The Hybrid Scooter

anthemaniac writes "Hybrid cars are all the rage. Now comes a hybrid scooter. It gets beyond ethanol and lots of batteries, though, running on a hydrogen fuel cell that charges a battery. During braking, energy is also harnessed. All this and speedy too, says inventor Crijn Bouman of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. For now, however, the prototype lacks one crucial component: the hydrogen fuel cell! It's coming, Bouman says. Yes, just like $5/gal gas..."

Comments

hahaha

[eobanb]

I don't think we should kid ourselves. $5/gal gasoline is coming. Sooner than most probably hope.

Personally, I think the sooner it arrives, the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

Re:hahaha

[kfg]

Personally, I think the sooner it arrives, the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

And the more I have to pay to fuel my . . .bicycle.

KFG

Re:hahaha

[ZakuSage]

I think it's worthy to point out that to fill my scooter, a Piaggio Fly 150, from empty to full costs only $5 anyway. High gas prices? Bring 'em on.

Re:hahaha

[lokedhs]

Sweden already have it.

Converted from swedish currency and metric units, 95 octane petrol costs 6.47 USD per gallon. 98 octane would run you a whopping 6.62 USD. And note that the prices have dropped recently.

Re:hahaha

[Eivind]

It's already here for much of the world. In Norway currently a liter of gas costs on the order of 12.50 nok which is pretty exactly $2. Converted to gallons that works out to $7.50/gallon.

Re:hahaha

[Frangible]

My Honda CR-V SUV gets excellent fuel economy, surpassing not only all trucks, but most SUVs and many sedans. And this is due to the design, not even using a diesel engine or hybrid drive. Why would I buy a sedan that gets *marginally* better fuel economy using the same technology (as the CR-V will go hybrid eventually), and lose versatility and safety? There are times when money isnt everything. Is repeating the party line as you have done really the pinnacle of objective thought?

Further, we can simply use breeder reactors producing hydrogen and get cheap, clean power for nearly eternity. 98% of "nuclear waste" is recyclable. (store it in Yucca mountain? What a waste!) Conserve energy? Perhaps. But energy isnt really a limited thing with nuclear power. So the whole "energy crisis" and the huge impact of energy costs on the lower and middle class is more or less an artificial creation of restrictions on safe, clean, recyclable nuclear energy. Not only can nuclear energy meet our primary energy needs for more or less ever, but it can also replace all gasoline for automotive use with clean hydrogen fuel (hydrogen is a battery, more or less-- not a power source per se).

SUVs? Gas prices? Ah, but the bigger picture is not so grim.

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we were paying the $5/gal equivalent here in the UK.
Ah, those were the days.

Rough approximation is $7/gal (~£0.98/litre)
I have a 1.4 petrol and it's expensive to run... :(

Roll on something new please.. now? Please?
I wish I could afford a Prius.

J1M.

Re:hahaha

[chorltonian]

My Honda CR-V SUV gets excellent fuel economy

The Honda CR-V, along with the Toyota RAV4 and a few others, is not truly a SUV IMO. They run on standard 2 litre engines but carry a bit more weight than an equivalent sedan owing to the larger (taller) cabin. The fuel economy with the latest diesels isn't madly off what you'd get from e.g. a Honda Civic, around 45mpg. Many of the true SUVs, e.g. 6 litre grand cherokee, run at around 15mpg!

Re:hahaha

[blippo]

Meanwhile, in a continent near you... The price is already more than $5/gal.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.htm l/

Re:hahaha

[Archibald Buttle]

$5 per gallon for gasoline? I wish!

Here in the UK the price is now about £1 per litre. That translates to $7 per US gallon. This price has risen by about 5p per litre in the last month thanks chiefly to our good friends in Israel.

Re:hahaha

[Wieland]

I don't think we should kid ourselves. $5/gal gasoline is coming. Sooner than most probably hope. Personally, I think the sooner it arrives, the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

I couldn't agree more, especially with that last sentence. Gasoline is already well over $5 a gallon in many parts of the world, such as the Netherlands (link is in Dutch), where I live. Gasoline prices in the US are notoriously low, which is one of the main reasons US citizens have a disproportionally large ecological footprint. In all fairness, so do most Europeans, but the US are doing a lot worse than most of the world (PDF alert).

Re:hahaha

[LeoDioxide]

The sooner gas prices go up, the sooner I quit driving, the sooner I get fired. I have an old car and $1200, there isn't a viable alternative for me to get around in a country town. I could bike 8 miles on the highway, but I'd probably make it 2 before getting hit on those awful roads. Drivers are crazy these days.

Many people hail the end of gasoline cars that destroy the enviroment, but fail to see the human repercussions. I can't simply go out and buy an electric car, the electric bill would drive up and I don't have enough money anyway. Hybrid? Maybe if I were carrying $40k in my pocket. My best bet right now is to car pool, and no, there isn't any public transportation. Buses simply don't carry people from nowhere to nowhere.

Re:hahaha

[sanguisdev]

I hope this will cause people to stop buying SUV's in fact I think that there should be a gas tax that is set buy the necessity of the vehicle in relations ship to ones life. if thy have a large fam and live in the sticks it's one thing. but to be a single person living in the city. you should be taxed. the money should go to subsidize the ethanol farmers, and renewable energy. I know it's a hollow dream. but a dream non the less.

Re:hahaha

[Timmmm]

$5/gal gasoline is coming.

In England, petrol costs almost exactly £1/litre. That's $7/gallon.

Personally I agree with the high levels of tax - they probably make the price more similar to the environmental cost.

Although to all the people who say 'use public transport', it isn't very good. Buses are slow and fairly expensive - alright for travelling in towns, but rubbish for the country. And trains are just far too expensive - it cost me less to go from anywhere in Suffolk to Amsterdam, than it did to go from Ipswich to Manchester. And that's with a railcard (1/3 off).

Re:hahaha

[Aqualung812]

I took that as a serious comment. More $$$ on gas = more $$$ on food = more you pay to fuel your bicycle.

Re:hahaha

[j-turkey]

...the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

Right, then Americans with big families will start buying minivans and people like you will complain about those. Then, station wagons will become popular again -- people like you you will complain about those. Then, SUV's will come back into fashion and people like you will complain about those all over again.

We live in a big country with lots of open space. It is not all densely populated, so public transportation isn't feasible everywhere. People with families need big cars. SUV's are very good big cars (along with station wagons and minivans). These people-haulers are heavy vehicles due to their size. Heavy vehicles need larger powerplants which produce more torque and thus consume more fuel. Do you want people to stop having families, or just be as well off as you so they can afford a second/third/fourth car? Do you have an alternative to SUV's for people who need a big car (remembering that all heavy vehicles need more energy to propel themselves)?

I don't even own an SUV/large vehicle and this is a no-brainer to me...or is this just a convenient way to feel superior to other people?

Re:hahaha

[ArchangelTyrael]

It isn't SUV's in particular. Well, at least if you own a ford. For example, I bought my Ford 500 last November. IT gets 18mpg, 21 on the highway; advertised 20/21. The new SUV's from Ford boast 26/27mpg, which is significantly better than their latest car. Of course, the trucks still suck.

Re:hahaha

[technococcus]

You do know that the most fuel-inefficient vehicles that exist are not SUVs, but European-made cars, right? The Bugatti Veyron, the Aston-Martin Vanguish V12, the BMW M8... They drink only Premium fuel and get on the order of 8 mpg-city.

A pickup or an SUV gets vastly better milage; all but the most massive modern models get greater than double that.

Example: '05 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4 (huge freakin' SUV): 15/19 mpg (city/hwy)
'05 Aston-Martin Vanguish: 11/17 mpg

So quit blaming all your SUV-driving fellow Americans and blame Jay Leno and rich Europeans.

Or, y'know, blame the gas companies, or the instability in the middle east, or the lack of public transportation, or your lack of friends with whom you could carpool...

Re:hahaha

[ArchangelTyrael]

I'm talking about ford in particular. But yeah, european-made cars are better. Although more expensive, which is the main concern for most-middle income americans. The ford 500 cost me 26 grand. The Veyron is a $1M show car, and is not for sale so that doesn't count. I can't find any "M8" on BMW's website, so I'll assume the same there. And Ford owns Aston-Martin, so kudos for me :)

Re:hahaha

[drsquare]

Personally I agree with the high levels of tax - they probably make the price more similar to the environmental cost.

Bullshit, it's a regressive tax: the poor lose their mobility and the rich don't have to curtail their driving one bit.

Re:hahaha

[radtea]

Personally, I think the sooner it arrives, the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

There are multiple responses to expensive gas:

1) Government subsidies

2) Price controls

3) Punitive anti-driving laws that bring the price down for the few who are still allowed on the road (who might just be well-connected individuals with access to political power)

4) Invading places that have oil to ensure domestic supply

Economic and technological pressures do not have just one solution, and it is a mistake to think that your prefered solution will naturally come about. Often, due to perverse political and economic forces, exactly the opposite happens.

The rise of the SUV, for example, is intimately linked to fleet limits on fuel efficiency. Light trucks were exempt from the limits, because the poor little Big Three whined that they wouldn't be able to make any money if they had to sell fuel-efficient light trucks, and it would cause great hardship to the average American light-truck driver.

Once they got the exemption, they turned around and started building passenger cars on light truck bodies and selling them as a new category of vehicle: the SUV.

So a combination of flagrant dishonesty and cynical opportunism turned an apparently sensible environmental measure into something with major negatives.

A moral of the story is: when business complains about the hardship some public health or environmental measure will cause them, they are lying through their teeth, and will exploit any variance made in their favour to rack up maximum profit regardless of the price to public health or the environment. Ergo, claims of hardship to business should never be taken seriously on such issues. They have cried wolf too often, and it's time to let them get eaten.

Re:hahaha

[technococcus]

The main idea of my post was that it's not "Stupid Americans buying SUVs OMG" that are causing gasoline prices to rise and, in fact, a lot of SUVs get almost as good a gas milage as modern cars and WAY BETTER gas milage than old shitty cars. If you really wanted to make some progress in increasing fuel economy (and reducing pollution), quit bitching and go buy your poor neighbor who's still driving that old Ford Pinto a new car.

The main contributing factors to oil/gas price increase: Mideast Instability, shitty supply lines, terrorists, FUD, Big Oil companies trying to make as much money as they can squeeze out of people, and diminishing supply causing fear of shortages. Fix those problems, because I can garauntee you fixing them will be orders of magnitude easier than trying to keep Americans from purchasing whatever the hell they want.

Re:hahaha

[kfg]

And more for jerseys, more for inner tubes, more for headlight batteries, eventually more for taxes.

I think some of the people who think they'll be ok because they drive a small car haven't worked out how much less money they're actually going to have. $5 gas costs a lot more than just the extra bucks for the gas, even if you don't even own a car.

KFG

Re:hahaha

[Cally]

What the hell are you talking about?

The last time I filled up my trusty '88 Nissan Bluebird I paid 98.9p/litre. 'units' makes that 4.54609 * 98.9 = £4.49 / gallon. Cable is 183.60, which makes petrol $8.25, out here in the real world. I don't know what sort of loony tune big rock candy mountain fantasy palace fairyland theme-park you're living in, son, but we're WAAAAYYYYY past the $5 gallon! Wake up and smell the cordite!$5 petrol

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

You are of course away of the fact that not all geeks are 5'6"? You try putting my 6'6" 350lb body in whatever Ford Speck you think will work. Just remember that bigger people generally have large children as well.

vaporware

[fredistheking]

It doesn't run on hydrogen only a lithium ion battery. What is so special about this?

Re:vaporware

[kfg]

It doesn't run on hydrogen only a lithium ion battery. What is so special about this?

The fact that it could run on hydrogen, if, ummmmmm, it had any, uuuuuuuuuuuh, and a fuel cell to convert it to electricity and, errrrrrrrrr, FWD?

The FWD is especially cool, 'cause, like, on slick roads? Instead of a controled rear wheel slide you'll , like, wash out the front end, lose steering and crash and shit?

KFG

Re:vaporware

[AKAImBatman]

The fact that it could run on hydrogen

But wait! It gets better!

A hydrogen fuel cell is very unlike a reciprocating engine in that it doesn't NEED to generate constant power. The very idea of a fuel cell, in fact, is that the energy is able to be drawn on demand like a battery, but with the greater energy density of a fuel-based engine.

In plain english, battery backup for a fuel cell would be redundant. All it would do is add extra weight that reduces the number of miles per gallon!

Re:vaporware

[Grant_Watson]

In plain english, battery backup for a fuel cell would be redundant.

Okay, I know next to nothing about fuel cells, but charging them involves electrolysis or some other non-trivial process, yes? So you need a battery if you're going to take advantage of the energy to be gained back from stopping and such.

Re:vaporware

[njh]

Charging batteries also involves electrolysis.

Re:vaporware

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Okay, I know next to nothing about fuel cells, but charging them involves electrolysis or some other non-trivial process, yes?

No. You fill them with fuel. Like at a gas station.

Re:vaporware

[Grant_Watson]

No. You fill them with fuel. Like at a gas station.

Right, but the fuel must be created somehow-- like electrolysis. What I'm saying is that-- as far as I know-- you can't simply generate it from the energy recovered from braking. (Well, presumably you can, but you wouldn't want to.) This is a good reason to have a battery.

Re:vaporware

[jsiren]

Yes, the batteries would probably be charged by the motor when braking, and discharged to aid in acceleration, reducing the need for hydrogen or whatever the primary power is. Then again, this could be achieved just as well, or better with capacitor banks.

I think the battery is being used because they haven't gotten around ordering a hydrogen fuel cell from Hydrocell yet :)

--js/fi--

Hybrid?

[PaintyThePirate]

It seems to me that this is not actually a hybrid, since it has only one method of propulsion, an electric motor. Perhaps the designer got a little buzzword-happy

Re:Hybrid?

[Kuroji]

Electric? Not a peep in the headlines, nobody cares about something that's just electric.
Hybrid? Headlines everywhere! Tax reimbursements! Eco-crazies buying your product up!

From a PR man's viewpoint, which would YOU choose?

Re:Hybrid?

[kfg]

Ahhhhhhhh, if you could only charge batteries with buzzwords. Free, limitless energy for everybody.

KFG

Re:Hybrid?

[mwvdlee]

But that electric motor can be "fueled" by multiple methods.
Must something have two physically separated engines to be considered a hybrid? I thought the term was used to describe multiple energy sources.

Re:Hybrid?

[hamburger lady]

it's still a hybrid. it's what's called a 'series hybrid'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_car#Series

Re:Hybrid?

[hamburger lady]

well, i dunno now...they aren't really clear about the location of the fuel cell.

Re:Hybrid?

[kahrytan]

Hybrids are part gasoline engine and electric engine. Gasoline engine charges electric engine.

This Scooter is a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Scooter much like Honda's FCV/FCX car.

Those who think otherwise are just morons.

The scooter has an electric motor powered by a (Li-)ion battery. If the Fhybrid is ever put into production, the idea is to charge the battery with a fuel-cell system, which would derive its energy from a tank of hydrogen. While scientists are working to make such systems more efficient, obtaining hydrogen (by splitting it out of water) is for now too costly to be practical. Scientists disagree whether it will ever be viable.

The prototype scooter uses a simulated fuel-cell to recharge the battery.

Re:Hybrid?

[wiredlogic]

No. It's not a hybrid. It's just an electric vehicle with two direct sources of electricity. You only get a series hybrid if you have an engine of some form (combustion, steam, Carnot cycle, etc.) that converts non-electric energy (kinetic or thermal) into electricity. By your reasoning you could just take a lead acid powered golf cart, add some NiMh batteries and a switch to to select between the two battery banks and call it a hybrid. A fuel cell generates electicity directly so it is equivalent to a battery.

Re:Hybrid?

[hamburger lady]

actually, two kinds of battery are called a 'hybrid battery pack'.

but a fuel cell in a series system is indeed a hybrid design. just like the same system with a hydrogen-burning turbine generator in place of the fuel cell is also a hybrid system.

the check's in the mail...

[nerdsv650]

> It's coming, Bouman says. Yes, just like $5/gal gas..."

Anyone want to bet that California will see $5/gal gas within 12 months?

I'll see your hummer and raise you my Corola...

-michael

Re:the check's in the mail...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see your hummer and raise you my Corola...
Sucks to be you if you win that bet and have to fill up the Hummer!!!

Re:the check's in the mail...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Anyone want to bet that California will see $5/gal gas within 12 months?"

Funny? I've lived in Cali for 2 years and the price of gas has gone up at least over a dollar a gallon. Okay, $5 may not happen in 12 months without a few events to spark it, but it's easy to picture.

Re:the check's in the mail...

[evilviper]

Anyone want to bet that California will see $5/gal gas within 12 months?

I'll take that bet.

Believe it or not, there has been a glut of oil, and they're running low on places to store it. I expect that, about the time of the switchover to the winter formula, we'll be seeing lower gas prices than we have in the past year.

I know it sounds crazy, but I fully expect next year gas won't be any more expensive than this year, let alone being 30% more expensive than this year's peak.

