digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

All-Electric Truck Costs $3 for Full Charge w/ 100Mile Range

popularmechanics.com — Since commercial delivery trucks run similar routes every day and return to the same spot after all the work is done, they can charge overnight. A plug-in hauler like this one (which could hit 200-mile range soon) might be a model for cutting greenhouse gases worldwide

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pyroyetti420, on 07/11/2008, -1/+26its about time the world realized that most driving excursions are less than 100 miles and a truck like this could save alot of money in fuel costs. Having said that I'll be driving home in a truck myself......alone.......no carpool. Hipocrits ftw!!!!
    • Lawrencesss, on 07/12/2008, -6/+2Digg user with no friends ftw.
    • sanman, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Electric motors work most efficiently under load, so having them show up first in heavier vehicles like trucks, buses, etc makes the most sense. Those are also the vehicles that guzzle the most gas, too. If you look at the latest cryogenically-cooled electric motors in newer ocean-going ships, you'll be amazed at how much smaller they are and how much space they save.
  • RegularJohn, on 07/11/2008, -2/+15I think the gas giants would argue a bit with this post. Surprise it hasn't been burried yet, with all the digg censorship discussions that've been going out lately..
  • cheezintern, on 07/12/2008, -11/+5100 miles is nothing for a delivery truck, maybe if it never left Manhattan it'd be usable. Plus the kind of wear and tear put on most daily delivery trucks would be no match for the batteries and components. They should stick with electric cars for commuters.
    • Jenadae, on 07/12/2008, -0/+14If you didn't read theres only a few parts of the truck that are changed out, otherwise its a normal Isuzu cargo truck...
      • owls27, on 07/12/2008, -4/+2No, Cheez is right. Just wait come repair time. And finding the mechanic to fix it? Sheez.
      • SoulDesigner, on 07/12/2008, -0/+11fix what - you realise that an electric motor lasts for years without any maintenance yes?
        No spark plugs
        No air filter / fuel filter
        No Oil changes
        Regen breaking saves wear and tear on the regular brakes too.

        As far as maintenance goes, electric vehicles are far cheaper to run than ICE counterparts.
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5What repair issues? What wear and tear? Electric motors have just one moving part. EV motors can last decades with no maintenance issues whatsoever. The motor used here doesn't even have brushes (the only wear item on a DC motor.)
  • jboitnott, on 07/12/2008, -0/+16The encouraging thing at present is that we are seeing stories like this day after day which show that people are coming up with inventions, modifications and innovations that may take us straight out of the need for $147-a-barrel oil. It can't happen soon enough.
  • veduvaru, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3that's cheep
  • claycollins, on 07/12/2008, -12/+24George Bush will probably outlaw it.
    • twomeyw23334, on 07/12/2008, -2/+1$10,000 says he won't. Any takers!?
    • phantom_mullet, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1Clearly, we must stop these evildoers.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1The oil companies are going to have to realize that at some point they're going to need to convert all those gas stations to recharging stations or they're going to go the way of the horse and bugy. They've probably already got the plans all set but are waiting for the maximum profit margin.

      While this is fantastic news, I'd love to see somebody figuring out a way to retrofit all the cars we have on the road now.
  • webaddict, on 07/12/2008, -0/+7What's so great about this is to finally find a commercial application for electric technology that can be mass produced.
  • avnerlevit, on 07/12/2008, -5/+1its too good to be true.
    • twomeyw23334, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1if it were too good to be true the battery wouldn't cost $50,000.
  • Red1Delta, on 07/12/2008, -3/+8Don't mind me being off-topic here but I just realized I don't have to type a captcha to add a comment anymore!!!
  • Gojirra, on 07/12/2008, -0/+7Since (Regular Cars) run similar routes every day and return to the same spot after all the work is done, they can charge overnight. Give us electric cars damn it!
  • idc5, on 07/12/2008, -1/+13I can't wait until the day where gasoline powered cars are considered obsolete.
  • iie.wakarimasen, on 07/12/2008, -5/+1but will it blend?
  • grneye53, on 07/12/2008, -6/+1Not to throw a damper on the party , what about all the electricity being used now for all us online not to mention all the appliances where is all that coming from we have a problem and I'm all for something better but electric the real answer
    • Thousand, on 07/12/2008, -0/+7The power is coming from off-peak current, which is normally wasted. The thing about electrical generators (coal plants, nukes, hydroelectric) is that you can't turn them off when everyone goes home at night, so they're constantly running. This means that they're outputting power at night just as effectively as they are during the day, yet it's not being tapped nearly as much, meaning most of it is wasted. Charge the truck at night, and you're using power that would otherwise be generated for no reason.

