What is Digg?69 Comments
- LeDopore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13A couple of things - the article doesn't mention that some researchers think ethanol takes more gasoline to produce (from fueling farm machinery and fertilizer plants) than the gasoline it renders unnecessary. (It's still cheaper because of farm subsidies.) The jury's out.
- rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A couple of other comments:
Bio-diesel comes in several forms - there is the vegetable oil blend, straight vegetable oil, and a third option - treat the vegetable (and animal) oil with caustics, which will remove the glycerin from the oil. This can be directly substituted for fossil diesel. (chemical's cost 0.30 - 0.50 per gallon processed. Presumably there is a customer for the glycerin that could offset the cost of processing somewhat)
One of the big reasons that the CNG costs less than gasoline is the lack of the motor fuel taxes - both state and federal. (the state may collect ordinary sales tax) This is used to cover some of the costs of highway construction.
In the case of E85, the author missed a con - you need to burn more of it. (a chemist would say lower specific heat) To make a "flex fuel" engine, the maker changes the hoses and seals to something that will tolerate the alcohol, and fits much larger fuel injectors and a stronger fuel pump, so they can pump enough in so it doesn't run lean.
In the distant past, I converted motorcycle engines to accept pure alcohol. Besides bumping the compression ratio to the sky (16:1 and it still wouldn't detonate) we had to re-jet the carbs - we would start by doubling the jet size, and adjust (often upwards) from there.
Oh yea, the quip about taking more gas to make than it generates -- a rough rule of thumb is that building the car consumes as much fuel as the car will burn in its lifetime.
If you want energy efficiency, switch to human power, and get on your bicycle - the most efficient way to shift mass. Since the median auto trip is under two miles, (and engines make a lot more pollution in the first mile, until the converter lights) switching to a bicycle should be within most peoples reach. - iamnos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes, but ethanol can be made out of the material that we don't currently use. So, while the tractor is already in the field harvesting corn, we can now use the stalks, cobs, etc that were normally discarded.
- adairnic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Right, this article really doesn't list any of the cons of Ethanol. It takes more energy to produce than it actually yields, and while it may produce less CO and CO2, it is less efficient to combust.
Digg and hope people do not take this article completely at face value. - lunalaguna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Love this article mainly because it quite accurately crushes peoples' hydrogen delusions. However, I'm still flustered that, in all the articles I've read about alternative fuels and reducing dependence on fossil fuels, there is almost no discussion of improving the public transportation infrastructure. I know that this can be problematic in some cities but, as part of the solution, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
- sandwichpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That seemed like a good article, nice and straightforward, but a little incomplete. (also, I didn't know, as the article states, the CO2 depleted the ozone...I thought it was global warming related...)
They don't seem to know a variety of details, a couple examples.
On biodiesel, they don't realize that animal fats can be used (anyone hear of the German guy who runs his car on fat from dead cats?). They also glaze over the emissions issues of biodiesel, or at least don't state what they're comparing it to. Compared to gas, per mile at least, it's fat better for CO2 em missions because it, like petrol diesel, contains more energy, and operates in a higher efficiency, high compression environment. Compared to gas (at least running on today's compression ratios) it makes more particulate emissions and NOx emissions, but in those regards, biodiesel is better than petrol diesel for particulates. Better filtering and processing (especially sulfur in petrol diesel) will improve particulate emissions for both diesels, as have recent advances in particulate filters in exhaust systems. As far as NOx goes, efficiency = NOx to a degree, and tomorrow's high efficiency gas, ethanol, really any engine that uses Air as a source of oxygen is going to have a problem with NOx, especially when heat and compression are involved. Urea injection, or selective catalytic reduction systems, I think, will end up being part of most engines in the future, because thinking about engines making NOx is holding back design, so treating it out cheaply and safely in the exhaust, to me, seems like a better plan. Mercedes/Chrysler plan to introduce Urea systems in the near future for diesel engines, under the term Bluetech.