$5 a gallon?

[Greyfox]

If you're in the UK you're probably why gasonline's dropping a couple bucks a gallon. Sorry to get your hopes up, guys...

Re:$5 a gallon?

[Fullhazard]

Actually, if you're in the UK, you'd be wondering how this is going to affect the price of "petrol" in "quids" or "euros" or whatever.
Wait, wait. Actually, if you're in the UK, you'd probably be using a developed public transit system and fuel efficient car (Oh, Smart, how I love thee).
Fuel prices are more expensive over there because the brits aren't so obsessed with outdated personal-transport and SUVs to justify a war to lower the gas prices. but that's just my 2 cents... Or pence, or whatever the hell a 1/100th euro is times 2.

Re:$5 a gallon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, it's cents isn't it?
100c = 1

I think they were going to be called ecus. But I've always seen them reffered to as cents.

AND you've clearly never heard of the Chelsea tractor.
And the amount of parents driving one toddler to school in an SUV. Hundreds of them.

Have one toddler, buy an SUV. Two, a truck.

Three? Something by Kamag or the russians I think.

J1M.

Re:$5 a gallon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just done the conversion from £/litre to $/US gallon (been meaning to do it for ages just out of curiosity) and you're right, it comes out at just under $7/gallon. What are these yanks making such a fuss about???

Re:$5 a gallon?

[TheRaven64]

I think they were going to be called ecus

Before it was officially launched, the Euro was called the ECU (European Currency Unit). The ECU was not a real currency, it was (oversimplification warning) a weighted average of the currencies of the members of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. When the Euro was introduced, it was issued at a 1:1 exchange rate with the ECU (i.e. the initial exchange rate with any existing currency and the Euro was the same as that currency with the ECU; you couldn't actually trade in ECUs, since they were abstract). The Euro could not be called an Ecu, because that was the name of a pre-revolutionary French coin and it was a requirement of acceptance that the name not be that of an existing currency.

The correct term for a hundredth of a Euro is a Eurocent. For obvious reasons, no one actually calls them this.

I have a hybrid scooter

[Anonymous Crowhead]

It use the latest in bio-energy too. Arguably one of the most efficent machines on the planet, it's called a bike.

Re:I have a hybrid scooter

[Anonymous Coward]

But then you'd be paying for more food.

Re:I have a hybrid scooter

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Nothing says early retirement like a 6 figure income and living frugally.

Re:I have a hybrid scooter

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly frugal... but not pedal bike frugal. So I got a motorcycle with way, way more power than I'll ever need. What fun!

Re:I have a hybrid scooter

[bazorg]

and exactly why is that "hybrid"? do you use natural gas to help pedalling uphill?

Re:I have a hybrid scooter

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the most efficent machines on the planet

Lance Armstrong, is that you?

Scooter?

[daveschroeder]

First of all, this isn't even a "hybrid", since it only seems to feature an electric motor. (And how is this news?)

Second, I'm more interested in GM's next generation MY2008 GMT-900 full-size SUV platform (Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, Escalade EXT): it will have a full/strong hybrid option, powered by both a 5.3L Vortec V8 featuring Displacement on Demand/Active Fuel Management, which can disable 2, 4, or 6 of the 8 cylinders as necessary, two 30kW electric motors and a continuously variable transmission (with the motors and transmission being in the same physical form factor as the conventional Hydramatic automatic transmission on non-hybrid models). These new SUVs will exceed the already-good fuel economy of the 2007 GMT-900 platform trucks which are already using active fuel management, pushing the city fuel economy to around 30mpg. Then is it still "wrong" to drive an SUV instead of an Accord? (*waits for chorus of "yes" for all kinds of ridiculous reasons* - please, bring out the safety and bumper height arguments too! Maybe all cars on the road can be identical, homogenous boxes that all look like Smarts!)

Being responsible doesn't always have to equate to sacrificing things that are genuinely useful. It can mean making the things people like better.

Re:Scooter?

[Moocowsia]

I'd say yes. Barring all emissions and fuel arguements, SUVs and trucks still aren't all that great vehicles. Right now I'm in the bush outside of Teslin, Yukon Territory, Canada, and were dependant on heavy duty or lifted trucks to move geological and drilling supplies around and these trucks (Silverado 2500HDs and such) are just getting at what they should be used for. In town (Whitehorse) they're horrible to drive, have huge blind spots, take forever to slow down, have very poor weight distribution, handle like complete junk and still manage to carry less than my dad's work van. A SUV or full size truck shouldn't be on the top of the list for people who aren't in desparate need to carry a few drums of diesel or require large amounts of ground clearence or an insane amount of towing capacity.

Re:Scooter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then is it still "wrong" to drive an SUV instead of an Accord? (*waits for chorus of "yes" for all kinds of ridiculous reasons* - please, bring out the safety and bumper height arguments too!

Do you consider these ridiculous:

1/ Weight.
2/ Drag.

Regardless of how efficient your propulsion system, or how friendly the fuel and byproducts of making and running it are, the added weight and drag of an SUV means that more energy is required to run it.

Unless of course your energy source is charged from nothing but the likes of solar or wind power?

I'm happy to see a hybrid SUV, but only in the hands of people who actually need them.

Re:Scooter?

[chawly]

Yes, but do they run Linux ?

Re:Scooter?

[outZider]

Yeah, that's the Chrysler/GM codesign hybrid. The Durango is going to get the same system.

Re:Scooter?

[shmlco]

Yes, because the problem with your argument is that it STILL uses more fuel. If those systems were in lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles we'd be talking 40, 50, or even 60 MPG. So it's still burning twice as much fuel as a more efficient vehicle, and driving up demand in the process, which translates into less fuel and higher prices for everyone else.

And that's not even getting into the additional CO2 emissions and energy-independence arguments.

Being responsible is being responsible. Period.

Re:Scooter?

[3.14159265]

Don't know about the Accord, but with a 130BHP VW TDI 1.9L I get around 47mpg in the city and close to 55mpg on the highway, or better if I'm feeling benevolent. Sure, it's not a SUV, but it is a sport-utility vehicle... sport: it easily gets to 135mph and it has a nice torque, utility: I can do pretty much everything with it (e.g. carry my bike in it...), vehicle: it's one. What else... It's cheap to maintain and (relatively) cheap to fill the tank (and it's not uncommon to cover 500 miles with it). Safety? Well, it's filled with airbags and electronics (the ABS and ESP do actually work, are have spared me of some distress several times...), and because it's a smaller target :) and has much shorter stopping distances, I feel the odds are on my side.
I don't think it's wrong to drive an SUV, but how is it not obtuse?

Re:Scooter?

[bazorg]

I would say that the parent poster is not a troll, and still wonder if someone realises that most of the time there's 25 or 50% of the "5.3L Vortec V8" engine switched off, will they consider to buy something with a smaller displacement engine next time?

they come in plenty different sizes these days.
Ford
Renault
VW
Skoda

Re:Scooter?

[Eagle7]

I have to disagree. I have a Silverado 1500 Z71 (not quite a 2500HD, but most folks aren't driving 2500HDs to work, and most SUVs are closer to my Silverado than your HD). It has almost no blind spot thanks to very large mirrors (certainly less than my wife's Accord). If you know how to drive a truck, it handles very well (even with the off road suspension). The braking is plenty reasonable if you drive to allow for the fact that you are in a big, heavy truck. And when you have to haul a load to the dump, pick up some plywood and 2x4s, etc, it simply can't be beat.

Incidentally, I ride my bicycle to work and on most short errands, so the truck only gets used on weekends for longer errands (or to pick up big stuff) or to haul the bike around to rides too far away to ride to. So yeah, I don't think my truck is a great vehicle to commute in - but it certainly is not as bad to drive as you describe.

Re:Scooter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Jetta TDI. I got back from a long road trip a couple of months ago to discover that the trip meter was over 640 miles since my last fill up and the low fuel warning hadn't even lit up yet.

I love this car.

Re:Scooter?

[Overzeetop]

I'm actually quite bummed that they won't be out sooner, and won't be offered on the Silverado. My current lease is up next year and I'll probably get a 1500 hybrid for my work (engineer). I don't haul much for work, but I have to get onto construction sites. My wife thinks I need a "macho" vehicle, I'd prefer a two-seater roadster that say's I've "arrived," as we already have a mini-van for hauling the family. Quite honestly, the 1500 hybrid has one thing I really want - 120V outlets so I can run a portable office in the back seat. It may only get 17-18mpg in the city, but that's most of my driving - short trips to sites and client offices. Heck, that better than most V6 passenger vehicles in the city.

Anyway, the disadvantages to the SUVs and trucks as passenger cars is drag coefficient/frontal area, internal friction in most 4WD/AWD systems, and weight. If you travel any highway miles, or like to jump off the line (guilty!), those factors will hurt, and are inherent to the vehicle type. Dropping the mechanically linked drive train (electric motors) and adding a very good regenrative braking system can overcome a lot of the internal stuff, and more detail to aerodynamics can help the exterior - maybe enough to make them competitive for city driving - but will never really match long haul.

What I want to know is why, with all the mini-vans out there, there isn't one that is a hybrid? It seems like the perfect market segment. Cost conscious buyers, space for the batteries, pregnant egg shape ripe for streamlining, performance issues mostly secondary (low towing, low acceleration is okay). Go figure.

Re:Scooter?

[Don853]

Do you have a link to 30mpg? The only fuel efficiency listed in the article you linked to translates to 15mpg city and 21mpg highway, which is unabashedly terrible, and EPA estimates tend to be higher than what people get anyway because of the way EPA tests are done. For the small percentage of SUV owners who actually use the seating capacity on a regular basis, it may be justified. Otherwise, SUVs will remain an unnecessarily large vehicle that brakes and turns poorly and is a danger to everyone else on the road. They're bad for other driver's roadway vision, too, because they're big, high, and, with tinted windows, opaque.

If I make a comparison between the average SUV and my station wagon, I have better braking and handling, much better fuel efficiency, better traction in the snow (unless it's more than 12-15 inches deep, then I lose out due to less ground clearance), and roof racks that I can actually use because I don't need a ladder to reach them. The only piece of furniture in my apartment that didn't get there in or on my station wagon is a full sized couch, and I wager you'd have a hard time fitting one of them in a Yukon anyway. While I may not get 33mpg like an Accord or 45 like a Civic, station wagons are a true utility vehicle while still getting 30mpg on the highway.

Maybe all cars on the road can be identical, humongous boxes that all look like Yukons!

You see what I did there?

Re:Scooter?

[JD-1027]

So far I'm not allowed to drive a Hummer because it costs me too much to drive.
And now I really shouldn't be driving my truck because I only use it to haul stuff every other week.

Where can I get a list of slashdot approved cars I can own for my needs?

Re:Scooter?

[Moocowsia]

Perhaps a trailer?

best guess of a drowsy mind.

[tempest69]

The Hydrogen Fuel-Cell is able to both charge and provide power to the engine. The electronics are jacked if it doesnt work this way. My guess is that the H-power would go straight to the motor in a high drain situation, and in a lower drain the H power would work to keep the Li battery at a modest reserve. The regenerative braking couldnt recharge a fuel-cell, but would be great for the Li-battery.

My best guess is that the Li battery shouldnt need to be all that big (capacity wise), if your running a fuel cell then you already have a very efficient way of making electricity on demand, so there is less need to store the energy in the Li batteries. It could allow for quick bursts of speed, and a reasonable choice for regenerative braking.

Storm

Re:best guess of a drowsy mind.

[kfg]

The Hydrogen Fuel-Cell is able to both charge and provide power to the engine.

Except for the small detail that it doesn't actually have one.

KFG

Re:best guess of a drowsy mind.

[RajivSLK]

Unless the hydrogen fuel cell simply isn't capable of providing enough enegery to achieve maximum acceleration. In that case energy from the battery and the fuel cell would be required to accelerate and the relatively low output fuel cell would charge the battery during less demanding periods.

The fuel cell would only need two states on and off. On, during acceleration and when the battery is low on charge and, off, when enegery demand is low and the battery is nearly fully charged. This way you could get away with using a relatively small fuel cell that is always running at it's most efficient output current. Seems smart to me.

Re:best guess of a drowsy mind.

[MichaelSmith]

I ride a pushbike to work but I have seen people riding those small electric scooters in traffic and frankly it would scare me. On my bike I can accelerate and brake faster than anything with an engine. The scooter with its small engine and wheels just can't keep up in the same way. I think it would be a hazard on roads with stop-start traffic.

Re:best guess of a drowsy mind.

[deviceb]

"It could allow for quick bursts of speed, and a reasonable choice for regenerative braking"
Sounds like fun, this would mean i would be drifting then pulling wheelies out of every city block corner. -would need the deluxe model for this

Re:best guess of a drowsy mind.

[tempest69]

Except for the small detail that it doesn't actually have one. KFG

Um yea except for that..

Storm

I got a hybrid scooter

[Anonymous Coward]

It has two methods of propulsion.

Left leg

Right leg

They get the thing going pretty well.

Fuel source? Beer gut. It converts animal fats (mine) into sugars which are converted to electrical impulses to move the scooter. Some water and oxygen are also needed for the conversion process. By-products are waste water and some minor gas emissions, CO2, NO, BO, etc.

Globalization at work.

[SpudB0y]

Remember all of those pictures of millions of Chinese riding their bikes to work? Now they are buying cars instead. Soon, many Americans will be wishing they could ride their bikes to work.

I'll really start worrying when I can't afford gas for my moped.

Re:Globalization at work.

[elrous0]

I'm a ./ reader, my friend. I'm WAY to fat for a moped.

-Eric

Re:Globalization at work.

[Anitra]

I do ride my bike (bicycle) to work - and so does my husband, averaging 3-4 round-trips per week. I think most Americans don't realize all the benefits of riding to work:
* you save money on gas and wear on your car(s)
* you save time (and money) if you replace a gym membership
* it's good for you - both physically and mentally. I find that biking home from work gives me time to de-stress, which driving never did.

Obviously, this doesn't work so well if you live more than 15 miles away from your job... but there are still plenty of people doing it.

Re:Globalization at work.

[Capt James McCarthy]

I would like to ride to and from work, however this is not an option for most folks. Most folks do not want to shower before and after the ride to work. (What about the water conservationists?) I know I would not look forward to a 10-15 mile ride in the rain and/or snow. I suppose in warmer places it may work, but here in the north, it is just not going to work.

Re:Globalization at work.

[mugnyte]

  I'm not sure where "north" is for you, but folks do indeed bike in all weather. The trick is to integrate it into your lifestyle when it's easy, then approach the occasional nasty day with determined vigor. Only when enough people do this, and band together to shout at city hall, do things really change.
  Here in Portland, OR, weather varies (much wider than some think) and folks bike year round. In fact, there is a large population of completely "car-free" people, who use short-term rentals for bigger jobs.
  10-15 miles one way does seem too far for a typical 10-20mph bike ride. Perhaps integrating with public transportation (I bus+bike to/from jobs at about 1 hour distances) or refusing work that far from your home?

Re:Globalization at work.

[daft_one]

It's not the cold itself, it's the ice it puts on the ground. And the falling over & breaking/spraining body parts. I am, however, happy to bike when it's not icy.

Re:Globalization at work.

[maxume]

Not having gas to put in your car to drive to the grocery store will help with that.

SUV-bike collision?

[tepples]

And the more I have to pay to fuel my . . .bicycle.

What happens when a vehicle with a drunk driver collides with your vehicle? SUV vs. car: people in car survive if they are properly restrained. SUV vs. bike, even with proper helmets: Don't even go there.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[kfg]

What happens when a vehicle with a drunk driver collides with your vehicle?

Took my friend George three days to die. I got away with a broken collarbone, because I didn't get hit head on at 90 mph. Maybe 'cause the driver wasn't drunk, just an asshole.

On the other hand my next door neighbor went for a drive and didn't make it home alive. There was no other car even involved in the accident. No one knows why it happened. Wasn't drunk, doesn't appear to have been speeding. No skidmarks. Not a heart attack. Just. . .went off the road, turned upside down and died and shit.

I've been hit three times in about as many hundred thousand miles. I'm still alive. Same number of arms, legs and heads that I used to have. Neat little dimple in my collarbone though. Fiddle nestles right into it so I don't need a shoulder pad for comfort. Every dark cloud I guess.

Life is uncertain, except for the fact that sooner or later it's going to end, even if you buckle up and refuse to shower. Maybe it means I'll have my geek card revoked, but I like to shower once a month or so, whether I need it or not. I'm willing to take the risk.

KFG

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Gordonjcp]

I've seen a Hummer H2 destroyed in a collision with a Renault Megane. The two people in the Megane had to be helped from the wreckage. The people in the H2 had to be hosed out.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[JanneM]

What happens when a vehicle with a drunk driver collides with your vehicle?

What happens when a sleep-exhausted semi driver collides with your SUV?

If you're that worried about road safety, take the bus.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Y-Crate]

What happens when a vehicle with a drunk driver collides with your vehicle? SUV vs. car: people in car survive if they are properly restrained. SUV vs. bike, even with proper helmets: Don't even go there.