      Electricity is cheap, it only gets expensive when you're taxing the system with demand spikes.
    • h4ppydotcom, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5Hydro, Solar, Wind, even Nuclear. There are lots of ways to produce electricity that don't (a) consume hydrocarboons or (b) produce large quantities of polluting gas. Of course, the nuclear question is a whole can of worms but there are alternatives.
    • Gemfinder, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Punctuation much?
  • RokkaMan, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5$126000...
    • jman583, on 07/12/2008, -4/+3Gas: $15,000 per month
      $15,000 x 12 x 10 years = $180,000...

      And use commas next time.
      • NSkram, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5"And the typical monthly gas or diesel fuel bill for a truck could range from $1200 to $1800, if you include oil changes and assume 100 miles driven per business day."

        $1,800 Per Month x 12 Month's = $21,600 Per Year x 10 Years = $216,000

        IDK where you came up with $15k a month but even then by your estimation of it would be upwards of $1.8 Million

        Pay attention to the article next time.
      • RokkaMan, on 07/12/2008, -2/+3$50,000 for a battery pack that's obviously not going to last 10 years? Use common sense next time, moron.
    • Pusod, on 07/12/2008, -3/+2i now right! as if we can go to a dealer and purchase this right now. this stupid and expensive truck is irrelevant in my life. I would rather slowly pay $5-$8 a gallon for the next 10 years than pay $126000 all at once!

      "But you're not wasting our precious natural resources and polluting the planet!" said the manufacturer.


      //picks up a baseball bat
    • york2600, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3It's 100,000 more than the standard model

      Electric costs per year:: $780 per year ($3 full charge x 5 day work week x 52 weeks)
      Diesel costs per year: $10504 (diesel gets 12mpg = 8.33 gallons to go 100mi) (8.33 gallons @ $4.85/gal * 5 day work week * 52 weeks)

      Savings per year = $9724.13
      Savings over lifespan of batteries = $97241.30

      In ten years you could swap the batteries out for a smaller cost than the $50,000 they cost now. This is also assuming that gas / electricity costs stay at current levels. I imagine gas prices will continue to climb at much higher rates than electricity. The diesel price is the Oregon state average price from AAA.


    • Gemfinder, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Exactly. How much do you spend in diesel per year?
      Also, bigger picture: it's been found that diesel fumes cause more breathing maladies than gasoline or ethanol fumes do and trucks pollute more than cars do. How much does pulmonary medical care cost to the citizenry each year?
      The batteries are lithium. Not a renewable resource, but it's more efficient and inert. Hydrocarbons cause sickness, it's time to leave them behind.
      The best news is, once it's been thoroughly tested in the business sector, the technology will be streamlined, the cost will come down, and they'll make it available to the general public for private transports.
  • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 07/12/2008, -2/+5$126,000... and the question is "what's the total cost of ownership?". What is the usable life of that $50,000 worth of lithium polymer batteries? Not that cost is the only factor to consider. The environment counts. BUT the cost of the batteries would help to put that $3 recharge into its proper perspective.
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3100 miles per day, 5 days per week, for ten years (stated life of battery pack) is 260,000 miles.

      $50,000 divided by 260,000 miles is 19 cents/mile. Added to the 3 cents/mile electricity cost, that's 22 cents/mile.

      With gasoline at $4.25/gallon, this is the equivalent of getting 19 miles to the gallon. Not very special for a car, but that's a pretty good per-mile cost for a truck like this.

      Plus, all other maintenance is now much cheaper. No oil changes, filters, fluids, plugs, tuneups, etc. Electric motors have just one moving part, no wear items (aside from bearings), and can last decades with no service issues.