They also don't seem to know of cellulosic ethanol production which, at least in my opinion, is HUGE for the ethanol cause. Scandinavian countries are crazy with the Ethanol right now because they have huge paper industries, and thus, large amounts of cellulose waste. I'm sure most Americans (and Europeans) can think of how much cellulose waste comes out of their everyday lives, and modifying recycling infrastructure to take advantage of all that cellulose waste could be a tremendous fuel source, not to mention industrial and farm cellulose waste.
The article points to grain created Ethanol, which is hugely inefficient because the carbohydrates have to be converted into the sugar that yeast can eat (so we're basically making whiskey or beer here), and that takes a lot of energy in the form of heat.
What I like about ethanol, and to a lesser extent biodiesel, is that with minor modifications (about $200 worth for ethanol, I'm not sure about biodiesel) regular cars and trucks can utilize these fuels. And, with relatively modest investment, these products can be integrated into lots of fueling infrastructure in the developed world, and perhaps even the developing world. And, on top of that all, energy effective in the long run or not, both can be used with hybrids.
So long as soybean and corn lobbies don't derail the effectiveness and cost effectiveness that are possible with biodiesel and ethanol... - CovardeAnonimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5because that's BS...
sugar cane ethanol manufactured in brasil takes diesel to plant/chop/transport the cane to the plant and some more to haul the finished alcohol to the service stations.
the power to run the plant comes from burning the sugar cane pulp left after is pressed.
there is a net gain in energy. as we increase the bio-diesel program, this gain tends to increase. - 32bitwonder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A while back I emailed Jim Kenzie who has a segment called Kenzie's Korner on Motoring - a Canadian automotive show (http://www.motoringtv.com/). The question I put forward to him at the time was, "Why is so much hype being generated (no pun intended) over hybrid powertrains when companies like VW are making diesel engines which already boast very high fuel mileage numbers?" He wrote back and essentially agreed that more education is needed in North America to dispell the old diesel stereotype of large, dirty truck spewing black smoke into the sky. What he said next however really caught my attention and is something that few mainstream articles address, and this is the environmental cost of making a new vehicle whether it's hybrid, diesel or otherwise.
Kenzie's argument is that the majority of environmental harm a vehicle will contribute over the course of it's useful life is not in the 10 years (average lifespan) that it's on the road, but at the plant where it was actually produced. Hybrids, being the technological marvels that they are require even more resources and energy to make than the average car. He argues that it's better for the environment to keep your existing car running as long as you can rather than rushing out to buy that expensive gas sipping hybrid as it would take many decades of use to offset the environmental cost of producing it in the first place.
Granted, Mr Kenzie likes to raise eyebrows..but he may have a point. - GodlessMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think this article should be viewed as an objective evaluation of alternative fuel vehicles, as there are too many omissions to make it all that credible.
There are two mistakes that are commonly made when evaluating alt fuels:
1. Failure to account for all inputs in production
2. Assuming that fossil fuel prices are constant and will continue as they are now into the distant future
Generally the author makes the mistake that most people do when examining the cost/benefit structure of these alternative fuels: the don't calculate the complete cost of the product from start to finish. Ethanol is great and economical if you forget to calculate what it takes to grow the biomass that produces it. And then forget that farming is completely dependent on oil and natural gas for everything from fertilizers to the fuel to run the machinery. This "Oops" accounting mistake applies to all fuels, if they don't mention total cost of production the information is flawed and unusable.
Second, most articles I see say that alt fuels aren't economical because they don't compete with today's gasoline/diesel prices at the pump. This reasoning is like saying "I have one hundred dollars in my checking account, so I can spend $100 today, $100 tomorrow, $100 the next day, etc" Fuel price is not constant, and all indications are that fossil fuel prices are going to continue to go up (some say rapidly and catastrophically) as demand outpaces production ability. The key word here is demand, not supply. Price at the pump has and will continue to go up unless there is government subsidy to keep fuel prices down, so comparing alt fuels to today's fuel prices is an amateur's mistake.
Watch for these two problems whenever reading anything about the Oil economy or Indy fuels.
--In reply to a reporter's question "What do you think of Western Civilization?" Gandhi replied "I think it would be a good idea!"-- - andyr354, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is taxes in Europe that make the price high.