You can disagree with the site, but the sources are another matter entirely. It's something to think about next time you see a jacked-up SUV with a super reenforced "brush guard" steel bar running across the front grille blowing through another STOP sign.

link

While SUVs pose serious safety problems for their occupants, recent studies are showing that SUVs are greatly increasing the danger on our roads for drivers and passengers in other cars. Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car.(9) In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV.(10) In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.(11),

10. Traffic Safety Facts 1996: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. DOT HS 808 649, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Center for Statistics and Analysis, December, 1997. Chapter 3. page 64. table 37.

11. The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety - Feb.98 study and Nauss , Donald. April 5 1998. "Detroit Circles the Trucks; The big three defend sport-utilities and other hot sellers against an assault by regulators and environmentalists." Los Angeles Times. SectionD: Page 1.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[pherthyl]

What happens when the bus stops on a railway track and gets broadsided?

No really, this happened to my mom when she was younger. She just broke her leg, but lots of other people on that bus died.
If you're that worried about safety, take the train! :)

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[JanneM]

If you're that worried about safety, take the train! :)

I live in Japan, so I do. I've never even bothered to have my licence converted into a Japanese one; trains, subways and bicycles take me wherever I need to go.

Of course, a Japanese train is always at risk of being attacked by Godzilla; I guess the only safe choice is to build my own MechaZilla which should widthstand the ravages of even the most determined bad actor in a rubber suit. ^_^

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[sessamoid]

Of course, a Japanese train is always at risk of being attacked by Godzilla;

Or sarin gas. This is like rock/paper/scissors. Something's always going to destroy the next choice.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good old rock, wins everytime...

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Firehed]

While SUVs pose serious safety problems for their occupants, recent studies are showing that SUVs are greatly increasing the danger on our roads for drivers and passengers in other cars. Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car.(9) In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV.(10) In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.(11),

Well since we live in the land of needing to just get a bigger SUV than the neighbors have for this exact reason, it hardly matters. Teach people how to drive and the problem goes away, not make sure you're driving the biggest car out there. Given the choice, I'd much rather have a small car that isn't going to flip over if I try and dodge an oncoming idiot, Sure, it won't stop drunk drivers being on the roads, but I figure my best defenses are paying attention, knowing my driving abilities, and having a car that can get out of the way rather than having a car that's sure to do more damage to whatever hit it than it takes itself. Given how few people rely on their driving abilities now, I think they might be a bit annoyed if they end up upside-down after instinctually dodging the moron, rather than just bracing for the crash and knowing they'll come out better because they've got the bigger car.

It's called defensive driving. Worked fine for me since I got my license a few years ago, and being a male between the ages of 18-25, I definitely fall into the high-risk category. I absolutely hate driving our SUV when it's my only option - I'm sure I haven't put over 100 miles on it in total, but I don't like so much as backing out of our driveway due to how bad the handling is compared to our cars that are less than half the size. I always feel far less safe driving that thing than an actual car, because I know its design and handling impairs my driving abilities.

So long story short - sure, if someone t-bones me while I'm in a car and they're in an SUV, I'm probably screwed. But I present a much larger and much less manouvreable target when I too am driving an SUV. All in all, my odds are probably about the same, so I might as well save the gas money.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Jesapoo]

Only 4 types of people should drive 4x4 off-roaders (or "SUV" if you like) - people who use them for something that a normal car could not do. e.g....
  - farmers and the like using them as work vehicles (off-road for livelihood)
  - people who live in really out-of-the-way places (off-road for practicality)
  - leisure off-roaders. It's a sport and a hobby (off-road for pleasure)
  - owners of really big trailers, caravans, that sort of thing, who need the pulling power
Whereas 4 types of people should definitely NOT drive them...
  - school-run mothers (mounting the pavement, that's off the road, right?)
  - "I have a bigger car than you" (big car because of tiny penis)
  - Men in their mid-life-crisis (all the cool kids drive open-top jeeps)
  - Gangsters

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Eudial]

If you're that worried about safety, take the train! :)

But what happens if an oil tanker crashes into the train? Since we all know boats can drive on land from watching Speed 2.

If you're that worried about safety, take a 650,000 ton oil tanker!

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[gatzke]

Thankfully we live in a capitalist society, where only one type of person drives a SUV:

Those that both WANT to drive them and can pay for them.

Let gas prices change the equilibrium and reduce the number on the road...

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[hey!]

So long story short - sure, if someone t-bones me while I'm in a car and they're in an SUV, I'm probably screwed. But I present a much larger and much less manouvreable target when I too am driving an SUV. All in all, my odds are probably about the same, so I might as well save the gas money.

Americans have a kind of passive view of safety: you put massive defenses around you and you will be safe. It's the Maginot Line theory. The SUV is the perfect example of this. Statistically it does nothing for the safety of its occupants, and makes others who have to share the road considerably less safe. But it is reassuring to have all that steel around you. We've lost sight of the fact the best way to survive a crash is not to be in one.

My friends who drive my late model standard transmission Accord sedan usually remark on how much fun it is to drive. This happens to be a 4 banger (I'm an eco-nut), so it's not sports car by any means. It's just a competent handling sedan with good tires. People have forgotten the pleasure of driving a car that handles well. It's s shame that the SUV has supplanted the sports car as the American fantasy vehicle.

The other thing they remark on how comfortable it is -- as if they expect driving a sedan is the automotive equivalent of wearing a hair shirt. There's a reason that sedans were the dominant body style for so many years: they represent the best possible compromise between comfort, covenience, safety and performance.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Firehed]

Seems that the problem with that is people tend to forego other things in order to keep their SUV, rather than get a vehicle with reasonable fuel consumption. My father was commuting out-of-state weekly, putting a good 40k+ miles on a car in a year. He did this for three years in a Durango. 14 miles per fucking gallon. He bought a Civic which gets around 40MPG, and in under a year it's nearly paid for itself. Certainly more driving than most people do, but at some point he finally realized that what he was doing was idiotic, and now he's got a good chunk of extra disposable income available.

I just don't see how Americans can be so ignorant as to think that $3/gal is expensive gas. Most of Europe is, what, $8-9/gal converted?

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Da Fokka]

Or sarin gas. This is like rock/paper/scissors. Something's always going to destroy the next choice.

I call Big Crunch!

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[cayenne8]

When they mentioned a hybrid scooter and ethanol, I thought they were talking about something like THIS Scooter .

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Fordiman]

Car v. Bike:
I was flung about ten feet, looked at my bike, gave it a kick to straighten its handlebars, and rode off into the sunset.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[cayenne8]

"Given the choice, I'd much rather have a small car that isn't going to flip over if I try and dodge an oncoming idiot"

Yup...that's the reason I've never owned anything but 2 seat performance sports cars...ok, I had one car that technically had 4 seats...the 930...but, those back ones really didn't count.

If I get hit by and SUV, I'm probably toast, but, so far since I've been able to out accelerate, out handle or out brake most cars on the road...I've been able to avoid many, many accidents.

Sure, it is a pain in the ass when I have to move stuff....but, that's why I always make friends with people who have trucks...I swap cars with them for a day when I need to haul stuff...it works out fine.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[cayenne8]

" just don't see how Americans can be so ignorant as to think that $3/gal is expensive gas. Most of Europe is, what, $8-9/gal converted?"

Yeah, but, European gas has always been sky high. Isn't most of that $8-9/gal over there taxes?

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[j-turkey]

I just don't see how Americans can be so ignorant as to think that $3/gal is expensive gas. Most of Europe is, what, $8-9/gal converted?

Because most Americans don't live in Europe, our gas prices are relative to...our gas prices. Europe's gas prices aren't necessarily relevant to ours, and are generally high because of very high taxes on fuel. Remember that 8 years ago, a gallon of regular unleaded was going for as low as $0.97/gal in the United States.

Further, we're simply not Europe. We are a big, sprawled out country with lots of open space where public transportation isn't as feasible as it is in much of western Europe. After WWII, Americans were encouraged to move out to suburbs and commute into the urban centers where they worked. This has been how much of the country has lived for the last 50 years or so. I understand why fuel prices are getting higher here, and I'm not complaining about it (I drive small fuel efficient cars and ride motorcycles anyway). However, when fuel prices triple over an 8-year period, I can understand how one could be caught off guard and maybe even be a little upset about it.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[gatzke]

But it is still up to the consumer. If he wants to drive an RV around the country for no reason, more power to him.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[j-turkey]

This happens to be a 4 banger (I'm an eco-nut), so it's not sports car by any means.

Not to be argumentative, but back in the day, most sports cars were 4-bangers. All of the original cheap British sports cars in the 50's and early 60's were 4-bangers, as were all early Porsches until the 911. Even now, many sports cars employ 4-cylinder motors (including the Mazda Miata, Toyota MR-Spyder, and Honda S2000). In fact, manufacturers trying to build more eco-friendly cars are embracing the philosophy of early sports cars (and the better current ones - e.g. Lotus Elise) -- make it lighter. The lighter a car, the more fuel efficient it can be. Further, the better it can stop, accelerate, and turn (see Newton's Laws of Motion). In any case, sports cars and eco-friendly are closer than you might think.

Oh, and to keep this on-topic to your post, I'm all about having a nimble vehicle that can avoid the collision in the first place. SUV's have their place, and I won't argue that they don't. However, like you, I prefer smaller cars.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[recursiv]

Car v. bike:
I was flung across the intersection. Looked at my bike, crawled to the sidewalk. I gave my bike a kick, but realized I could not fix a bent fork, two destroyed wheels, and a very bent handlebar by kicking them. An ambulance showed up and took me to the hospital where I was treated for my injuries courtesy of the stupid driver's insurance.

Given the force of the collision, I got off easy.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[evil_Tak]

I just don't see how Americans can be so ignorant as to think that $3/gal is expensive gas. Most of Europe is, what, $8-9/gal converted?

Yes, much of Europe is also covered by effective public transportation systems.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[melandy]

Good old rock, wins everytime...

Poor Bart... always picks rock.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[unix_core]

Further, we're simply not Europe. We are a big, sprawled out country with lots of open space where public transportation isn't as feasible as it is in much of western Europe. After WWII, Americans were encouraged to move out to suburbs and commute into the urban centers where they worked. This has been how much of the country has lived for the last 50 years or so.

Now the american popularity of really big fuel-hungry engines actually seem logical... no wait, uhm. ;)

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Jaknet]

"Yeah, but, European gas has always been sky high. Isn't most of that $8-9/gal over there taxes?"

Whether it's taxes or not. The fuel over here (UK for example) has not always been sky high. When I first started buying fuel it was only £ 1.20 a gall and it's now around £5 per gall

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[homer_ca]

Well, it's not exactly a free market. People bought trucks as passenger vehicles because fuel economy standards are higher for passenger cars and made it harder to buy large cars (Yes, I know that's a government regulation that distorts the market). You seem to think all the SUVs on the road are the result of a fair and free market, but that ignores the huge government sudsidies for driving like road construction (roads cost a lot more than what drivers pay in from gas tax and registration) and a trillion dollar military to "secure access to energy" (although that's not at all a given. The atheist, infidel Chinese seem to have no problem making commercial arrangements with Middle Eastern producers without dominating them militarily).

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[CrazyClimber]

Poor Bart, always choosing rock.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[sponglish]

What happens when a vehicle with a drunk driver collides with your vehicle? SUV vs. car: people in car survive if they are properly restrained. SUV vs. bike, even with proper helmets: Don't even go there.

SUV vs. car: people in car survive if they are properly restrained

What if a ninja is driving the car and Aquaman is behind the wheel of the SUV, who survives then?

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Anonymous Coward]

and a trillion dollar military to "secure access to energy" (although that's not at all a given.

Just buying Iraqi oil would have been cheaper than invading the country.

The atheist, infidel Chinese seem to have no problem making commercial arrangements with Middle Eastern producers without dominating them militarily).

The way that the US Government is always bending over backwards to support Israel dosn't help. Whereas the Chinese don't put the interests of another country before their own.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we see that the result is not good.

I advocate dragging SUV drivers from their vehicles and beating them to death.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Fordiman]

Ok. Was that meant to be a "you lucky fuck" post?

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[SparkEE]

I think everyone here is forgetting that a lot of people buy Sports Utility Vehicles for the Utility aspect. I don't think I know anyone who owns an SUV for the safety aspect. For example, I drive a Honda Ridgeline (which they refer to as a Sports Utility Truck, SUT, but I think most put in the SUV bracket). I use it to bring home wood and drywall for my house projects, carry my motorcycle (which I commute with for the mileage) around when it breaks down or needs maitenance, and to drive to work in the snow when I can't use the bike. For me, my large 16mpg vehicle is all about utility. I think that's likely true for most SUV owners.

A friend luggs around his search & rescue gear in the back of his. Another carries his mountain bike that he uses almost daily, and it would be stolen in the city if it were on a car bike rack. Other people probably find themselves carrying home furnature from antiques shops and such. Also, many SUVs today can seat more than 5 people, which may be another valid reason to own one. Granted the some of these examples could be accomplished with a minivan, but no kidless 30-something wants to drive a damn minivan.

When you move out of your mothers basement and own a home or get hobby (other than gaming), you may find you have a need for some utility in your vehicle also.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Cally]

" just don't see how Americans can be so ignorant as to think that $3/gal is expensive gas. Most of Europe is, what, $8-9/gal converted?" Yeah, but, European gas has always been sky high. Isn't most of that $8-9/gal over there taxes?

Yeah, but, USian petrol has always been absurdly cheap. Isn't most of that 20e/litre petrol over there due to corrupt subsidising of the free market by a fascist, corporatist state that funds circuses over bread (not to mention environmental protection, health and safety, no health service, no education service,...)? Well pardon me for preferring to live in my weird euroweenie socialistic turrist haven, or whatever you're calling us this week.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[bigpat]

...blowing through another STOP sign.

Stop signs are a waste of gas!

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Drooling Iguana]

Aquaman can control the creatures of the sea, which logically includes pirates. The ninja doesn't stand a chance.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[Carpe PM]

...putting a good 40k+ miles on a car in a year....14 miles per fucking gallon. He bought a Civic which gets around 40MPG

40,000 miles/40mpg=1000 gal * $3= $3000

40,000 miles/14mpg=2857 gal * $3= $8571

$8571-3000=$5571

...bought a Civic ... and in under a year it's nearly paid for itself

At under 5500, it had to be used, either high miles or 5+ years old. Expect to rebuild or replace the engine soon, and about every 3 years or so after that. My last Chrysler V8 was just like new after 160,000. Cheaper than a Honda 4 engine will be too.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[recursiv]

Maybe. Mostly I was just providing another data point, since it seemed you were answering the question of "what happens when an suv hits a cyclist?" with "not much". (paraphrased)

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[tepples]

Yeah, but, European gas has always been sky high. Isn't most of that $8-9/gal over there taxes?

True, but I'm guessing that the heaviest users of the public roads pay the heaviest share of the cost of maintaining the roads, unlike the United States where state sales tax (a rawther regressive tax, the USA equivalent of VAT) funds the road system.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[evilviper]

If you're that worried about safety, take the train! :)

Trains have much more mass than semis and buses, but those vehicles will only be POTENTIALLY vulnerable to trains for a few seconds each month, at most.

Trains, however, have a critical flaw. Light passenger trains have to share the same tracks as other passenger trains, and unimaginably massive cargo trains, which take MILES to stop, once they've finally SEEN they're going to crash. You can see it comming for minutes, and STILL have no options but to decide whether you want to jump out, or hang on.

The same goes when a bridge goes out, or tracks are damaged. The train will go off flying, and embed itself 70 feet deep in the hardest packed dirt you can find.

If you look at the actual statistics, travel by train is still pretty dangerous.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[j-turkey]

I think everyone here is forgetting that a lot of people buy Sports Utility Vehicles for the Utility aspect...When you move out of your mothers basement and own a home or get hobby (other than gaming), you may find you have a need for some utility in your vehicle also.

Was your post directed at me (the post that you replied to)? It seems that we are on the same page -- in my post, I said:

SUV's have their place, and I won't argue that they don't.

You're starting to sound a little defensive around someone who prefers different cars, but doesn't give a damn what you drive.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[SparkEE]

No, I wasn't directing that towards anyone in particular. I was more directed to the series of comments below yours, but there were a few different threads, so I replyed to your level rather than picking one. Perhaps a bad idea.

Yeah, I was being a bit defensive to your repliers (and others) who were SUV bashing.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[cayenne8]

No, for the most part, gas taxes here pay for the roads.

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[cayenne8]

"Yeah, but, USian petrol has always been absurdly cheap. Isn't most of that 20e/litre petrol over there due to corrupt subsidising of the free market by a fascist, corporatist state that funds circuses over bread"

Nope...not that I know of. The oil industry is not directly subsidized that I know of....and actually the price of gas has been going up before the latest war thing, due to mandates of what has to go in our gasoline for the environment...