      Electric wins TCO hands down.
      • Gemfinder, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1If you equip it with a solar trickle-charger on the roof, you save even more and the vehicle moves closer to if not outright becomes completely self-sufficient. Add another PV panel on the roof of your garage or carport and you pretty much have the homebase covered.
        I'm going to watch for solar-powered electric vehicle access plugs to pop up like mushrooms, then I'm converting to electric. If they can convert a box van they can convert an SUV. Entrepreneurs?
      • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Hey, thanks for the info!

        That's pretty good. Certainly in the right ballpark, cost wise.
  • Disjunto, on 07/12/2008, -6/+2Plug in vehicles are not going to help the environment. Just put more load on the power station, which will need to burn more coal, pumping more crap into the air.
    • fadeout, on 07/12/2008, -0/+8Electricity doesn't have to come from coal, chief! About 40% of the electricity in my grid is already hydro and nuclear and I live in a flyover state that isn't exactly cutting edge. Some of our hydro plants are 50 years old.

      An electric economy powered by renewal resources and nuclear power is probably the way of the future.
      • owls27, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2Right but in a a few years, well be yelling at "those big electric companies" If theres money to be made, they'll make it.
      • septicmadman, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3Public owned utilities are thus a necessity. The fact that'd we all yell shows a need for localization.
    • h4ppydotcom, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5I seem to remember someone saying to me that power generation is more efficient at large scale. It is, therefore, better to produce electricity in one place than to have millions of micro-generators (i.e. engines).
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+4Except they do help the environment, and studies repeatedly show this. Example:

      http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
      actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...

      "...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles."


      There's also plenty of off-peak electricity to go around:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 ...

      Mileage From Megawatts: Study Finds Enough Electric Capacity To 'Fill Up' Plug-in Vehicles

      "Science Daily — If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics."
  • desertDenizen, on 07/12/2008, -3/+4Godless HIPPIES stay away from our TRUCKS! Next you'll want to force REAL Americans to electricityicize our BASS BOATS!

    /sarcasm
  • jamada88, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1It actually costs LESS than the normal truck if you do it right...
    "The Zero Truck can be leased for seven years at $1900 a month, for example.
    And the cost to charge one of the EV haulers is about $3 off-peak."

    The normal truck lease is $900 per month but then there's also the monthly
    gas or diesel fuel bill for that truck and that adds an other $1200 to $1800 for the same mileage...

    So, at the end of the month you save $140 to $740 every single month!
    So you better lease one for your business.
    • owls27, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2I wonder what insurance companies will charge to insure one of those $180,000 truck! There goes those savings!
      • SoulDesigner, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2yeah, I think there would be thieves targetting the battery packs also so hopefully they have thought about that.
      • trippinlikegod, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Liability insurance has nothing to do with the value of your own vehicle, it's based on state minimum / recommended coverage levels in case you do damage to the property of someone else. As far as collision insurance big heavy work trucks are not as much as you would think mainly because regardless of their worth they are basically indestructible. Large farm equipment, DOT trucks, and other delivery trucks already have low insurance costs.
  • jamada88, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2"Company officials say that within a year they’ll be able to get battery pack ranges of 150 to 200 miles per charge."
    As soon as that happens you'll save much more with this truck!
    Because 200 miles vs. 100 miles would normally double the fuel cost.
    But for the charging the electric one... even if it would double that $3 per charge (I believe it will not)
    even then you would save $1,280 to $2,480 per month!!! (assuming both drive 200 miles per business day)
  • flowaus, on 07/12/2008, -5/+1....so long as you burn coal to get the electricity, then yeah - those greenhouse gases are _really_ going to be cut!
    • twomeyw23334, on 07/12/2008, -2/+0CO2 would be cut 'slightly' but SOx and soot and other types of pollution will be increased greatly. So choose your evil, acid rain and smog or CO2 and global warming (whose decrease is so minuscule with EVs and coal plants that some claim they actually cause more warming) . But, in this post Al Gore "the world has a fever" world we are supposed to make pretend there is only 1 pollutant, CO2, even though technically it's not a pollutant, unless you think exhaling is polluting.
    • atbnet, on 07/12/2008, -0/+6Two things:

      1. Creating electricity with coal is a lot more efficient than the internal combustion engine.
      2. If charged at night it uses the electricity that is wasted anyhow.