Try living in the midwest where I am with high prices. Things just aren't close together like in the cities. I have to drive 25 to get to work and 25-100 miles to any shopping.
Hybrids don't make sense out here either since you are doing all highway driving. The non-hybrid vehicles get better MPG in that situation.
We have an ethanol plant going in localy now, might be a couple of years before it is ready though. One thing in the past few years that have helped it alot are cattle. The new plants sell the distillers grain to cattle feeders like my dad. They are also getting their own cattle to feed it to, then using the methane produced by the cattle waste to fuel the distilling proccess. This second senario is how the local plant is going to operate.
I have also looked at running my diesel truck on WVO. - nihilator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Fair enough. But with ethanol, do we have enough farmable land to produce enough corn (or anything else) to satisfy America's thirst for fuel?
- rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The one advantage to the bio-diesel and ethanol is that they are biomass source, rather than fossil. So growing the plants that you extract the fuel from does extract carbon from the atmosphere.
- stan205, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are other places to produce hydrogen other then from fossil fuels. Hydroelectric power stations currently dump the energy they produce during off peak times because they have no way to store it, they could instead use this energy to produce hydrogen. Also, there's wind power that could be utilized in this same fashion. Lastly, I live in an area where there is hydrothermal activities. Why couldn't we follow what Iceland is doing to create hydrogen from these hydro-therms to reduce dependence on foreign oil as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
I'm not saying it's an end all solution, but it's a start. - Strangers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Having a car that gets 50 miles to the gallon is good for the pocketbook and good for the guilty conscience."
wtf, our car gets 55 to a gallon, and it's a normal car. Shouldn't it be more?
Bio diesel, ethanol et al are just stop gaps. They release as much CO2 and CO as normal fuel burning cars. It's just attractive because they are cheaper, and kind of renewable
Dugg btw - rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is currently illegal to sell a new diesel automobile in Mass. The problem is the sulfur level of the fuel currently for sale. Trucks have to meet a much reduced emmision standard. Unfortunately implementing low sulfur fuel has been delayed repeatedly.
Given a choice, I would love a hybrid diesel. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ah... the myth of free energy...
Cars that run on used vegetable oil that you get from fast food outfits are also great... until you have more people wanting the used oil then fast food places trying to get rid of the stuff!
Ethanol works great too, until the subsidies go away and the state starts looking for more tax income! Isn't their a state in the Midwest that has switched (or is switching) to taxing you by your mileage rather then the amount of fuel (by the gallon) you purchase? Just their little way to recoup lost taxes when folks start buying fuel efficient cars! - Speckles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The bad news is that the quest for more natural gas is one of the biggest incentives for oil companies to lobby for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As the driver of a natural gas vehicle, my motto of compromise was "I may be riding with ANWR, but at least I'm not riding with Saddam.""
Lets damage the ANWR so we don't do business with Saddam. What is she thinking? - ag1010, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2According to this webiste, most cars can be converted to E85 and only costing $500-$700 bucks.
http://xcelplus.com/e85/e85informationcenter.htm
I'm not a mechanic so I don't know the specifics of that their product does. - davidemm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think enough has been said about human power. It is always overlooked because there is no money to be made by the big oil/car companies if we are all are pedaling to work.
My personal belief is the best we can do with current technology is to use E85 (flex-fuel) where available, and combine that with hybrid technology. That would be used for trips > 10-15 miles.
Anything within that range should be human powered (weather permitting). The benefits of human power are very cheap/reliable transportation, environmentally sound, fitness, and health which god knows America needs.
Do you think that bikes/walking are to slow? The author of the article admits that it takes him sometimes an hour to drive 14 miles. On a bike, with average fitness, one can easily average 15 mph for an hour.
People talk about all the energy that cars consume. How about how much energy it takes to create a car and then dispose of it? I read some where that there is enough steel in a modern car to produce 100 bicycles (even with all the plastic today). What about all the millions of tons of concrete used to create new highways and traffic systems? That is a lot of overhead.