I think basically...no, the reason it has been cheaper here is due to less taxation on it than over there. And there is a good deal of tax on our gas to begin with...

Re:SUV-bike collision?

[ChickenAintDone]

went off the road, turned upside down and died and shit

And this little poetic piece is going on the tombstone I imagine?

At long last,

[QuantumFTL]

...now we can zoom down the street looking completely silly at half the fuel costs!

Go electric

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Shanghai and everywhere in China, you can buy for an electric bicycle or scooter for less than $200 US dollars after some bargaining.

Electric bikes are spreading quickly since they do not require driver license and speed up the commuting. Their price make them affordable for a wide range of Chinese (and expats).

You get between 10 to 20 miles of autonomy depending of the brand/model which is good enough for most of the daily commuters and you still have the pedals in case of shortage of power.

Re:Go electric

[JanneM]

Here in Shanghai and everywhere in China, you can buy for an electric bicycle or scooter for less than $200 US dollars after some bargaining.

They're everywhere in Japan as well, especially the "secondary motor" bicycle kind, where you still pedal and the motor gives you extra help for inclines or headwinds. They extend the range, you don't get sweaty, and they're very cheap to buy and run - the drive system doesn't actually need to be able to push the bike all by itself afer all, so the whole package is small and light.

Re:Go electric

[kfg]

I've never really understood the electric moped, but these I like. I've been messing around with HPV designs like this. Even posted a bit about it.

There are legal issues around here though. Car culture breeds car culture laws.

KFG

Re:Go electric

[Viol8]

I bought an electric scooter (not a moped but the sort you stand on). I thought I might
be able to use it for commuting short distances but its really only a toy as it runs out
of power after only a few miles and it is hopeless on any hills of more than a few degrees incline. And of course once the power runs out you have to push it. An electric bicycle however seems like a good idea.

Re:Go electric

[DNS-and-BIND]

I have a bike of the type you described. I just got off it about 10 minutes ago, actually.

The e-bike is great. I love mine. However, it's not a solution to all problems. Here are the problems that I see with e-bikes in China:

• Bike thieves are everywhere, and it's better to steal e-bikes instead of a normal bicycle.
• The bike lanes are crowded, and people simply don't watch where they're going. They swerve all over the place, and cars speed around blind corners.
• Of course you need a license - I had to get one for mine. I don't know where you got that idea.
• They're vulnerable to the usual problems of bicycles - cold weather, rainy weather, hot weather, basically any kind of weather other than "warm and sunny" makes it a pain to ride an e-bike. All winter, I wrapped myself up in clothes and scarves until only my eyes were visible.
• The pedals ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WORK to help if you have a shortage of power. The bike is about 40 pounds heavier with the battery in it, plus the weight of the frame, which is heavier than a normal bike. It takes less energy just to get off and push the bike.

I love my e-bike, but to say that it's a panacea is just deceptive.

Re:Go electric

[Anonymous Coward]

Problems (traffic,thieves) you are describing are not inherent to electric bikes but Shanghai or any big city.

Your license is for your bike not you as a driver. It's given when you buy it.

There are tens of electric bike models and some are light just few pounds more than an ordinary bike.

I never said it is panacea but it's always better than the same amount of cars.

Re:Go electric

[DNS-and-BIND]

But if you have an electric bike, it's a much bigger target for thieves. E-bike, 2000RMB, regular bike 300RMB.

Nope, you have to take a license test and you get a license. Maybe you're driving illegally?

Yeah, the sucky E-bikes are more bicycle-like. Lighter battery = much shorter battery life.

Re:Go electric

[Anonymous Coward]

You are getting ripped off then.

I bought an electric scooter over on Qiu Jiang lu for 200RMB last month.
Thats about US$23

The gas scooters ones are pretty awesome (+-RMB800) (although dangerous). Electric scooters suck for power and range.

Electric Bikes are in the 500-800RMB range.

But don't worry, I do my bit for the environment - I drive an SUV here (Beijing Jeep).

Lawrence / http://www.computersolutions.cn/ / http://www.shanghaiguide.com/

Re:Go electric

[Dr. Cody]

I thought those electric bikes are getting popular only because the City kicked the bikes off most roads.

nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[rsilvergun]

because when it comes right down to it, they're safer. Sadly, the reason they're safer is they destroy anyone or anything not in an equivalent vehicle. So, you're a professional earning $40k+/year, why not spend the extra $200/month so that when your lousy driving causes and accident you walk away with a scratch and the other (poorer) guy bites it? Wish I could say I was trolling, but about once or twice a year I read a story on fark or rotten or even my local paper about some drunk SUV driver killing a family because he ran a red, and he doesn't even see a chiropracter. I'm one of the have-nots, and I'm driving an old station wagon, so I'm more than a little concerned.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[JanneM]

because when it comes right down to it, they're safer. Sadly, the reason they're safer is they destroy anyone or anything not in an equivalent vehicle.

A bus or an 18-wheeler is safer still, for the same reasons. So I guess if you really care about safety that's what you should buy and drive to work every morning.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Hektor_Troy]

Why not build a custom car, that simply "abuses" the high ground clearance on SUV's and the like? Something that simply slides under those types of cars and makes them airborne?

Since most of the kinetic energy from the other car will remain as forward momentum, your car "just" has to absorb a bit of energy, and you do have seat belts and airbags to make you even safer.

You end up with two nice effects:
1) SUV crashes, takes most of the brunt and hopefully explodes in a nice fireball.
2) SUV driver might end up severely injured or dead along with their passengers

Enough of those crashes, and people will start shunning the crappy SUV's

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not safer. in fact, when in a crash you are more likely to do serious damage to a pedestrian or cyclist compared to a regular car.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from when they roll over.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[monsted]

I'm reasonably certain that you'd be safer in most of the offerings from a certain swedish brand of cars recently bought by Ford than you'd ever be in an Escalade.

SUVs don't make you safe, it only makes you bigger and gives you more kinetic energy to get rid of. Sure, it'll trump a 1980s Ford Escort, but that's not because an SUV is safe, it's because the Escort is shitty. http://www.euroncap.com/ runs a good testing program and you might note that a Toyota Prius gets a better safety rating than a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[HaydnH]

"because when it comes right down to it, they're safer. Sadly, the reason they're safer is they destroy anyone or anything not in an equivalent vehicle."

Actually there have been a lot of studies that have shown the opposite, for example have a look at the chart on page three of this pdf. You'll see that in this study the amount of deaths of the primary driver per million sold is higher in SUV's than large cars, midsize cars, minivans and imported luxury cars. Compact & subcompact are worse for the primary driver - obviously tin cans with a motor don't handle accidents well! Pickup trucks are the second worst and I'm suprised they're not more similar to SUV's. The worst is sports cars, possibly a combination of the historically bad handling of american sports cars and the fact that 150-200mph on a suburban road is usualy a bad idea!

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Roxton]

From the article:

The risk to drivers of average midsize and large cars is about the same as for the average
SUV. [...] Similarly, the risk to drivers of the safest midsize and large car models (Avalon, Camry, and
Accord) is about the same as for the safest SUVs (Suburban, Cherokee, and Tahoe).

So, uh, I'd say you're misreading the article.

What's more, a lot of the make-up of the SUV risk is from roll-overs, suggesting that while the risk is equal, SUV owners have more control of their risk. Perception of control is a huge factor in safety decisions.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[sparklefairy]

I agree; I know someone who rolled one of those cars to which you refer (within 2 weeks of getting his license), and was hit in another one, and walked away from both accidents without a scratch. But these were cars from before they were acquired by an American company.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[shotgunsaint]

I believe that on Battlebots, they call this the "wedge style". It is quite effective. That's a pretty good idea!

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of those tests just involve tghe car hitting stationary objects. It's a deifferent ball game as soon as you get into the realm of head on collisions with things heavier than you.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[NuShrike]

Already happened ...

Yukon vs Accord head-on
Mustang side swipes an Explorer

And from the archives, the Gladwell article about SUVs: the psychology, history, and numbers:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Personally, I'm glad people drive SUVs. It's like the stupid-tax they call the lottery, but here it's like watching Darwinism in high-chairs action.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[glsunder]

I realize this could never happen, but deep down, I feel we'd be better off if we had a law that people were limited to 5 accidents. After that, they had to drive a sub-compact car. If you've been in more than 5 accidents in your life, you suck at driving and shouldn't be putting others at risk by driving anything larger than a VW rabbit.

Of course, this is totally unrealistic. But it annoys me when most of the bad drivers I see are either in giant trucks or large "granny" cars. I'd even say all people over 75 shouldn't be allowed to drive large cars. Sorry, any 2 year old child is worth more than some half blind, barely concious 80 year old woman driving a caddie.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[GooberToo]

Ya...they tend to be safer because of all of the other jackasses that drive SUVs. It created its own nasty cycle. Having said that, you can NOT say, across the board that SUVs are safer. SUVs tend to be in more accidents because low performance drivers dumbly believe they are "safer", therefore, they can drive faster and closer; thinking, screw the other drivers...I'll be safe.

SUVs also suffer significantly from roll overs and loss of control at high speed. These types of accidents often cause significant injury, or death, for all involved. I personally believe all SUVs over a specific weight class should require a governer which prevents speeds in excess of 80mph. That sounds crazy, but I can't tell you how many times I see these things with lowperformance drivers tooling along at 90 - 100 mph, while they talk on the phone...and gosh...what a surprise that idiots like them kill themselves or others.

The long of the short, SUVs have become a status symbol for small penis men. The VAST majority (based on 2004 number; 72%) of SUVs never carry more than four people. Of those that 72%, 80%+ of them normally drive around with a single occupant. Likewise, some 80% (again 2004 numbers...probably even worse today) never tow anything or go off road. We would have lower gas prices, lower insurance rates, less polution, and vastly safer roads if it were not for SUVs. The only plus here is that small penis drivers are being removed from the gene pool.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Profane MuthaFucka]

They're safer at the expense of your fellow travellers in smaller cars. That's the HEIGHT of selfishness, and it ignores the fact that if everybody drives large heavy cars and SUVs (which for the most part people do) the safety advantage of mass is negated. We could all be driving much lighter vehicles and we'd be just as safe.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Epistax]

When a Civic and an H3 crash. the H3 gets destroyed, the Civic, not so much. Granted this is an extreme example (H3's totally blow), but H3's are sold as being tough, so it's valid.

The problem with the argument that you need to have a vehicle at least as big as anyone else's is of course escalation. If that mentality is common, then people will buy larger and larger vehicles to no end, after all that is how these things work. Any safety you have is short term. On the other hand if you support the mentality that paying attention while you drive is more important, then there will be no escalation, people will drive smaller vehicles, and there will be less carnage on th road.

Now you're a have-not so I'm certainly not picking on you. Just everyone else who thinks that driving an SUV makes them safer.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of you guys obviously have never had kids (insert slashdot readers not having sex/girlfriends/etc joke here). A SUV is perfect for dragging the kiddos around. It's a heck of a lot easier to get them in and out than a sedan or other smaller vehicle, it's not as unwieldy as a mini-van (odd that noone complains about those) and it allows pretty good storage in the back too. Granted my wife and I have one of the smaller SUVs (a Bravada) but still, there are perfectly good reasons to own one other than status.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[deviceb]

I'm pictureing a low profile Hybrid with a sorta~ serrated blade running up the middle.. hrm.. kinda like 20,000 leagues under the sea. If it worked on submarines it should function on hybrid cars!

now it just needs a catchy name & image.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Easier to kill somebody with" is a strange definition of "safer".

By that logic, shouldn't these soccer moms also be wearing full body armor, and carrying the largest automatic weapon they can find, with the safety off?

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[morcheeba]

That makes me feel the need to transport long metal pipes on my roof, at right about SUV eye level.

I care about safety, so I've got the best brakes on the road and high-performance tires to match. It won't protect me from an idiot who is tailgating me and even if they had 0-second reaction time, would still absolutely crush my car.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[mpe]

Why not build a custom car, that simply "abuses" the high ground clearance on SUV's and the like? Something that simply slides under those types of cars and makes them airborne?

Make both cars radio controlled and you'd have "Mythbusters meets Robot Wars".

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[mpe]

SUVs don't make you safe, it only makes you bigger and gives you more kinetic energy to get rid of. Sure, it'll trump a 1980s Ford Escort, but that's not because an SUV is safe, it's because the Escort is shitty.

How well is that 20-25 year old Escort going to do against any modern car? Even assuming the Escort has corrosion issues.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[stephenisu]

From the eurocap FAQ page

In frontal impacts between cars, the occupants of the heavier car or the one with higher structures tend to fare better than those travelling in lighter lower cars. It should be noted though that higher vehicles tend to be less stable and consequently more likely to be involved in accidents, particularly those involving loss of control, where overturning or an impact with a roadside obstacle may occur. These effects are currently impossible to overcome. As most people decide on the size of the car to buy for other reasons, Euro NCAP only makes comparisons within size categories. The rating of a car within its size category is a function of the quality of its safety design.

The impact ratings are relative to size.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[green1]

min-vans are smaller than most SUVs, are easier to get the kids in and out of, and have more cargo space, more fuel efficient, and are MUCH MUCH safer for you, your kids, and the rest of the world outside your vehicle, they handle better to avoid collisions, and perform better in almost all types of collisions.

the people who say that they need an SUV because they have kids is simply ignoring the fact that there is a much better vehicle out there for the purpose that they simply don't like (usually because it doesn't let them feel "macho" enough)

and if you insist that an SUV is too big, there are a large variety of station wagons on the market now too, which have at least as much cargo space as an SUV, with none of the drawbacks.

the only reason to own an SUV is if you are truly spending a lot of time off-road (and I don't mean gravel road, or dirt road, I mean NO road) and even then, there are only a select few SUVs that are any good at that either.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[fahrbot-bot]

You'll see that in this study the amount of deaths of the primary driver per million sold is higher in SUV's than large cars, midsize cars, minivans and imported luxury cars. Compact & subcompact are worse for the primary driver - obviously tin cans with a motor don't handle accidents well! Pickup trucks are the second worst and I'm suprised they're not more similar to SUV's.

Most SUVs are built on truck frames and are basically trucks with more interior space, etc... These studies don't consider smaller, cross-over SUVs like the Honda CRV, which are more similar to cars in their construction (and have higher safety ratings).

As far as efficiency, many SUVs and minivans are quite similar according to fueleconomy.gov and I'm always annoyed when people bash SUVs and ignore minivans.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[SydShamino]

I drive a Miata. Most SUVs would go up and over my car if they hit me. It might flip them over, and maybe hurt them badly if they aren't wearing a seat belt. I wouldn't know; I'd be dead from having them drive over my head.

Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs

[HaydnH]

"I'm always annoyed when people bash SUVs and ignore minivans."

I think the reasoning for this is that SUV's are quite often used by people who don't really need the extra space where as minivans are used for comercial purposes.

Hydrogen economy

[c.r.o.c.o]

If before the war in Iraq the US would have taken even a small part of the money spent on it, the entire economy would have been well on its way to becoming hydrogen based. According to the US government itself, by 2010 $570 billion will have been spent on the "war on terror" (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051006/w100670.html). If one hydrogen refueling station were to cost $10 million each, each city on the continent could have at least one built by the government itself. Even adding the need for new electricity generation, it would still cost less than the "war on terror"

Then the dependence on foreign oil and its associated conflicts would have decreased significantly. And since the US is still the world's largest economy, this would have had a domino effect throughout the rest of the world, if only because of the economies of scale would be taken care of.

I know this is a naive way of looking at the issue, but it was still a missed opportunity. And it will keep happening untill there are no other alternatives. The oil companies are generating HUGE proffits due to high oil prices and our dependence on it. The domestic car manufacturers cannot afford the R&D costs associated to switching over to fuel cells. And the consumers themselves do not want change, and will continue driving V8 monsters for as long as they can afford it.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[LordLucless]

If one hydrogen refueling station were to cost $10 million each, each city on the continent could have at least one built by the government itself. Even adding the need for new electricity generation, it would still cost less than the "war on terror"

That's cool, you'd have a whole lot of hydrogen fuel stations. But what are you going to pump? How are you going to produce hydrogen in an energy-efficient manner? And where are you going to be getting the fuel that's needed to process the hydrogen? Then once you've got the hydrogen, how are you going to get it to the fuel stations? Current infrastructure can't handle hydrogen because it's a much smaller size than your petroleum atom, and needs much tighter containment to keep it leaking away. And once you've got it there, what are you going to do with it? There is nothing that needs it yet. And even if there were hydrogen-powered cars available, how many people are going to immediatly dump their current car and buy a new one.

There are a lot more barriers in the way of the "hydrogen economy" than mere dollars. There's technological, social, political, and yes, economic factors that all need to be addressed before there's any chance of it happening. The conversion process itself, if it happens, is likely to take decades (since it also involves consumers replacing all their petroleum-fueled motors) and building refueling stations is likely to be the very last part of the process.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[foreverdisillusioned]

I know this is a naive way of looking at the issue

It's not naive--far from it. It's just not politically correct. What's naive (though it *is* politically correct) is to think that the trillions of dollars spent on (you forgot to include the costs of the Afgan and Iraq wars in your figure-- the total is indeed well over a trillion) will make us safer. In reality, a few million dollars spent on extra security and a few basic improvements with inter-agency communication was all that was needed after 9/11, but I guess politics has always been a game of overreaction.

