!!
"an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." - John McCain
Yeah I support the troops.....but now support my investment and give Teenage kids a job. :mrgreen:
Actually I am a machinist and I was making a joke. But for your
information electric motors use ball bearings, at least the larger ones that one would used for a EV. Bushings are used in smaller motors usually though it depends on the manufacturer and duty rating.
The controller for a electric motor is more likely to need replaced long before the actual motor. But electric motors are not magic they indeed wear out. Bearings wear out the field coil heats up every time that the motor is on eventually making the motor less efficient. Then theres the batteries they are the main thing holding bake EV's. If it were not for the battery problem (and its a huge problem) I would have already converted my vehicles over to electric. I would love to have a electric motor in my truck I could use that kind of torque. But I looked into it and the conversation was cost about $40k 80% of that would be batteries that last a relatively short time. Much less time than a gasoline engine.
And well I never bought a new vehicle and never will I do all of my own mechanic work including machine work on the block etc. ANd That part you added about rust is quite comical really since there are farm tractor and hit-and-miss engines dating back to when engines were first invented that still run. All mechanical objects wear out though. Lol but if you take care of them they can last a good amount of time. My metal lathe for example was made in 1910 and its still going strong. The motor though that it came with died long before I owned it.
Why are people so insistent on electric vehicles ?
Honestly, there is not a comparable CLEAN electric option that matches up to a gasoline or diesel engine.
Modern day electric motors are ECM motors, and the battery power to make that car equate to a comparable gasoline powered vehicle is first expensive and second very destructive to our environment.
Its the same with solar. Its not practical, its expensive and the ROI on your average whole home set-up is 15 to 20 years.
Thats with a Inverter that has a 15 year warranty on it and panels that have a 15 year warranty on them.
Its just dumb.
The electric car is lesser expensive option for the majority of commuters and is cleaner, over the lifetime of the vehicle.
You don't need a storage system for a
hybrid electrical system that can cut your power bills in half and the payback is only 5 - 8 years. The warranty is for 25 years on my
inverter and PV panels.
The electric car is lesser expensive option for the majority of commuters and is cleaner, over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Profit is an artificial concept that limits which benefits of a given endeavor we care about and which ones we don't. Usually it just comes down to who it benefits and who it doesn't. Also, your hypothetical is extremely limited in its scope. Money is merely the exchange rate between labor and resources. It's a concept just as artificial as profit. The actual solvency of a society is based simply on how much work needs to be done to keep it functioning (and improving). So long as that amount is less than the work that your society can do, you're solvent. Profit is not required, nor is the accumulation of wealth. Especially not the accumulation of vast wealth by a small minority at the expense of everyone else.
Nothing as necessary as energy is never going to be profitable, even by antiquated, plutocratic, capitalist sensibilities. Whichever the most effective and efficient form of power, that's the one people will want, and that's the one that will be most profitable. Zoom out beyond dollar signs, and you'll see that whichever form of power means best return on labor and resources is the best. As the resource dwindles, like any non-renewable energy source (including oil) will, that ratio drops.
But let's just take the simple answer. What possible evidence could you have to suggest that renewable energy sources, or at least cleaner and longer lasting ones than oil, can never be profitable?
That's just not true. It's far cheaper in all aspects and cleaner over the lifetime to buy an used diesel and run it SVO/WVO/B80. No changes in infrastructure needed (and those cost carbon). And we can further exploit the tech we've already spent 100 years perfecting.
If you want to go the extra mile, start replacing all the fluid oils with jojoba or some other alternative that was fully developed and paid for 40 years ago.
I've not seen a cheaper way to produce your own power, what you got?Ive seen some of the hybrid systems and I dont get it. There are better ways to cut down on your usage than getting into solar.
Maximizing the R value of the envelope of your home and installing a 2 stage high Seer AC unit with high efficiency appliances is far more practical and cost effective.
There is very little about a hybrid car that is " clean ". The production and disposal of the battery packs is very environmentally destructive.
I was referring to new car purchase options. And compare which one contributes most to global warming! You are ignoring that completely.
Cheaper and cleaner that way too. You can buy brand new diesel vehicles that will run SVO/WVO/B80 right off the showroom floor. Or if you need a van or truck, directly from the factory. You're not stuck with the inefficiencies of electric vehicles (range per charge, inefficiency of the engine).
And we've already seen a diesel vehicle running SVO/WVO/B80 contributes less pollution than the electric vehicle. You're on your own with the AGW crap.
I've not seen a cheaper way to produce your
own power, what you got?
That was part of my passive solar design, but does not produce power as a hybrid PV system will. What home system produces power more cheaply than a hybrid PV system?
That is why more research is needed. See the OP. But that doesn't negate the fact that electric cars have zero CO2 emission in use, so are not contributing to our worst environmental problem.
The choice comes down to comparitive cost over time.
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?
Why are people so insistent on electric vehicles ?
Honestly, there is not a comparable CLEAN electric option that matches up to a gasoline or diesel engine.
Modern day electric motors are ECM motors, and the battery power to make that car equate to a comparable gasoline powered vehicle is first expensive and second very destructive to our environment.
Its the same with solar. Its not practical, its expensive and the ROI on your average whole home set-up is 15 to 20 years.
Thats with a Inverter that has a 15 year warranty on it and panels that have a 15 year warranty on them.
Its just dumb.
Were you really unaware we give the oil companies a $41 billion dollar subsidy each year?
Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com
The article confiscates a tax break with a subsidy. A subsidy is money paid by the government for a particular purpose. A tax break is a credit against the amount owed due to a specific reason like having to pay a tax to a foreign country for production in that country.
Tomato/tomato.
The subsidy in question is a tax break (first introduced in 1926), and is what is being considered to be discontinued.
"The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.
Introduced in 1926, the oil depletion allowance was restricted in 1975 to independent oil companies that don't refine or import oil. To make up for this, the larger, integrated companies were given the intangible drilling cost deduction, which in some ways is even better."
Corporate Welfare Oil and Gas Tax Breaks