      Looks like a good solution to me.
    • trippinlikegod, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2And lets not forget that only people who live south of Washington D.C. are still burning coal for power. Almost all the power plants in the north are oil fired now specifically because it's cleaner.
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Coal doesn't matter. EVs are more efficient, which means more miles on less fuel, which means less net pollution per mile, regardless of what gets burned.

      Point number two: Coal is not the whole electric grid! Only half our electricity is made this way.

      Point number three: Coal plants are baseload - they are very hard to shut down or regulate, so they run all the time, EVs or no EVs. Peak-load plants are NOT coal. So how, exactly, do EVs increase coal-fired pollution in any significant way?

      If we have to build more coal plants one day, newest coal electric plant designs are up to 80% efficient.

      Despite the incessant oil-company-talking-point blathering on this topic, it is an utter non-issue.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0It's not utter nonsense because if you took half a second to look at what the people arguing support you would see you agree with us. We aren't anti EVs as you seem to constantly think. We are anti leftist anti-science cave-men who are determined to have us keep using 30 year old coal plants that are less efficient than some modern gasoline cars (such as hybrids). They suck and they are extremely dirty. As you mention yourself there are new plants that are tremendously more efficient, but guess who 's stopping these from being built? The enviro hippies, not me or anyone else pointing out the clear hypocrisy of the left wing wackos who support EVs while not supporting the construction of any new cleaner power plants. That's it, plain and simple apeweek. You are so blinded by your love affair with EVs that in every article relating to it you attack anyone who dares to point out the tremendous pollution caused by our totally outdated electric grid. I could give two ***** about your EV. My next car will probably be an EV (not because I'm an enviro hippie but because I like saving dough and hopefully around the same time I can buy some solar panels (also to save in the long run)). If my number one priority was to save mother earth, I wouldn't drive, and I certainly wouldn't eat meat, the #1 cause of man contributed greenhouse gases (transportation is number 2). I would live in a city, but were I forced to buy a car, it would be a hybrid. I'm sure you're a meat eater because I already mentioned, half of you EVs nazis are total hypocrites.
        Again, I'm not anti EVs, I'm pro technology and pro new cleaner electric plants. What the hell is wrong with this!? What, do you look at my profile every day to see if I've left any comments that could be potentially taken as anti-EVs. IM NOT ANTI EV. Get a life. How about attacking all your anti-new coal or anti new-anything generating electricity buddies so no one can point the studies which clearly show coal plants cause greater pollution. I know, I know, the studies go "both ways" and blah balha... I don't give a *****. I'm not anti-EV I'm anti ancient power technology. We've done the math together many times. I don't want to hear how your EV is 2.3% better. That's laughable. I want newer better plants.
      • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1I didn't reply to your comment, or even read it, I replied to one by flowaus. Sorry.
  • Pusod, on 07/12/2008, -3/+2This is utter nonsense. The only way for this to be relevant to me is if it were readily available for purchase NOW at a REASONABLE PRICE! ***** like this is inaccessible for us regular consumers. When it hits the dealerships, give me a call.
    • SoulDesigner, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3just give it time, eventually these batteries will be cheaper.
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Electric vehicles can be found cheaply - look for EV conversions, or used EVs.

      http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car
    • askantik, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3If you want it to become available faster, why don't you work on it? People always want "them" to "come up with something" but never want to put forth any effort or dollars themselves. It's totally understandable.
  • prcrimm1, on 07/12/2008, -5/+2One last time for all you ecofreaks out there. Electricity is not greenhouse gas free. Most power plants burn coal, oil, or gas. They are generally only 33% efficient on a good day. Then you get to the transmission losses, plus the inefficiencies in the truck's power plant itself. Not to mention that fuel taxes maintain roads. No one in your foolish community wants to add road taxes to the electricity bill to make it accurate. And don't think the politicos won't.
    • DaSaint, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Don't you realise that the object of all the "Ecofreaks" is to get that electricity out of solar and wind power.
    • bentrinh, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Yes, because the engine in a car is wayyyyy more efficient than the generators in a massive power plant.