There are a lot more barriers in the way of the "hydrogen economy" than mere dollars.

That may be true, but a bunch of "mere dollars" would certainly freakin' help. If the government put a hydrogen fueling station in every city and built a few power plants (which don't need to be anywhere near populated areas, and thus can easily be nuclear, solar, wind, or some other form of non-polluting type) dedicated to large-scale hydrogen production via electrolysis of water, I'd wager that the auto companies would work out the technological kinks of hydrogen cars on their own and the "social" issues would be non-existent in the face of 1. Saving money and 2. running 100% non-polluting cars.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[derubergeek]

And the best part of your plan is that the oil companies could get even more money generating all of the power necessary to operate those 57,000 hydrogen-generating stations!

1. Subsidize $570 billion in H2 plants.
2. Create hydrogen from mass amounts of fossil fuels.
3. Profit!!!!

Re:Hydrogen economy

[LS]

You seem to have forgotton that Bush and his gang are brain damaged.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, we could have saved billions of dollars in the war on terror.

Simple solution, just use some of our existing nukes!

We have thousands of them, no need to use ground troops, and they work quickly! No sticky land war to contend with.

No more arguments about cut and run retreats!

No arguments about up armored humvees!

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudis, Egypt, and maybe a few others...

Re:Hydrogen economy

[muellerr1]

The oil companies are generating HUGE proffits due to high oil prices and our dependence on it.

Bingo. Which is exactly why we went to war instead of building efficient infrastructure at home. We're not just over there securing rights to our oil interests, we're destabilizing the region which drives the price of oil up everywhere; hence, the HUGE profits.

Christ, it's getting to the point where I don't even have to put my tinfoil hat on to believe it anymore.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[LordLucless]

If the government put a hydrogen fueling station in every city and built a few power plants (which don't need to be anywhere near populated areas, and thus can easily be nuclear, solar, wind, or some other form of non-polluting type) dedicated to large-scale hydrogen production via electrolysis of water, I'd wager that the auto companies would work out the technological kinks of hydrogen cars on their own and the "social" issues would be non-existent in the face of 1. Saving money and 2. running 100% non-polluting cars.

You still have the problem of transporting the hydrogen between the production plants and the distributors. That is a large barrier, as leakage is still a significant problem when transporting hydrogen. There's your technological barrier. Then, even if the auto-industry gets a hydrogen-enabled car, you've got to get people to upgrade their cars to a hydrogen model. Good luck with that. Petroleum is going to have to have a severe price increase to get people to shell out for a non-petroleum car. There's your social problem. And, because of all that, no government is going to shell out money for infrastructure now that is just going to sit there and do nothing until all those problems are solved. Call that political or economic, it could fit in either one. That's even assuming the government would want to build refueling stations, when they aren't traditionally involved in that market.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[Quiet_Desperation]

If before the war in Iraq the US would have taken even a small part of the money spent on it, the entire economy would have been well on its way to becoming hydrogen based.

This idea assumes, of course, that God has a sneezing fit and the universe is suddenly run by cartoon physics.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[RhettLivingston]

First of all, even with the current increases, the cheapest way to get hydrogen right now is to liberate it from a barrel of oil due to the relative weakness of the chemical bonds versus other widely available hydrogen compounds. To avoid the use of oil takes more power than to use oil. The necessary infrastructure just for the refinery changeover is in the trillions, not billions.

Second, if electricity is used to liberate the hydrogen from a compound, we'd need to at least triple our electric generation depending on the compound used. This cost is also in the many trillions.

Third, a distribution infrastructure needs to be built. If its pipelines, we're talking many new sophisticated pipelines. Existing ones can't generally be converted. If its electric, the electric distribution system needs to at least triple. Again, trillions.

Also, most of our electricity is still produced from fossil fuels. To triple our capacity quickly with as little practical and aesthetic environmental impact as possible, we'd need to go nuclear and we're still hampered by our own cold war propaganda in that area.

Another barrier is simply the time to replace the cars. Many millions of Americans can't afford to spend more than a couple thousand dollars on a car. Most of the fuel cell design directions seem to depend on a much longer lifetime of the base vehicle to offset a much higher initial cost, some even planning on swapping out the bulk of the body a few times to allow the base vehicle to reach into the half million mile realm. This means that it will take a very long time for these vehicles to get down to the level where the lower class can purchase them. The middle class will be purchasing these vehicles on at least 10 year loans. They most likely will not be able to pay for two at one time, so it will take them at least 10 years after they make their first purchase to replace both cars. Count on it taking at least 30 years to evolve gas out and more likely 50 years.

So, much easier said than done. I believe it will be done in time, but its going to take much more than a few 100 billion dollars and a few years. That might pay for the factory changeover of the vehicle manufacturers and reeducation of over a million mechanics though.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[LS]

Would you care to explain yourself? What exactly is physically impossible about a hydrogen based economy? So some random Slashdotters' estimates on time and money are a bit off, but that doesn't preclude the scenario from actually happening. The guy didn't even claim that the infrastructure would be completely replaced, just off to a good start. There are obviously tons of scientific, engineering, and logistical issues that need to be solved, but that shouldn't stop us from moving forward. You are aware that oil will run out, probably within your lifetime. What do you propose we do? Revert back to a local agrarian economy? Or invest in the research and development of new energy sources (nuclear, wind, solar, etc) and storage mechanisms (hydrogen, batteries, etc). For all you confused folks - hydrogen is not a source of energy, again, it is a storage mechanism. Yes, some energy is lost in the storage of hydrogen, but it is also lost in other forms as well.

LS

Re:Hydrogen economy

[derubergeek]

Christ, it's getting to the point where I don't even have to put my tinfoil hat on to believe it anymore.

That's when you know you've passed over into permanent insanity.

Re:Hydrogen economy

[NuShrike]

Define HUGE profits.

The oil industry such as Exxon recently made 9% after direct costs. Drug companies routinely range in the 25% after direct costs, and real estate has been in the 20% area after direct costs.

Who's making too much money again?

Meantime, the USA is all about wasting money. That's why we're fat, lazy, and quite frankly, taking the form of sheep; the loud baahing just won't stop though. :) We need a war on" stupidity and incompetent progress of the human race".

Meanwhile, what's the efficiency loss of going to hydrogen, then going to the battery, then serially driving it into propulsion? You would think it would be more efficient to directly charge the battery instead, or store it in something more energy dense than hydrogen, such as petro.

Well...

[Achilles2.0]

I'm sure Microsoft will get all the serious bugs hammered out...oh who am I kidding? This will be a very bad Christmas season indeed.

Hybrid

[AwesomeCranberry]

> It seems to me that this is not actually a hybrid, since it has only one method of propulsion, an electric motor. Perhaps the designer got a little buzzword-happy It is a scooter... you are the other method of propulsion.

Re:Hybrid

[tehcyder]

It is a scooter... you are the other method of propulsion.

No it's a Vespa-type scooter, not a child's push-along-with-one-leg scooter.

$5 a gallon vs. what?

[Korin43]

Isn't this still cheaper than hydrogen and such?

Not even funny anymore

[rammer]

>Sweden already have it.

So does Finland and many other nations around the world.

I always found it rather amusing the way people in the US bitched about "high" fuel prices.
BOO HOO.

This morning here in Tampere,Finland the price was 1.42 EUR/l for 95 octane (6.843 USD/gal for SI-unit impaired).
This about average for the whole of Finland.
Combine this with the fact that due to idiotic taxation Finland has the oldest cars in EU. (Not counting former soviet bloc).
And cold winters. And large distances. Then you will have some understanding of how much it sucks to have these fuel prices.

Stop complaining until your gasoline prices are as high as this.
Although when the US has $6 gas we will probably have to pay 12.

What is the price of fuel ethanol again?

Within the next year fuel ethanol will be cheaper than gasoline almost everywhere. If current trends continue.
They probably will not continue due to increased use of ethanol.

But within 5 years ethanol will the fuel of choice.
And until they can manufacture hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen in sufficient quantities for sufficient prices I don't imagine that this will change. Maybe in the next 20 years. Maybe by then we will have fusion reactors. (Yeah right!!)

Re:Not even funny anymore

[John Betonschaar]

So does Finland and many other nations around the world.

I always found it rather amusing the way people in the US bitched about "high" fuel prices.
BOO HOO.

This morning here in Tampere,Finland the price was 1.42 EUR/l for 95 octane (6.843 USD/gal for SI-unit impaired).

Just FYI, in The Netherlands 95 octane already goes for over 1.50 EUR/litre. A full tank for my car (which needs 98 octane) costs almost 70 EUR :-/. So I totally agree, except that 'amusing' might not be the exact words I'd use, 'pitiful' would be more appropriate. Considering the gasoline usage of an average American is almost three times more than the average American (as I've read sometime), it does annoy me the US keeps whining about gas prices...

Re:Not even funny anymore

[miyako]

I am from the US, and I have not yet had the opportunity to travel outside of the US, so my knowledge is based on talking to friends who live in other countries, and specifically to people who have lived in both Europe and the US.
Granted, gas is cheaper in the US than in many other places in the world, but even with relatively lower gas prices, I think that the price of gas going up effects Americans more than people in a lot of other countries. Part of it is because a lot of people in the US buy SUVs and other big gas guzzlers as status symbols, but another big part of the problem is the transportation infrastructure of the US.
The United States is a big country, it's also very spread out. Even looking at a single city within the US, things tend to be spread out over a larger area, and arranged in strange ways compared to a lot of other countries. With the exception of a few larger cities, there is also almost no form of mass transit. I live in a fairly large city, and we have nothing like a subway or street cars. There is a bus system, but it only covers a fairly small portion of down town. I would have to walk over 20 miles to get to the nearest bus stop, and I live in the city, not in a suburb. Now, 20 miles is a fairly long walk if I'm trying to get someplace in a reasonable period of time, but even if I wanted to walk, due to the layout of the city, it would still be hard to do so. For the most part, with the exception of neighborhoods and a few shopping areas, there aren't crosswalks or foot bridges going over highways. If I wanted to walk to the bus stop, I would have to either cross a 6 lane highway, or walk an additional several miles out of my way to find a safe spot to cross.
Bicylce lanes are also pretty rare around here, and the most direct route almost anywhere in this city is via interstate, which doesn't allow bicycles (and one would be crazy to try, even if it were legal).
To take an example, I had a job interview last week. It was about 40 miles away from my house, on the other side of the city (technically it was outside of the city, but in the greater metropolitan area, and only a couple of miles outside of the city proper). The round trip in my car (a relatively small car by US standards) would have cost me about $20 with the current gas prices (40 miles each way, 80 miles total, and it would have taken probably about 1/2 a tank of gas). Assuming I were to get that job, until I could find a place to live closer to where I would be working, I would have to spend $100/week in gas. That would end up being about 15% of my paycheck before taxes, or about 20% after taxes, just to get back and forth to work.
Now say I decided to save money and the environment and use alternative transportation. I can't bicylcle there, because even after having lived in the city for 22 years, I can't think of a way to get there by bike at all, and if I did it would probably go through so many side streets just to avoid the interstates that it would take me half a day to get there. I could walk to the bus stop, but like I said, it's almost 20 miles to the nearest bus stop, and then the best I could hope for would be to get about 10 to 15 miles, and still have another 5 to 10 miles to walk. It's been around 100 degrees Farenheight here lately, with humidity at around 80 to 90 percent. Even if I were in good enough physical shape to make that walk (go ahead and make some fat, lazy american jokes if you wish, but I know there is no way I could make that walk in this heat) I don't think I would be able to arrive and still appear well groomed and professional enough to keep the job.
In short, Americans have cheap gas relative to a lot of other places, but we also are pretty much stuck driving further to get anywhere, and with fewer alternative options for other forms of transport than people in many other countries have. This is largely thanks to cities being planned out and having grown up at a time when everyone had a car or two, and gas was far cheaper than milk. Many european cities

Re:Not even funny anymore

[AGMW]

I think what you are saying is that if the US wanted to try and move to a more eco-friendly transport infrastructure, they wouldn't want to start from here.

On my trips to the US I've been amazed to find that there aren't any pedestrian walkways (pavement to us UK chaps, and I think "sidewalk" is what you US fellows call them). Because of the ubiquitous car (and that perhaps because of the cheap petrol) there is no (useful) public transport, and because there is no public transport, everyone uses the car, so why build cycle lanes or sidewalks, or foot-bridges over highways.

It's a bit of a catch-22. The problem is that the petrol is going to run out at some point - the light at the end of the tunnel isn't some unobtanium that's gonna replace petrol, it's a runaway train hurtling towards us.

But it's not a vote winner. Do you want $2 on a gallon of gas to put towards finding an alternative? Hell No! No Gov, local or otherwise, is going to impose that tax because they won't get re-elected, and when the problem does hit they'll all be nicely retired from the fray, so why bother now - right?

What we need is some government with some backbone to impose the tax, to encourage (nay, fund!) the research. There'd be a bunch of bleating about it now, but in 20, 30, 50 years, it'll sure be nice to realise we're ahead of the curve rather than sitting in the dark in our houses that we can no longer afford to cool in the summer or heat in the winter.

But then I was always a "do my homework as soon as I got it" sort of person, rather than the "stay up late the night before" chap.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[matt21811]

Here are two ideas for you.

1. Buy a small car. (appologies for this, but I think in metric) 400 miles a week is 640kms. Pleanty of small cars can get 7 litres per 100kms. Thats about 45 litres a week. If your petrol is $3 a gallon, 3.8 litres to the gallon, 45/3.8*$3 is only $36 a week, not $100. Which is only 5% of you income before paycheck. A Prius can get 4.5l/100kms ($22 a week, 1.5% of your income). I just realised that to be spending $100 a week on petrol you car must be getting 21 l/100km which I am sure is a crime in some countries.

2. Move closer to your work.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[ColaMan]

Australians are in a similar situation - fuel here is the equivalent of USD3.90/gal.
It's a 9 hour drive to the next largest population centre of 200,000 people. Forget rail/bus/air transport.

The most popular large sedans in Australia have 6 cylinder engines that get about 27-30mpg highway. V8's are becoming, well, not 'rare', but they're a lot less visible than they used to be. While there's plenty of large cars and 4WDs, but theres none so large as what I've seen in the states as 'common'. For example, there's one (1) F350 truck in my town of 25,000 people.

You're going to have to adapt. Your cars will shrink, they'll become more fuel-efficient and their total horsepower will reduce. But saying that, you'll still be driving them everywhere for a long time yet.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[freedom_india]

You are EXACTLY on target. Well written and clearly explained.

However most of these guys who live outside the US would never learn the issues we are facing.

In Keene, NH for instance (which is a very small town), walking from local mall to the local Holiday Inn/mini-Walmart takes 45 mins. to 1 hour. By the local Monadnock Taxi it would cost $5.00 to cover the distance.

To those of you outside US, stop complaining about Gas prices. If you live in US, the so-called cheap Gas eats up a lot of money due to the distances involved.

And considering most of us still use Pontiac or an old Toyota, it costs a huge amount.

And you finnish guy, you don't know the distances we are talking about, OK???

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

completely agree with you

Re:Not even funny anymore

[badfish99]

walking from local mall to the local Holiday Inn/mini-Walmart takes 45 mins
So build your buildings closer together.

Here in Europe, living in the centre of the city, within walking distance of everything, is becoming more and more popular. As transport becomes more expensive, the suburbs will wither and die.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[RandoX]

Just out of curiosity, doesn't most of Europe have free, or at least government subsidised, health care? I spend around $200USD per month for myself and my wife for health insurance. That's whether I use it or not. If I do use it, I have a $15 copayment right off the top (which is pretty cheap). Then the insurance only pays about 80% of the remainder. It usually costs me around $50-$100 every time I have to go to the doctor or dentist for anything. Prescriptions are mostly covered by insurance (I only have to pay $20 for a 30-day supply). The United States may have cheaper gas, but our health care system is abysmal. I don't know exactly what European countries have available for health care. Please feel free to enlighten me.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[lowrydr310]

This morning here in Tampere,Finland the price was 1.42 EUR/l for 95 octane (6.843 USD/gal for SI-unit impaired).

Don't forget to convert your octane too, as we use a different octane calculation in the USA. Your 95 octane is 87 here.

I live in the USA, and I'm waiting for the diesel motorcycle to become available, at a more reasonable price.

Scooters are great if you live in a small city, but even in a city like New York where scooters have the potential to be practical, most other traffic (especially the taxis) drive at ridiculous speeds. I currently have a Yamaha XT350 which is basically a street-legal dirtbike. It accelerates faster than a 50cc scooter and has a high seat height which is nice, but it's still somewhat scary to drive next to the insane taxis.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[saigon_from_europe]

Amount of money spent on war in Iraq would probably lead to some significant breaktroughs in alteranative fuel. Ironically, that war even increased the price of oil.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest estimates published say that we have a minimum of 200 years of petrolium from Saudi supplies alone, and another 200 years of oil shale here in the US. Fossil fuels will run out, some day, but not within you or your childrens lifetime unless they live for 400 years.