Do you work more than 10-15 miles away from your house and you need to commute? Well get on a train/bus and bring your human-powered transportation with you until you get to closer location.
With that said, It's pathetic how poor our train systems are. I commute to work on a train and it is acceptable, but if you have ever been on the trains in Europe or Asia, you would be very envious. They are faster, more efficient, and more comfortable.
Want to keep our troops out of oil rich countries? Want to preserve our Alaskan beauty?
Hop on your bike and ride! - praxcelis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CR is reporting empirical observations, rather than the admittedly inflated CAFE figures most dealers advertise. I, too, drive an Escape Hybrid, and I've never seen close to the CAFE 36/31 figure--more like 28/25. I'd love to see those "summer" figures you quote, but I've only owned it since November so I have no actual observations to compare to your figures.
- lunalaguna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it's been pretty well established that EPA estimates are grossly inflated.
- nihilator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IMO, there's no one perfect solution. All of the alternatives involve using more land for the base materials(corn for ethanol), or deriving something else from fossil fuels(hydrogen from natural gas), or using more energy to make the fuel than the fuel itself provides(hydrogen through electrolysis).
I agree with rjnerd that we should move to people powered transportation, like the Flintstones. No more fossil fuels, and we would all be in great shape!
"What are your legs? Steel springs!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Energy can't be created.
- bazan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As ed pointed out, the EPA numbers are different than those reported by some of the press. The EPA testing cycle (FTP) is incredibly outdated and does not reflect the average use of a vehicle anymore. Originally the FTP was to mimic the average daily commute in LA. It was modified later to try and keep up with the times, but it hasn't been changed significantly in the last decade or so. Currently the top speed in the FTP highway portion is 55mph. I personally do not drive 55 when I'm cruising 400 miles between Houghton, MI and Chicago, IL (school and home). And based on how slowly i pass people at my usual speed of 70-75 mph, I'd bet they aren't doing 55 either.
Right now there is a competition between several universities to try and create better hybrids. go to www.challengex.org for a little more info. I'm on the Michigan Tech team, and while our model won't get 45mph, it'll do substantially better than the stock Chevy Equinox we were given, based on our math modeling.
The article states that there aren't alot of choices in the hybrid sector of the market, which isn't accurate. It used to be the prius from Toyota and the insight from Honda. Now you've got the Chevy Silverado, the Ford Escape, the Toyota Highlander, Honda Civic and Accord, and many more in the pipeline.
Further, many of these cars are achieving 8-10mpg increases over the 'big' engines in their spec lists, matching or beating the performance of the 'big' engines, but are using smaller engines. When you compare a hybrid Accord which has the 4-cyl. engine against the V-6 you see that the hybrid is faster and gets around 8-9 mpg better. I haven't actually looked at the numbers for the standard 4-cyl. but I'd bet that in order to get the same performance with the 4-cyl. engine you'd be getting a much much lower fuel efficiency than even the V-6 does. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The price the "company" charges per gallon is inline. The pump price is based on taxes.
- sparty1969, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hello McFly!!!!!! Just look at the article submission (front page) 5 up from this one. According to that article, your wasting your time. "save the environment" sheese what a waste of time.
- skabber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is mistaken about BioDiesel
"There is a lot of confusion about biodiesel, so here's the skinny:Biodiesel is a blend of traditional diesel (aka dino-diesel) andvegetable oil."
WRONG!
B100 or 100% BioDiesel can be made with pure vegitable oil, potassium hydroxide and ethanol. The minute you add any dino-diesel to it you now have a blend. Around here (Colorado) you can get B100 or B20 (20% BioDiesel) - PrettyBoyFloyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dugg, but only for the comparison of the different technologies. And he did not give hydrogen any proper attention. I just saw a news report last night that Alameda County (Oakland, California) is piloting a million dollar hydrogen powered transit bus and several hydrogen fleet vehicles to test the technology out in an urban setting. Lots of manufacturers are predicting hydrogen vehicles will not be available for five to ten years, but there are some driving on my city streets today. There was also an ealier story on digg about a fellow in Palo Alto who is testing out a hydrogen powered Honda as a regular commute vehicle to obtain real-world statistics on its performance.