      /sarcasm
    • trippinlikegod, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2Yeah there are many ways to generate clean electricity. Oh and if you think 33% efficiency (or whatever other number you could have just pulled out of your ass) is bad you should consider that a consumer vehicle a few years old probably gets around 20% efficiency. See I can make up numbers too! What I can't make up is that in the 60s we already had diesel cars that were getting almost 80 mpg. In the late 80s and early 90s GM started producing electric cars called the Evo that were getting 150 miles to a charge. Look for one of those. Wait nevermind GM took them all back from the lease holders and put the ***** in a car compactor because of pressure from big oil, big government, big whatever. That could be the only possible reasoning as every single person who drove one absolutely LOVED the car.
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Your 33% efficient number applies to coal plants only. Everything else on the grid is more efficient.

      As for transmission losses, the power industry standard for electricity transmission is 95% efficiency. Charging via wire is certainly far more efficient than trucking gasoline to thousands of service stations.

      It's easy to believe the EV efficiency argument when you look at fuel prices. EVs drive for 1 to 3 cents/mile in electricity costs. Gasoline costs 10 times as much per mile.

      Greater efficiency translates into less pollution per mile, regardless of what powerplants burn.
  • EnricoPallazzo, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2$3 of electricity is about 16kWh where I live. Is that enough to move 12600 lbs (7600 lb truck + 5000 lb of cargo) 100 miles?

    Also, why did the manufacturer keep the truck's transmission? I assume that would make the vehicle less efficient.
    • apeweek, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Lower electric rates can be had by asking your utility for off-peak rates. This typically requires separate metering. Here in the Detroit area, off-peak electricity can be had for as little as 3 cents/KWH.
    • bincoder, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2I hope they welded the torque converter together.
      That is a huge loss of energy, spinning oil around through a turbine for no more reason than to make heat.
    • AndreiOttawa, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1In Ottawa I pay 5 cents per kWh. Over 50% is Nuclear.
  • atact88, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Can't wait for the day when you're stranded at home cause you have a power outage and you haven't charged up your car.
    • Kamill85, on 07/12/2008, -2/+2Yeah totally stranded at your American home, without a car you won't be able to get to food store down the street. That would be a disaster!
      • atact88, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1I'm thinking more about the people who would have to trudge through 10 miles of subzero weather in the snow to get it. I don't give 2 ***** for urban assholes.
    • askantik, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3When the time comes that most people have an electric car, I figure most will have solar panels, too. Which means there won't be a black out, unless the sun dies, in which case we have other problems than our cars not working.
  • kd1s, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Oh yes, lets go all electric. National Grid here in RI just got a 21.7% increase granted by the PUC. Double digit increases, nice!

    The difference is negligible but here's the thing. National Grid's RI operations are mostly fired by natural gas generators. The other little fact is that usage has actually gone DOWN in the past couple years. So in essence we're being penalized for conserving.

    I do think the electric vehicle concept is feasible though. Even if it cost $10 per charge for 100 miles, which would be 10 cents per mile it would still be cheaper than gasoline. For example say you're car gets 30MPG which means you'd burn about 3.3 gallons at $4 a gallon or $13.20. But if we use the $3 to $5 range electric really demolishes gasoline prices.
  • snookky, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2i would rather give my money to these progressive and inventive guys than to the backwards religious extremists who are constantly trying to murder us (the arabs).
  • beauley, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1There have been many attempts to design an electric powered vehicle for as long as the the internal combustion engine has been around. Unfortunately, battery power was never a formidable contender to the present internal combustion engine, but it looks as though the future looks more pronising.
    http://www.gomestic.com/Consumer-Information/The-E ...
    The Electric Vehicle, is It the Answer?
  • bincoder, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2In the article they made it 12 miles. That makes more sense than 100 miles on a charge since 50kWh would be enough to run 66 HP for one hour, assuming the battery is 100% efficient and delivers its power losslessly without regard to the rate of current flow from the battery (they don't do that in real life, unless you run a digital watch with one). Assuming an 8 hour shift, the battery could deliver 66/8 or a little over 8 horsepower for 8 hours before its dead. More likely, you would get half of that due to battery loss and motor loss. So sure, you can drive cheaply this way but you could also just put in a lawnmower engine and regear it for more torque saving a hundred thousand dollars. Or use far fewer batteries, a smaller electric motor (saving weight and expense) and a small IC engine running constantly at a single optimum RPM to keep the batteries charged and still retain the large amount of torque that an electric motor provides along with regenerative braking.
    But then it would be more like a plain old hybrid and peeps would loose interest in about 2 minutes. Still, dugg for doing the right thing and going the right direction.