So we have plenty of time to find that alternative fuel. Lets just hope the asteroid doesn't hit us in the meantime, which I think is far more likely.

On your assessment of a government with a backbone to impose tax...what we need is a government with a backbone to oppose the oil companies. Yes, people in Europe pay much more than what we pay, but if you look at the percentage that the oil company takes it is much lower and the rest goes to tax. We are giving our money to the oil companies and they are showing record profits and not reinvesting it in our nation. That is the issue that needs to be addressed and that will provide a tax without changing the consumer price. Petrol prices at the pump need to be regulated.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[lowrydr310]

What we need is some government with some backbone to impose the tax, to encourage (nay, fund!) the research.

backbone = balls

I live in the USA, and I welcome a higher gas tax and higher gas prices, so long as that money is going to research and road maintenance instead of lining someone's pockets. Even though higher gas prices aren't hurting me substantially, I miss the days when $10 (USD) would get me 330 miles.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[goldspider]

Indeed, because throwing money at problems has been so successful at solving other societal problems.

Now believe it or not, I'm all for alternative fuels and whatnot. I just don't think that saddling commuters with punative taxes (which is what your suggestion essentially boils down to) is the way to get there.

Frankly, I can't understand why third-world and developing countries can have cars that run on 100% ethanol, yet we in the States can't. Well, I do.... but it still doesn't make any practical sense. I don't know how we can loosen oil companies' stranglehold on this country, but I'm pretty sure that simply raising taxes isn't the answer to that particular problem.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[goldspider]

"I live in the USA, and I welcome a higher gas tax and higher gas prices"

"Even though higher gas prices aren't hurting me substantially"

Thank goodness you're the only person in this country who matters.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[indifferent children]

I always found it rather amusing the way people in the US bitched about "high" fuel prices.

To see whether the bitching is justified, you should look at the structure of our economies. We are used to cheap fuel and expensive healthcare (like $500/month/person for good health insurance), you are used to the opposite. If we could have free healthcare, $5 gas wouldn't be a problem. Realistically, $5/gallon gas probably won't be a hardship for /.'ers, who are somewhat educated (hey, I said 'somewhat') and probably making a decent wage.

Unforunately, our poor are getting shafted by low wages (that don't increase to keep up with inflation), regressive taxes (not so much income tax as payroll taxes, sales tax), high debt at predatory interest rates, expensive childcare, etc. Some people in the US will be severely hurt by $5 gas.

There's probably no public transportation to get them to their jobs. They can't improve their gas mileage by getting a tune-up (for which I just paid $572). They can't buy a more efficient car ($$$). They can't move closer to their work (to move into an apartment in the US usually costs 3 months rent (first, last, and security deposit)). They can't bike 20 miles to work in 110-degree heat, or they will be sent home for being unpresentable. They are stuck.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[TheRaven64]

The USA has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world. In a socialised healthcare scheme, when people start to feel ill, they go to the Doctor because 'the government' is paying for it. In a private healthcare system, people put it off as long as possible, because they will have to pay for it. At the end, the cost of treatment is significantly higher, because preventative medicine tends to be much cheaper.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Don853]

As transport becomes more expensive, the suburbs will wither and die.

We can only hope. But going from $1/gallon to $3/gallon has only gotten people to bitch more without changing any of their other habits. Maybe $5/gallon will make a difference?

Re:Not even funny anymore

[michrech]

To take an example, I had a job interview last week. It was about 40 miles away from my house, on the other side of the city (technically it was outside of the city, but in the greater metropolitan area, and only a couple of miles outside of the city proper). The round trip in my car (a relatively small car by US standards) would have cost me about $20 with the current gas prices (40 miles each way, 80 miles total, and it would have taken probably about 1/2 a tank of gas). Assuming I were to get that job, until I could find a place to live closer to where I would be working, I would have to spend $100/week in gas. That would end up being about 15% of my paycheck before taxes, or about 20% after taxes, just to get back and forth to work.

No small car, that I am aware of, would get that poor gas mileage. I have an '86 Olds Cutlass Cierra and had (until very recently) a '96 Ford Contour. BOTH of those, on an 80 mile trip, would have used just less than a quarter tank of gas. Both of those are 4 door sedans. Now, with the same two cars, I could have made it from my home in La Plata, MO to Omaha, NE (299 miles by the trip counter) and still had 1/4 a tank of gas left (and have done so on multiple occasions).

The only things I can think of for your car to only be able to go 80 miles on 1/2(!!!!) a tank of gas is that your car is in a rather bad state of disrepair, it has a huge fuel-hungry motor in it, you have a huge truck/suv (goes along with the huge motor suggestion) or you are grossly exaggerating your situation.

Yes, you were modded +5 insightful, and some of what you said might have been (specifically the parts about how the US is laid out), however if I had any points I'd have posted this as anon and THEN modded you overrated.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

With the exception of a few larger cities, there is also almost no form of mass transit. I live in a fairly large city, and we have nothing like a subway or street cars. There is a bus system, but it only covers a fairly small portion of down town.etc. etc. etc.

I have to admit, anytime I hear an American justifing their whinging about gas prices due to poor infrastructure, I have to laugh just a little. I mean, do you think that public transit is a natural resource you have to mine? Or that it springs into being by the divine intervention of some higher power? Uh, no. It's installed by state and/or municipal governments, who are elected by--and supposed to serve--the people. In other words, if your public transit system is so impaired that you can't take a bus out of a three-block radius around City Hall, then guess what: it is completely, utterly, totally, 1-0-0-% your own damn fault.

but you cant change the transportion infrastructure overnight

Overnight, huh? I guess it's been "overnight" for the past 33 years, then.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[gutnor]

Throwing money is maybe not always successful, generally because money is "thrown away" and not "invested". Off course the only other solution is throwing no money and that, for sure, won't solve the problem.

But indeed, you are right, taxes don't help. Changing societal problem takes years, even several generations and that is too much for politician. Talking for Europe, here, we have huge tax and there is nothing that's hugely beter than the US for our petrol dependency. You still need a car for a lot of every day tasks. Shopping tends to be concentrated in big shopping area outside cities, companies are installed in industrial zoning and the price of housing generally pushes you away from your workplace if you want to be able to afford something more than 30 square meters in the hookers area. You have to pay more to live downtown, you pay to have your stuff shipped to your home and you pay to go in public transportation. And all of those costs raises with petrol price, so you are back to square one.

That said, don't hope too much on third world countries. Except maybe a country like China, a lot of car used in third world countries are our own second/third/fourth hand cars. And even if people in third world countries were buying brand new car all the time, they still keep them much longer than here.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[elrous0]

I moved close to my work (I live about 1/2 a mile from work) and drive a small car too. However, I've got to say that I'm single and don't have any kids. If I had kids, I would want to raise my kids in a better neighborhood. Most decent jobs are located downtown in most cities, or in commercial complexes. These are no places to try and raise a family. Add to that the fear of your kids being in an accident in a small car, and you can see why many family men/women choose to drive SUV's and live in distant suburbs.

-Eric

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. No, I am not some "'lol amerikkka' eurofag". I happen to live in Vancouver (technically, a suburb), where incidentally I can walk half a block from my house to the nearest bus stop, and from there travel to anywhere in a region the size of Rhode Island.

P.P.S.

The United States is a big country, it's also very spread out. Even looking at a single city within the US, things tend to be spread out over a larger area, and arranged in strange ways compared to a lot of other countries.

I'm not quite sure if Canada is quite as big as the U.S., or even as spread-out. It sure would be embarassing if it turned out that I was underqualified to criticize.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[BBlinkk]

Too bad the Prius costs way too much to make this even close to economical. By the time you finally end up covering the extra money you spent on the prius, its been well past the time you should buy a new car anyways. Oh, and you are stuck with a crappy looking compact that can only fit you in it, and nothing else.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

I will agree with the lack of good public transit. I live in North Dakota and it gets downright arctic here in the winter, it is not uncommon to see -40 degrees F. I looked into riding the bus to work everyday. What I found is that it would take me 2 hours, one way, and then walk about 15 blocks from the bus stop to work and it would cost me about $40 a month. To drive to work it takes me 10 minutes and costs about $35 a month.
The obvious choice is to drive my 90 Sunbird to work everyday and avoid the public transit that doesn't work.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[John Betonschaar]

Considering the gasoline usage of an average American is almost three times more than the average American

Substitute European for 2nd occurence of American ofcourse...

Re:Not even funny anymore

[elrous0]

Yeah, well, here in the U.S. the center of the city is often crackhouse central too. Though, there are some cities that do have revitalized upscale yuppie neighborhoods in part of their downtowns.

Still, it's not like the U.S. is just going to tear down its existing infrastructure and adapt to a completely new way of thinking just because gas prices go up another $1. It may happen one day, but it will require a pretty radical force to change things that significantly.

-Eric

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

CBOT Ethanol presently runs at $2.624/US Gallon (EU 0.543/L). Given that you need about 20% more ethanol than gasoline in a converted vehicle, that bumps the price up to $3.149/gas gallon equivalency (EU 0.652/Petrol Litre equivalency).

Not a deal for us in the states, but a sweet concept for y'all in Europe.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[houghi]

I would have to walk over 20 miles to get to the nearest bus stop

The way people do it here is take the car to the bus or train station (or a bycicle or scooter)

Re:Not even funny anymore

[gfxguy]

Yes, the math is pretty bad, but there's more than the price of gas. If he drove 80 miles and we actually use cost per mile estimates, very few cars are as low as $0.25/mile.

Mine is closer to $0.40.

Of course, he was blah-blahing about gas prices. It's pretty simple... he must be driving a Hummer, where gas is measured in gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon.

But keeping things in context, the simple fact is that we do need to improve transportation in the U.S., very few cities do it well (NYC is one of them, for example).

What's really pathetic is the newer cities, like Las Vegas and Phoenix, that could have been "properly" prepared, yet will still need to retrofitted for mass transit.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay this is idiotic - you claim to have a 'small' car but you're going to use half a tank of gas going 80 miles!?! Let's assume that your car has a 12 gallon tank (very small in my experience) that means that your 'small' car gets 13 MPG - that's worse than my Jetta by about 12MPG ... Buy a new small car, like a conventional Civic that gets 35 MPG.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[spirit of reason]

Ethanol is pretty awesome as a renewable source of energy. However, ethanol just cannot meet the energy demand of consumers (see this site for some interesting links to studies). So why not just lower energy demand? Personally, I hope we convert our cars to an electric drivetrain (fuel cell or otherwise) because internal combustion engines are far too limited in their efficiency. Systems using ICEs are typically around 25% efficient, whereas electric drivetrains are around 85% efficient. That's a lot less wasted energy.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

Actually, it wouldn't be a tax. It'd be the death of a subsidy.

Seriously. We pay $3/gallon of gas cos our government makes it that way. I think it's kind of annoying. I'll take the $6-12/Gal it takes to drill and make the stuff, and you can use that subsidy money to pay for research into new technologies (which will then be lapped up by gas-price-exhausted citizens).

Meanwhile, the millisecond US citizens have $6/Gallon gas, you'll see a huge surge in ethanol conversion. The changes to a car are mostly flow-based (although changing your car's timing is a good idea, to take advantage of eth's anti-knock properties), and a good mechanic could do it in a day or so (under an hour if he doesn't have to consult Chilton). That's mostly because eth only costs about $2.70/Gal at wholesale prices.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[BlindRobin]

Here! Here ! mate. Spot on. Mercans don't even realise that their petrol is, in a very real sense, "artificially inexpensive". It treated as the scarce commodity and environmental threat that it actually is rather than the priciple commodity driving a very wasteful and self distructive consummerist economy the commodity price would actually be quite high and it would be taxed accordingly. Also no one seems to be aware, or convieniently forget, that petrol prices in the US at USD 3.00 in 2006 are exceedingly low in comparison to prices 3 decades ago.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

*blinks*

Wow. Low understanding threshold of the involved technologies. Not that I'm disagreeing with the main point of 'an electric system is more efficient than a combustion system', but more the specifics. I'd like to know where you got the 85% figure.

Ok, a direct ethanol fuel cell is rather limited in efficiency to around 50%. Our efficiency is now 50%.
A 50HP prime-offset electric motor running at peak efficiency should be about 82%-90%. Our efficiency is now 41%.
Add in theoretical friction losses of about 20%. Our efficiency is now 32.8%

Now, with the new tech in DEFC, our major limiting factor (the DEFC's efficiency) may be lifted. Still, we're not yet talking about unbelivable gains in fuel economy.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[SimonInOz]

40 miles. Hmm, that's 65km, 130km for the round trip.
My vehicle (Hyundai Excel) gets about 6.5 litres per 100km, thus it would use about 14 litres (3.8 gallons). (US$15, say)
My fuel tank holds 50 lt it is claimed, but I never seem to get more than 38 lt into it (every few weeks).

You must have a really, really small tank.

We pay (Sydney Australia) about $1.40 per litre (and rising). That comes out at US$4 per US gallon (how did you guys end up with a different sized gallon, isn't one dopey size silly enough?)

Now where's my bicycle?

Re:Not even funny anymore

[spirit of reason]

Er, it's 85% with batteries, not a fuel cell. And AC motors peak in the mid 90% range.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[whargoul]

So build your buildings closer together.
Well, why don't we just jump right on that

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

"well past the time you should buy a new car"

How long is that, exactly? I've always been a sort of "Oh, it's broke? Where's my Chilton's manual?" guy. Consequently, I drive a 1985 VW Cabrio that runs like a wet dream.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[j-turkey]

Do you want $2 on a gallon of gas to put towards finding an alternative? Hell No! No Gov, local or otherwise, is going to impose that tax because they won't get re-elected, and when the problem does hit they'll all be nicely retired from the fray, so why bother now - right?

Well, has your $3-5 tax per gallon found an alternative yet? How long have you been paying out massive fuel taxes?

Some Americans believe that our government's best skill is wasting our money. Some of us want less taxes, and more private businesses to develop these technologies. It is sort of a fundamental difference in governing philosophy which may account for the difference in opinion for how to best handle the problem.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Overzeetop]

Can you imagine what the $300B the US has spent in Iraq would have funded in alternative fuel/storage system research? I've heard rumors of 35-45% efficient photoelectric cells. We've seen research motes here on /. about continuous process biofuel/biodeisel conversion without large catalyst costs/waste. I'm not usually one to jump on alternative stuff, but the eceonomics of it are now paletable.

Of course, I find it interesting that the cost to take the oil out of the ground is about the same as it used to be (say 10 years ago), and I truly believe that a good portion of the cost of crude is due to speculators and futures traders. I say we outlaw the futures and derivatives markets and see where things go.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[matt21811]

What are you talking about, this guy can save about $76 a week or $4000 a year in petrol, more if petrol goes higher. If you cant buy a $20,000 Prius over 6 years with that kind of repayment then there is something wrong with you. You dont have to spend an extra cent.

You should also know that the Prius is classed as midsize sedan, not a compact. As to its appearence, that is subjective but I find a natural beauty in its aerodynamic design. Efficiency is beautiful to me.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[spirit of reason]

OK, that wasn't detailed enough. I'm not completely certain about the frictional losses in a vehicle, but electric systems have a potential for far less loss than ICEs because their characteristics often permit direct drive. Hub motor efficiencies are in the range of 93-98% efficient at their peak and are connected directly to the wheels. Line losses are going to be minimal, provided one makes good choices with wires. Batteries are in the high 90% efficiency as well (if you use a fuel cell, things won't be so hot, of course). So for a battery electric vehicle, it would be reasonable to get an 85% efficiency. As an example, AC Propulsion's tzero had an AC motor that was 91% efficient at peak (fair for an AC; I've seen better--Unique Mobility's PowerPhase system, for example), and they ended up with peaking at 86% for road load. With fuel cells, cut that in half... (I'm not really a proponent of fuel cells, but they do have some energy storage advantages over batteries).

Re:Not even funny anymore

[recursiv]

What city is this? I'd like to know so I can avoid going there. It sounds pretty poorly designed.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anitra]

Actually, when adjusted for inflation, our gas prices of $3/gal today are pretty comparable to the peak prices around 1980.

I am waiting for the day that I actually see people I know modify their behavior because of gas prices - it hasn't happened yet with most of my friends.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK prescriptions cost £6.50 (or thereabouts) if you're employed, free if you're on benefits.

Everyone who works pays for health care treatment via their taxes, in this case National Insurance, which is around 7% from the employee, and some percentage from the employer, I forget the number. Also tax on cigarettes generates vast amounts of money, so people who smoke actually pay for their smoking related health care several times over. Same goes for alcohol most likely. You don't get any money or tax benefits if you have private healthcare, you still pay NI.

Otherwise the NHS is a shambles - too much beaurocracy and money being wasted, and too many stupid government initiatives.