- shooby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1why doesn't American gasoline companies jack up the prices on gasoline to the equivalent of their European counterparts? That would encorage the usage of public transit and taxis and such. This would give more money to the public transit companies to create better and faster/more efficient facilities. I hope America has a vast infrastructure of public transit one day.
- nkzamboni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Out of all these technologies, which has been most widely used by the Europeans, whose governments impose some of the highest gas taxes in the world? In my last trip across the pond, I didn't see a single hybrid. Nor were there any natural gas cars. No ethanol fuel stations either. Nope, all I saw was diesel.
Ethanol is not the solution to our problems because it absorbs water. Why is this a problem? Because this means that it cannot be transported through pipelines that already crisscross the US. Every time ethanol must be transported, it must be put in a tanker truck, which is expensive, unsafe, and impractical. Until you can change the basic chemical formula of ethanol, this problem is not going to go away.
Natural gas could be a solution because of its extremely low emissions, but it will still cost more to implement than gasoline and there are few filling stations. Besides, the US is independent of foreign natural gas production because no one drives natural gas cars; just think what would happen if we all started driving them. Plus, I like to drive more than 200 miles between fill ups.
Hybrids could be a solution, but they too costly for the meager fuel savings that they gain. The complicated system of computers, batteries, brake motors, and other special order parts mean that they are only for those wealthy enough to consider spending over 30k on an economy car. Oh yeah, and try to get a third party mechanic to service your hybrid. And what if you get into an accident? Hybrids use hundreds of volts electricity (not 12 like regular cars), so no rescuer will want to touch the thing if wires are exposed.
This leaves diesel. Cheap, simple, long-lasting. Our 5-speed diesel jetta gets 48mpg on the highway. Of course, any diesel can run biodiesel without any conversion effort, so when the oil wells run dry, it’s a possible solution. As for emissions, with the new low-sulfur fuel, diesel catalysts might be able to pass California emissions. At least until we figure out how to make hydrogen for the fuel cells of the future. Until then, when is BMW going to import their sexy diesel 3-series to the US? - praxcelis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the long run entropy always wins. It has to be a measurable ratio of energy extracted versus energy used to extract. It's like the oil shale argument--we can crack oil from the shale beds in the American Southwest, but to do so requires boiling the shale in situ, and no one calculates the energy used to heat the injection medium in the overall entropy cost. Alternative fuel sources must take into account the production cost in BTUs.
That said, the cynics also miss the point. Doing nothing solves nothing. These may be incremental and extremely partial solutions, but they are steps in the right direction. The Earth's fossil fuel budget is a finite amount, no matter how you stretch it. One day it will be done. The fact that our entire global technological infrastructure is based on a proven finite resource means there is an eventual expiration date on our industrialized society, unless some alternative source is found.
And to the hydrogen naysayers up there--while it's agreed that hydrogen is not cost-effective for automotive uses, why is no one pushing for home power generation? Ballard Systems sells hydrogen cogeneration systems to the Japanese residential market--why not in the US? - EdHaber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"According to Consumer Reports, the hybrid Escape from Ford gets city/highway mileage of 22/29, averaging at 26 mpg."
Thats wrong. The EPA on the Escape Hybrid is city/highway 33/29 4WD and 36/31 FWD.
I drive an Escape Hybrid 4WD and I average 27 in the winter and 32 in the summer.
-Ed - nihilator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, the Honda Accord Hybrid uses the 3.0 V6.
- rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Given how frequently we hit each others vehicles, I would rather not have very high pressure flammible gas on board. (remember they don't allow CNG tanks thru a number of tunnels, and on some bridges).
If we could generate hydrogen without releasing excess carbon, etc, the portability still has value. One of the problems with a pure electric vehicle is that anything that can store significant electrical engergy directly, makes a good boat anchor. - nkthen, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1I think Biodiesel is still my favorite
http://www.biodieselathome.net - phronko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone should just drive smart cars. They're not hybrids, but they're efficient with old technology (diesel). Plus they look awesome.