  • PopcornDave, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2It's an interesting concept for a town that's fairly flat like Los Angeles, but I'm curious as to what the battery charge life would be in San Francisco with it's hills. If there was a way to increase the charge while coasting it would be interesting.
    • Gemfinder, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2The article does mention regenerative brakes, which send a charge back to the power plant whenever you brake. A hill is only half acceleration, the other half is braking. So I would imagine a city like San Francisco would be tailor-made for trucks of this type. Just make sure Hyde or California Street is on your route every day! :D
  • DickDarthVader, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1That sounds great, except the electric comes from a coal fired plant. So we are not reducing fossil fuel use. And how much more coal was burned to make the battery?

    The case for ethanol.

    First I should note that I have a BS in Chemistry from GMU. While I am not an expert in this field I do understand the basics. Some of my statements maybe estimates' but the over all argument is sound.

    One: We already make billions of gallons a year. Think of this as you enjoy your favorite beer, wine, or liquor. We just need to make more of it with less water content. The change is basically just turning a valve down to a lower setting. Call the Budweiser or Jack Daniels process staff and ask.

    Two: Brazil is already doing it. Just call their Embassy and ask to talk to there economic staff. Brazil is similar to us in population, size and agricultural production. Although they use sugar cane and I would propose we use a mix of crops, the differences are minimal.

    Three: Ethanol as a fuel is “GREEN”. A 100 percent recycle process of natural events. The sunlight is mixed with carbon dioxide, water and soil to produce ALL PLANTS ON EARTH. Crops are converted into many things including ethanol. The ethanol is recombined (burned) with oxygen, and thus produces carbon dioxide and water. Then the whole cycle is repeated, and has been repeated ever since there were plants on earth. Note the forest fires in California (except we are losing all the energy from the fires).

    Four: We have the land to produce the crops without interfering with food prices. Yes, we have a squeeze currently. It’s called $140 per barrel oil. That drives demand for other fuels. The demand for ethanol and biodiesel is simply a rational free market response to higher prices. If we brought the old farmlands of the East coast back into use it would probably cover the shortage. Here I admit I do not have enough knowledge, but we could at least try. I think John F. Kennedy would agree (“…we will shoulder any burden; we will bear any cost…”). My idea is that we use organic, sustainable methods that allow for continual planting without soil depletion.

    Five: The price and efficiency concerns are misunderstood. Ethanol produces 75% of the energy as the same amount of gas because the ethanol is already partially burned (oxidized). The chemistry is rather complicated, so I will not try to explain it here. The key point is that ethanol also costs 75% as much as gas. Ethanol is renewable and gas is not. Gas will increase in price. Ethanol will go down in price as the industry is built up. Please note, in Brazil, the price is $2 a gallon for ethanol (that equals $2.67 for gas, anybody want to fill up?).

    Six: If we make this work, we get a more GREEN economy, less dependence on foreign politics, a huge economic boost to our schools and roads and health care and any other good program. Would it not be preferable for $700 billion per year to go to Farmer Brown instead of…? Image the tax revenue, and secondary economic benefits. Maybe we can build Islands in the shape of palm trees, or pay Tiger Woods $2 million to play golf somewhere in America.

    As JFK said, “If not us, who, If not now, when?”

    And I pledge to hug a Republican, a Democrat, and a tree everyday if we join together and pull this off.

  • TetchyTony, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0In Britain, horses pulled milk delivery 'floats' until the 1950s. Ever since then, in many city areas, electric 'floats' with lead-acid batteries have been wholly normal. Only very recently have they disappeared (as folk stopped ordering milk, and thievery increased). Now logistics (including delivery of e-mail orders) have much longer hauls, and gaps between drops. There's more to the economics than just greenie nonsense.
  • jdago, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0kudos i get a kick out of all you naysayers. you want cheap energy but you dont want to try anything new.
  • Xazos, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0Sounds like a good plan for the world of logistics and transport. If put into place this could easily reduce greenhouse gas release from automotive sources. Good digg! Companies just need to wake up.
  • owls27, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1too much money
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.