I guess that national health provision is useful, even if funded by the people who are working - it's better to have everyone get a basic level of health care than to have ailments and diseases running unchecked through a section of the population that everyone will come into contact with anyway.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[goldspider]

Perhaps we could up that production a bit by ending the farm subsidies that pay farmers to NOT grow crops.

More efficient engines would be great, but we have a renewable resource that we could be using NOW. Hydrogen fuel cells and whatnot, while promising technologies, are not here yet.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing Canadian population distribution and public transportation systems to the United States is like comparing apples and oranges.

Most Canadians live in cities, and suburban sprawl, while existing, is considerably denser than in the United States. Public transportation systems are also funded considerably better than those in the United States.

Also, in a region that actually is the size of Rhode Island, called Rhode Island, there is one transit system (RIPTA) for the entire state, and with the high population density (and high taxes) of the state, every town and city in the state is served by RIPTA buses (or ferries). The Greater Vancouver Regional District is aproximately the same size as RI.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fozzyuw]

...I do not expect the price of gas to go below $2.50USD here again (...I think the oil companies have basically seen that,...for a lot of people there simply is no alternative and so they will pay that much or more...

Actually, I disagree with you here. Unless there's price fixing or collusion, with a gas surplus you'll see compition take place. One gas station will lower it's price and everyone will flock there, forcing the other station to do the same. Also gas prices are partial dependent on the price of barrels of oil, which we know. If barrels of oil drop in price but gas doesn't, it would be a big red flag for investigation into price fixing. So, no, prices will drop if surplus exploded... only surplus won't likely explode. Not with the current state of affairs in politics for most countries that supply oil to the US. As you can see from this article even $30 in free gas (that's 10 gallons) is enough to make people wait for hours on end.

for a lot of people there simply is no alternative

I completely agree with your main point. For one, I've lived in London for a year and my fiancee is French, where I've visted France many times now who has worked for a train company. I know and have used the European mass transit system quite a bit. And it is a better system, but it is not because the cities are closer together that makes it easier to have mass transite. You can thank the automobile industry for our current state of affairs.

Why? Think about it for a second? During the America Civil war, countless rail lines where being laid. Shortly afterwards the immense "trans-continental rail-road' was finished and heralded as a new achievement. Rail/Trains where quite popular then and it only appears to be getting better. Until the Automobiles started to be mass produced and affordable. Automobile industries started to buy up the trolly, tram, and train companies and then shut them down. Why? So people would buy more cars. The automobile industry properly lobbied all the white house endlessly to build roads for their cars to travel on. Long story short... we now have millions of miles of roads and rail lines that are being abandonded because of lack of use and increase of costs.

I think about this all the time while I'm driving down the interstate or highway... "Where could we put rail lines?". I would love to move back to the UK/Europe and I'll be working on that in the future. I lived in an area that had a 5 min walk to up to 3 different rail stations (not always that common). Otherwise, I could catch a bus at 5 different locations to get to where I wanted to go. I wouldn't need a car. I could get a train to another country for vacation or to the airport for longer distance travel. I loved the cities in Germany, like Frieburg, that had the trolly system that could take you downtown and back. I think the Paris Metro(subway) sucks (compared to the London Tube) but it does what it's suppose to do.

The only sad thing is to see how much the British still loved to drive cars. I guess I can't blame them. I enjoy driving my cars as well, and there are different benefits and draw backs to driving vs taking the train (canceled trains, the commuter rush, break downs, etc).

It's too bad to have high pass prices, however, if this finally kicks some people in the nuts hard enough, maybe we can move away from this SUV culture that I've never agreed with. SUV's have been a bigger curse than a gift. They're not just for a status symble, they're also for the insecure and crappy driver. There's a lot of SUV's purchased because people feel 'safer' in them. As mentioned by many people in this comments section, an SUV hitting a car will often destory the car. So, what happens? People buy SUVs because they value their life more than others. They're not thinking "hey, if I cause an accident, at least I won't die." Or maybe you will

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

The Prius is a midsize car that can easily fit 4 and has a decent trunk. The original Prius (well over 5 years old), the Honda Insight, or perhaps the Honda Civic Hybrid might fit your description, but the Prius is just an awesome car.

Do you work for Ford or GM? Fud Fud Fud...

Re:Not even funny anymore

[hey!]

The latest estimates published say that we have a minimum of 200 years of petrolium from Saudi supplies alone, and another 200 years of oil shale here in the US. Fossil fuels will run out, some day, but not within you or your childrens lifetime unless they live for 400 years.

The trick is that much of those reserves take more energy to get out of the ground than the yield. For that reason, optimistic projections say that world oil production will peak in 30 years, although there could well be a decade of uncertainty either way. Furthermore, we have also learned that statements of reseverves are often overstated for financial or strategic reason, as in the case of Royal Dutch/Shell.

So we have plenty of time to find that alternative fuel. Lets just hope the asteroid doesn't hit us in the meantime, which I think is far more likely.

This is a naive idea on several counts. First is that things will just hum along until we've pumped the last drop of oil out of the ground. This is simply not how ecomics works. The most economically viable deposits are exploited first, and long before you're on to the last drop of oil, you are at the point where you are getting net very little energy out for a great deal of trouble. Which means you sell it at a very, very high price.

It also means that we will never reach a point where we "run out of oil". In part, technology and price increases will drive the boundary of financially recoverable oil farther, that is true. There is no reason (other than the fact you basically chew up entire mountains and leave mounds of polluted rubble in their place) that shale oil cannot be produced today, other than the fact that oil is much, much cheaper. But lest you feel to complacent about having Shale oil deposits in our back pocket, consider that the only reason to tap them is becaus energy prices have risen. So, we're talking about a future where energy costs a lot more.

So, long before the two hundred years it will take to pump the Saudi fields dry, prices for energy will have increased dramatically. We'll have to switched to other sources of energy as our primary sources long before that. However, nothing says that this process is going to be one we'll enjoy.

Even before we approach the peak oil production in thirty years or so, we will expect that petroleum will become the major limiting factor on economic growth. It may be already. There's no reason to expect the switch to more diverse energy sources to be painless, that the process will be smooth, orderly, and accompanied by continued economic growth and prosperity for all -- although that could happen. If we have plenty of warning, if prices rise relatively smoothly, if we are lucky in coming up with technologies to extend the viability of oil and usher in other energy sources quickly, we might hardly notice it. On the other hand, the end of the oil economy may come with unexpectedly rapid energy price increases, economic disruption and even contraction as petroleum based economies see their productivity plummet, social unrest and, of course, war.

I'd argue that energy efficiency is the number one thing we can do to be prepared. Whether the peak comes in 30 years, or 40, or maybe 20, energy efficient economies will be disrupted less and have greater time to adjust. In the mean time they'll be less affected by swings in energy prices caused by economic growth, such as the current sitation which is probably only transitory. When gas prices stabilize or drop a little bit, we'll all breath a sigh of relief, but we shouldn't.

The next most important thing is to be prepared to work with more diverse energy sources. Electricity is our friend. A better national grid would be a good first step, and reviving the push for electric vehicles would complement this. Hydrogen may play a role eventually, but it plays the same role as electricity and at present it is less proven, and has no existing infrastructure to take advantage of.

In any case, I'd argue that we don't have 200 or 400 years of petroleum and fossil fuels. We will be extracting these resources forever, albeit at every increasing prices. What is much more limited is our future as a petroleum based economy.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[drsquare]

Why a regressive tax, surely a it would be better to add it to a progressive tax like income tax?

Oh wait the lefties always want to screw the poor. Like that congestion charge in London that forces all the peasants onto the filthy buses so the rich have more room to drive.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Inebrius]

"I live in the USA, and I welcome a higher gas tax and higher gas prices, so long as that money is going to research and road maintenance instead of lining someone's pockets. Even though higher gas prices aren't hurting me substantially, I miss the days when $10 (USD) would get me 330 miles."

Glad to hear that. As a politician, it is comforting to see that there are still members of the public that want to pay more in taxes. I'll get working on this right away.

I like your idea of spending the money on road maintenance. That seems to be a common complaint from my constituents, and I have a cousin that is looking for some new contracts. He's had a tough time with his low 7 figure salary after we started diverting the taxes you already pay for road maintenance to other things. As always, thanks for the support.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[BigCheese]

You've got it right. Especially here in the midwest. Here in the Kansas City area a lot of people have no choice. Like many US cities we have issues with sprawl and now everything is so spread out it's pretty common to have long commutes to and from work. A lot of us own houses so moving when we change jobs just isn't going to happen. Even when you're close to work walking or biking isn't really feasable because of the heat and humidity in the summer and in the winter there is often ice.

While gas is still relativly cheap here (around $3 a gallon) it's still taking a big bite out of our incomes. Also, don't forget that when fuel prices rise everything goes up. Not just transportation.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[mypalmike]

> On my trips to the US I've been amazed to find that there aren't any pedestrian
> walkways (pavement to us UK chaps, and I think "sidewalk" is what you US fellows call them).

Where have you been in the US? I've lived in the US for 33 years, in 3 major cities and several smaller towns. I have yet to live in a place without a sidewalk in front of my apartment/house. Certainly they exist, and in large numbers, but they are mainly suburban subdivisions built since around the 70s. And the trend in the last few years is to build sidewalks in new development.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even one mention of small two wheeled vehicles like Scooters or Motorcycles...

Re:Not even funny anymore

[BigCheese]

Many (most?) American cities have had issues with sprawl. Decaying urban centers surrounded by rings of beige barn "communities". Urban planning at it's worst.

You might just want to stay home.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[mypalmike]

I live in a fairly large city, and we have nothing like a subway or street cars. There is a bus system, but it only covers a fairly small portion of down town. I would have to walk over 20 miles to get to the nearest bus stop, and I live in the city, not in a suburb.

Perhaps you technically live within some city limits. But if you are 20 miles from a bus stop, you live in the suburbs. Probably of Houston.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[geekoid]

Lets see, we use more, so that lowers the price.
Many of the big energy companies are here, so that lowers the price.
We pay the bill to help ensure enough stability within the OPEC members so oil flow with minimal interruption(which finland benefits from)

If the price of the item doubles within a year, it is worth bitching about.

The oil industry knows about wthonal, and it they are concerned then the price of gas will never be higher then using ethynal.

"And large distances."
COmpared to what? Rhode Island. PLease finland is tiny.
Finalnd:
338,145 Sqr Kilometer
US
9,161,930 Sqr Kilometer

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaves you frustrated in a pool of fluid, does it?

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

This morning here in Tampere,Finland the price was 1.42 EUR/l for 95 octane [Emphasis mine] (6.843 USD/gal for SI-unit impaired).
This about average for the whole of Finland.

Here in the US, we use 85 octane rather than 95 octane. It is my understanding that the EU pays a higher level for gas than here in the US because of this and taxes. Please compare apples to apples next time.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[MayorDefacto]

Ironically, that war even increased the price of oil.

Replace "ironically" with "as expected." ExxonMobil just today posted the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded company in the US. The oil companies are making out quite literally like bandits in the night. Anyone who thinks this war was ever about "bringing democracy to Iraq" is drinking the kool-aid. This war has been incredibly lucrative for a handful of companies.

Now excuse me while I dodge the flames from all of those people out there who will accuse me of Bush-bashery, anti-Americanism, and aiding and comforting "the terr'ists" with my seditious, yet amazingly accurate, viewpoint.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[homer_ca]

Nothing is cheap in London, if it's not the congestion charge, it'll be the high cost of parking and fuel (even if some source of cheap energy saves us, space for parking and roads will never be cheap in places like London). If you read The Long Emergency, by Kunstler, this is one of the possible consequences of Peak Oil. The masses who can't afford to drive any more will be resentful of rich people who can still afford it resulting in vandalism against cars and abuse against drivers. It'll happen sooner or later. If regular Joes like you and me want to *feel* rich by driving around in our motorcars, that's fine. Just remember this cheap oil party is a one-time gift from the bounty of the Earth. It's not normal.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

Hey, mod parent funny! That was a good double entendre!

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Cally]

unfortunately, there are precious few with your good sense, and you;'re far outweighed by the drooling masses. I would go into my usual "The US is unstoppably fuxx0r3d, dude, it's an inevitable historical dialectic" but I'm sick of getting modded down by the "teach the controversy" morons.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Cally]

Excellent stuff, except that according to the US Government we've already passed peak oil. Oh, wait - they've pulled that chart. Hey, Dubya must know something that the world's oil experts don't! Perhaps he's found a fat gusher down there in Crawford...

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Cally]

To those of you outside US, stop complaining about Gas prices. If you live in US, the so-called cheap Gas eats up a lot of money due to the distances involved.

Sucks to be on the wrong end of economics and geography, don't it? Which is another way of saying 'reality'. Your lifestyle is going to change wildly in the next century - the only debate now is whether it comes suddenly, with a lot of shooting, or gradually, with a lot of advertising :)

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

As transport becomes more expensive, the suburbs will wither and die.

We can only hope. But going from $1/gallon to $3/gallon has only gotten people to bitch more without changing any of their other habits. Maybe $5/gallon will make a difference?

And everyone was supposed to quit smoking when Cigarettes got to be $5 a pack. We can see accurate that prediction was as well.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[evilviper]

We pay $3/gallon of gas cos our government makes it that way. I think it's kind of annoying.

Prove it.

The US government may subsudize oil companies somewhat, but that doesn't make OUR gas cheaper than gas in other countries. There is absolutely nothing to prevent US oil companies from selling their (US Gov subsudized) product to any other country in the world.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

G asoline.pdf>This artielc</url> defines the subsidies, tax breaks, and government projects involved.

And they are provided in an effort to prevent the US citizen from paying much for gasoline. It partially pays for prospecting, distillation, distribution, pollution controls, etc. If you consider the gasoline tax that's separate from a sales tax, you're talking about something like a dollar's difference. Then there's the carbon offsetting (which, since corporations pay it, you should have to as well).

Depending on what you consider to pe part of the real price of gas, that brings it up to $5-$15 / gallon. I'm inclined to put the figure about where the EU's got it, at $6/gal.

Meanwhile, if a company isn't selling to the US, they're missing out on a giant market that they already have the investment of distribution channels to. So, rather than try and make a marginal double profit on another smaller market, they make a huge single profit on the US.

Meanwhile, if we were paying that, how long do you think the US would keep these measures in place? They are, after all, intended to keep the price of gasoline down for the consumer. Which is an admirable short-term goal (especially since they were meant to bolster the non-OPEC oil industry in the late 70's and early 80's), but in the long term is preventing alternative technology from seeming cost-efficient.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

Still, I'm not here to convince you. The only people I'm worried about convincing are congress.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[evilviper]

That paper includes in the price of a gallon of GASOLINE, the cost of BUILDING ROADS and BRIDGES, Federal regulation and oversight programs (which are paid for by the oil companies' 11% taxes), the cost of maintaining AN ARMY, which is absolutely ridiculous to charge only the oil companies for. Most of the claims are even more shaky... Putting a dollar value on the global warming caused by oil, complete nonsense like "aesthetic degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion), social deterioration (up to $58.4 billion)", "travel delays due to road
congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion), uncompensated
damages caused by car accidents ($18.3 to $77.2)" etc.

These are PATENTLY ridiculous claims. You might as well include the ammount Americans annually spend on automobiles ($XXX billions) and add it to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. It's absolutely ridiculous nonsense in the most extreme way.

I'm inclined to put the figure about where the EU's got it, at $6/gal.

European gas prices are so high, not because that's what it costs them (your ridiculous assertion) but because they WANT to discourage driving, so they levy huge taxes against it.

If it will make you feel better, I can put up a website with the EXACT OPPOSITE information, put together with equally ridiculous facts and methodology, that says gas should be practically free, if not for governments doing so much taxing and restricting.

Whatever your political slant, the ends (alternative fuels) do NOT justify the means (blatantly making facts up).

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Fordiman]

Put up the alternative site; I would be interested in it if anything you can come up with is plausable.

I agree that maintaining an army has nothing to do with it, but roads and highways should, as should the cost of pollution. Paying the social cost of a product is something that most companies have to deal with - still, the oil companies get out of it.

Uncompensated damages caused by car accidents, for example, should be included in the cost of driving school - though, a pigouvian tax would cause issues.

Still, I'd like to see the site.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[Firethorn]

I wouldn't forget that most of the price of gasoline in europe is taxes, and do you really think that the government wouldn't start adding taxes to it if people started actually using it, costing them money?

They have to pay for their healthcare somehow.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[rammer]

> "And large distances."
> COmpared to what? Rhode Island. PLease finland is tiny.
> Finalnd:
> 338,145 Sqr Kilometer
> US
> 9,161,930 Sqr Kilometer

Population:
Finland
5,265,926

US
298,869,502

Thus population density for
Finland:
15.6 persons/km^2

US:
32.6 persons/km^2

So distances should be smaller in the US.
Between population centers that is.