- EdHaber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The 36/31 is on the FWD. I have the 4WD version so the estimated mileage is 33/29.
I got mine last June and averaged 32 mpg. When the temp was in the teens my mileage did drop to 25 at its worst and was mostly around 26-27 for the winter. The engine won't turn off if the batteries and engine are not warmed up and i do a lot of short driving around town. In the summer i could make a lot of these trips on electricity only.
-Ed - rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The stalks, etc are not discarded. They are semi-composted, and fed to cattle. Its what they call "silage".
- rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A hybrid does no worse than a conventional car on the highway. Yes, it is carrying around a bit more weight, but the smaller IC engine, will do a lot to overcome this.
One amusing thing about the Prius - it keeps score - it has both running average, and cumulative MPG in the status display. It does affect your driving style - even the car nuts that did a long term review said you develop a light foot, in an attempt to get the highest number. Given that result, I think that display should be part of all cars. (its something that any fuel injected engine can easily calclulate - and add-on boxes that do this are available today)
Oh yea, there is no reason that you can't combine technologies - hybrid diesels are available (on very large trucks in the US, on small cars in Japan). But it does get expensive - a diesel is a more expensive engine to build, then you add the cost of the battery pack. - adairnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mrjondoe:
As far as I have read, switchgrass has less yield than corn, however switchgrass is not used for food, so a bit better. The only people that are promoting ethanol at this point are people that have money invested in it. It is a dead end, and using it is just postponing the inevitable. - FARMER, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Love this site and this topic got me to join!
Very much a Digg!
Main point I would like to make is in the alt fuel future many options will work in specific situations - everything from bicycles ( check out my fave the REVIVE by Giant) to bio.
One thing is for sure the gas v8 for everyman is on its way out. - charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only thing the environment needs saving from is wacky environmentalists trying to save it. You just have to look through history to see how well things go when environmentalists try to "save" it. Look at the history of yellowstone and how the environmentalists totally ***** it up. Then look at the wildfires in the west, and how instead of harvesting some of the trees in a way to prevent MASSIVE fires, we simply can't harvest ANY of the trees and the millions of acres of woodlands are burned causing MASSIVE pollution as a result. Even the native americans harvested the forest in a way that allowed it to regrow, and prevented it from burning to the ground entirely.
So I have little faith in what environmentalists are trying to do. Want to cut down on greenhouse gasses? Let's fix the cow flatuant problem. For real. - chewbaccapits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The arguement that you never make up the saving on gas driving a hybrid because of the intial price tag of the vechicle doesn't hold water, if that's the price range I wanted to spend in the first place.....I bought a 2004 baseline model Prius and it rocks...So far I've used the tax credit and I average about 500 miles every tank fill-up and I'm driving on the carpool lanes while people are stuck getting a manicure on the 405. I also wanted support the technology...I think I'm getting my $$'s worth,.,... %(* *)
- MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Almost every major car manufacturer has production-ready hydrogen vehicles that they've been driving around Sacramento, CA for a few years now. here is their website: www.cafcp.org
I saw an expose about the group on "California's Green" on PBS.
I think public transport is/was/and should have always been the answer. But anyone who goes up against the big oil companies will not only have them, but a lot of high-up politicans(from their president on down (I didnt vote for the POS so I refuse to say "my" or "our president")) giving them *****. - inactive, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1cars can run on hdyrogen and natural gas also know as CNG
http://www.tn-labs.com/blending-hydrogen-natural-g ... - shadowmancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the biggest thing we could do is put more money/emphasis into public transit. Compared to Europeans, we get shafted when it comes to this. Combine that with smaller, more effiecient (both in terms of fuel prices, and production) cars. Not everyone needs an SUV or truck, especially to take one person to work every weekday across highways.
- arthureisele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0these alternative fuels are still short-term solutions (although longer-term than regular gas, obviously). the real long-term solutions are compact/walkable cities and public transport. it's pretty straight-forward and simple to see that.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is