So to do your shopping and what not you shouldn't have to drive further than here.
OK. Maybe if you visit relatives on the other side of the country you would have to cross larger distances.
And then you would fly anyway.
But I think we were talking about normal commutes and other day to day activities here.

All that aside I personally don't have to drive long distances.
My commute is about 12 kilometers. Takes about 12 minutes.
And I could take the bus (2 EUR/trip).
Or ride a bike.
Or walk. (If I really wanted to)
But I need my car for work.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[rammer]

There isn't that big of a difference between 85 and 95 octane fuel. Sure the price is slightly higher for 95 octane fuel. But the difference isn't that big.

Taxation is a big issue. But that does not change what the end customer pays for his/her fuel.
If you bring taxation in to the mix then you would have to also make a more thorough comparison of the two economies.
What is your income?
How much do you pay in taxes?
Cost of living?
Sales tax?
What do you get in return for your taxes?
Health care?
Pension?

It is all about how detailed your analysis is. Even with all things condisidered. As a rough estimate I would say that Finns pay on avarage about
15-30% more than a relative US consumer.

Re:Not even funny anymore

[rammer]

Thank you for a good comment.

Even though your math is a bit suspect as others have noted.

I expect that the US will undergo a dramatic shift in urban planning in the next 50 years.
They will have to.
And it will not be cheap.
US economy is built on cheap fuel. Cheap fuel is no longer available. Or will not be available for long.
Combine this with growing anti-US sentiment around the world. Not helped one bit by recent US actions.
Hence I think that the US will drop from the economic number one spot during those same 50 years.

I don't think that it will be EU that's taking that spot but China.
EU has been largely built on cheap fuel also.
Russia will cash in on large fuel prices and become a strong contender also.
If they manage it right. Which is doubtful at the moment.
India will be a major contender also.

(Measure of economy is GDP according to the CIA World Factbook)

When will gas go down to $5/gallon again ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current price is over $7.50 per gallon in most of Europe.
When will the price get down to $5.00 again ? I believe this will be after the hydrogen fuel cell, when demand for petroleum based products fall.

The US should add $2 per gallon in tax, and send that to research in better energy sources. Right now US is the western country that does the least to protect environment, and it completely ignores global warming.

Re:When will gas go down to $5/gallon again ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they don't care about global warming. They have air conditioning in America.

Re:When will gas go down to $5/gallon again ?

[chipotlehero]

...and it completely ignores global warming.

The people who say the world was created 4000 years ago tell me that global warming is a dirty liberal myth sent out to hurt big business? Why shouldn't I listen to them?

Re:When will gas go down to $5/gallon again ?

[Prof.Phreak]

The US should add $2 per gallon in tax, and send that to research in better energy sources.

More likely, the money will be used to raid another country. It's the government we're talking about!!! Do you really expect them to do the right thing???

Scooters are already efficient...

[richardtallent]

My Vespa LX-150 gets around 60MPG. It's a city bike, and only 150cc, but plenty enough power for city traffic (cruises up to 55-60mph). I spend less than $5/month in gas.

Piaggio, makers of the Vespa, are actually working on two hybrid models, but the rumor is the under-seat storage will be reduced or eliminated for batteries, so I have no interest in upgrading.

Re:Scooters are already efficient...

[Viol8]

For something that size I'd expect a lot more than 60mpg. Some cars can almost manage that and they must weigh 20 times more.

Re:Scooters are already efficient...

[MooseTick]

"My Vespa LX-150 gets around 60MPG. ... I spend less than $5/month in gas."

So at $2.50/gallon you burn about 2 gallons/month or only travel 120 miles. That is fine for you but most of America travel over 1000 miles per month. Most leases provive for 1000 miles per month and people have trouble staying at that level.

Gas

[Mark_MF-WN]

There's no reason gas has to reach $5/gal. If America (and yes, it pretty much HAS to be America that leads here, no one else has that rare combination of extensive agricultural, vast industrial power, and a free market that's willing to work with the government on super-projects) were to get really serious about producing biopetrol and biodiesel, as well as radically scaling up its ethanol production capacity, this could be averted. America is a fantastic chunk of land for producing absolutely INCREDIBLE yeilds of a wide variety of crops. Grow the right crops and process the right parts of them, process all the sewage and other organic waste, augment it with wind and solar to power the agricultural industry and anything else that doesn't require portable fuel, and America might actually be able to get back into the position of having cheap fuels that are abundant enough to be exported to countries that weren't so progressive. Wouldn't that be nice? Exporting vast quantities of carbon-neutral gasohol and biodiesel fuels to China and India and getting rich(er) in the process? The technology already exists, the demand is there -- the market just needs some of the regulatory hurdles removed, some leadership, and a jolt to get the process underway.

A bit offtopic, but: SUVs get a bad rap in all of this, but if they were to run on biodiesel, ethanol, or even plain old natural gas, their contribution to global pollution would become neglible, and no one would ever have to settle for a vehicle that doesn't rollover during gentle turns ever again. SUVs are only a problem if

1. You put shitty, inefficient engines in them and run them on petrol.
2. You enjoy not perishing in a fatal rollover.
3. Your genitals fall within the normal Human range and you feel no particular need to overcompensate for them.

Re:Gas

[John Betonschaar]

There's no reason gas has to reach $5/gal. If America (and yes, it pretty much HAS to be America that leads here, no one else has that rare combination of extensive agricultural, vast industrial power, and a free market that's willing to work with the government on super-projects) were to get really serious about producing biopetrol and biodiesel [..]

It does not HAVE to be the US that leads in Biodiesel.

Re:Gas

[Suidae]

There were some articles recently about biofuel production pushing up food costs.

Ramping up biofuel production in a big way as you suggest could potentially impact the price of food. This wouldn't be a big deal for most Americans, but it could affect those who purchase the food exported from the US.

Cellulose-based biofuel would mitigate this effect, allowing the production of both food and fuel from the same crops, but currently the technology is not commercially viable.

Re:Gas

[Mark_MF-WN]

I think there's little doubt that it would push up the cost of food. But North America already has some of the lowest food prices in the industrialized world, and it shows. There's room for some give in that area...

Hydrogen fuel cell is no problem

[jsiren]

Over here (.fi) there's already a commercially available hydrogen powered scooter, made by this company (whose English pages are quite poor). They also make fuel cells with integrated hydrogen storage, and separate hydrogen storage tanks. There's also political talk about finally taxing biodiesel and ethanol fuels like petroleum-based fuels, instead of slapping users with a penalty tax. In effect, this would be a big step toward making the biofuels viable alternatives.

Yes, over here gas does cost $5/gallon. Well, used to. When it was cheap. Now it's more like $6.5/gal (1.3-1.4 EUR/l). (DISCLAIMER: if my math is correct.)

--js/fi--

Re:Hydrogen fuel cell is no problem

[witte]

Yes, that would be correct.
In Belgium it's around 7$ per gallon for unleaded.
There was some governement-backed incentive here, where you could recoup a portion (i believe the taxes) when buying a hybrid vehicle.
Too bad the infrastructure isn't here (yet).
I'm sure that the oilcos don't really want to invest in hydogen/electric rechargers in their pumpstations as long as they can sell oil at insane prices, because it would benefit the market to their disadvantage and open the door for more hybrids/hydrocars to be sold.

SUVs

[Mark_MF-WN]

SUVs are indeed safer ... in a crash. On a gentle curve, on the other hand, they're a death trap. How many accidents are you in? How many times do you turn? Of course, I'm even more screwed since I ride a bike, a vehicle which can sadly only claim the safety edge in one situation: falling into a body of water. When you're on a bike, SUVs are the ideal vehicles to be involved in collisions with, since they guarantee you a quick clean death, rather the lifetime as a cripple in excruciating pain that car-collisions offer.

Billions

[Mark_MF-WN]

$570 billion ... and this is what passes for "conservative" in America? Damn, if a few enterprising Republicans were interested, they could split off and form The Conservative Party of America (or something like that); run on a campaign of cutting taxes, slashing spending, using the military solely for domestic defence, and stamping out corruption, and they ought to be able to completely trounce the Republicans (who have completely betrayed their conservative ideals) and the Democracts (who have completely betrayed their liberal ideals).

ANyway, on topic, I doubt fuel cells are the answer ... yet. The technology is still too young and the costs too high. I think biodiesel, ethanol, and electric -- all of which have been proven and affordable for decades -- are the way to go. That said though, have you ever heard of these ideas for a coal fuel-cell power plant? Absolutely fascinating. If a plant like that could ever be built ... watch out!

Re:Billions

[Fullhazard]

Hahaha. This is completely unrelated, but when I first read that, I thought you wrote "they could split off and form The Communist Party of America"
In all seriousness, a third party will never succeed in america until a paradigm shift occurs.
90% of conservatives won't vote for them, because George Bush/Ronald Reagan/Generic Republican Figurehead says they are 'bad, and love the gay'.
90% of liberals won't vote for them because 'It's like voting for the lesser of two evils'.
99% of independents won't vote for them because 'it would be throwing my vote away' (which is ironic, because if all the independents voted for 1 person, they would win in a landslide).
On a side note, 'cutting taxes and spending, isolationism, no corruption'? All you need is some 'increase personal responsibility/increase personal rights for actions that don't infringe on the rights of others' and you've got Libertarians!

Re:Billions

[Mark_MF-WN]

Libertarians aren't bad, but I think the important difference between true conservatives and libertarians is that conservatives acknowledge the benefits of at least some central power, with limits and oversight on how it is used. Too many libertarians have that whole "A city-funded fire department?! That's creeping socialism!! NO!!!!" attitude that relegates them to the lunatic fringe.

Hydrogen

[Mark_MF-WN]

Cheaper than hydrogen? Good god yes! Where do you even go to buy hydrogen? The question with gasoline is how it is priced versus ethanol, diesel, and natural gas. Next-generation combustion engines should be able to run on a variety of different hydrocarbon fuels though, which ought to open up the possibility of all those fuels competing with each other more directly. That's when things will get interesting, as America starts turning its ENORMOUS agricultural potential towards producing biodiesel and ethanol and it's technological excellence towards finding super-efficient ways to produce them affordably.

$5/gal gas

[nmg196]

$5/gal gas? Wow that's cheap!

Here in the UK, it's already the equivalent of $7 per US gallon (97p/litre) or more. You guys don't know how good you've got it.

Mind you, the average "yank tank" probably uses more than double the fuel of the average European car. I think our average engine size is still under 1.6 litres in the UK.

Re:$5/gal gas

[Anonymous Coward]

When my dad first moved to Germany (decades ago), he was impressed with all the small, efficient cars they had. He told somebody there the size of the engine in his first car back in America was (probably at least 4 or 5 liters). The guy looked up, counted to 4 or 5 on his fingers, and then said that all of the cars he'd owned in his life didn't add up to that much displacement.

Re:$5/gal gas

[Sahib!]

Well, in the UK, a large portion of that 97p / litre is due to taxes and tariffs, which can be used to research alternative fuels, benefiting the entire community. In the US, on the other hand, that $5 / gallon goes largely into the pockets of the big oil companies.

All that tech and STILL only 30mpg??!

[Viol8]

Perhaps you should check out some european or japanese diesel cars which can regularly top 50mpg and even the petrol cars can do 40+. Sorry my friend, but 30mpg in 2006 is a joke and it highlights just how bad a design SUVs really are for normal road transport. Sure , use them if you're a farmer or someone else who needs 4x4 everyday , but buying them purely as a one upmanship on other people or because you've got some sort of insecurity issues in the trouser department is just wrong.

$5/gal isnt much

[kicken18]

In england we have about £1 a liter, thats £4 a gallon roughly, now do the exchange on £4 to $'s, and you'll see to quit moanin. 4x4's and SUV's are bollocks and luckily in England, there getting taxed higher and higher especially in central london with the congestion charge. In europe though, we are more diesel friendly. Partly because european Diesel is better then Yank diesel, but also I think there is more stigma attached with diesels in America then Europe. There are many fast diesels are 0-60(mph) times bellow 6 seconds and top speeds of over 140mph and yet with 50-60mpg (English gallon).

The sooner we can all run on hybrid or hydrogen, the better. I just hope that when we do, we are not past the point of no return

ENV Scooter

[Danzigism]

I'm sure most of you are aware of the many different types of Hydrogen Fuel Cell scooters out there on the market, or are about to make their debut.. Some time in 2006, the ENV Scooter is supposed to be released.. I really hope it pulls through, because the bike goes about 50mph and is super quiet.. supposedly you don't even scare the birds near the road away.. I read in a couple places that you can get a kit from this ENV company that will allow you to produce your own hydrogen, and when you have all your equipment paid for, it'll probably cost you about $2-4 for every 100 miles you drive.. thats not bad.. here's a link and some pictures

Re:ENV Scooter

[Danzigism]

here's another link with more info

forgot to mention, that these people, as well as a few others, claim to be "The World's First Hydrogen Scooter".. I wonder who is telling the truth???

Turn the parking brake off....

[potat0man]

Seems like you ought to be getting much better mileage than that. My Honda Rebel 250cc gets a minimum of 75mpg and if I concentrate (shut the bike off at long redlights/downhills and don't accelerate hard and keep it at or under 55mph) I can hit 105mpg.

Plus it goes 85mph and holds its own on the highway. I've taken mine across the country, Santa Fe to Boston... twice.

Not as safe as an SUV-Tank but some of us have different values. If I'm making the choice to do something dangerous I want the greater risk to be with my own life, not someone elses.

Consuming fuel

[Diablo1399]

to charge a battery, is intrinsicly inefficient, ESPECIALLY when you used energy to create the hydrogen from water in the first place. The Fhybrid is a pipe dream.

Mass Transit

[digitaldc]

Hybrid scooters are nice, but what the US really needs is better, more available mass transit.

Most people won't buy this scooter, but they will ride a train.

Re:Mass Transit

[llZENll]

People only ride a train if it is better than driving. In 99% of the country, it isn't. Only when it costs $100/day to park your car in NYC does riding a train start to pay off, then you have to worry about getting mugged and sitting in someones urine. You shouldn't be surprised that people will pay a lot for that safety, and if it ruins the environment, oh well. Just look at LA, you wait 2 hours in traffic to go 1 mile, and those people would rather bang their heads against their steering wheel all day, than suck it up and sit in a train for 20 minutes, and spend the rest of their time with their families.

The only city I have ever been in that puts the environment before the people is the Denver, CO area, they have more laws against polution, housing, and urban sprawl than any where else in the US I have seen.

Re:Mass Transit

[yasny_jp]

I live in LA and I would love to ride the train to work, but 1) it actually takes longer than driving in my car and 2) at least in LA, no one really knows how to ride the train.

About point 1, to get to work from where I live, I have to take ALL 4 lines in LA and it takes almost 2 hours. In my car, even with traffic, it takes about an hour. I'm going to choose the car.

About point 2, since people in LA haven't grown up with trains, no one really knows how to ride them. Simple things like not blocking the doors by standing directly in front of them at the stations, and generally being rude and obnoxious. I don't want to deal with stuff like this so I drive.

Also, I think the designers of the train system in LA forgot that people only ride public transit when a) they have no other choice or b) it's convenient. Since I have another choice, I will only ride the trains if it's convenient, and right now it's not. Maybe if they created some more express trains I would consider riding them again.

Re:Mass Transit

[Aqua_boy17]

I don't know that most people would actually ride a train, at least not here. Where I live (South Florida) pretty much transportation is North-South, the relatively small amount of train traffic that we do have plays havoc with the automobile traffic. We can't have underground subways here as you usually hit water when you dig anywhere deeper than about 4 or 5 feet. So the only other option is an elevated train that is very expensive to build and maintain. Miami has a limited one that does not service all of the community, and it is way under utilized with large cost overruns.

That pretty much leaves buses for us as a viable mass-transit option. And I have been saying for a while that to get a better class of people riding the bus, you have to have a better class of people riding the bus. The last bus ride I took when my car was in the shop was kind of frightening for a middle class geek carrying an expensive laptop and cellphone.

Generally people in the US are way too attached to their cars and the independance that it gives them to give them up. Car-pooling is nearly non-existant where I work. Maybe $5 or $6 a gallon gas will change that.

Re:Mass Transit

[Anonymous Coward]

Some basics about mass transit:

1) Mass transit only works when it is more efficient that taking a car. When they put in a light rail system in Portland OR, some people divided the cost of the system by the expected ridership. They could have bought each rider a Rolls-Royce or an economy car with a couple years of gasoline.
2) Mass transit only works when there are masses to use it. Excepting major cities, the U.S. population density relatively low. I suspect it is similar for Australia. Europeans just can't comprehend it. (I met a German who went to N.Y. Thought he's zip down to Florida for a hour or two. Ha!)
3) Mass transit only works when it gets people to where they need to go. I used to live 5 miles from my job. I checked the bus routes. My only choice for riding the bus was to walk 5 blocks to the bus stop, wait for an East-West bus, hop of at another stop, wait for a North-South bus, then walk another 1/4 mile (.5 km) to my job. It took a LOT less time to ride a bike.
4) Mass transit and motorcyles just aren't going to work for senior citizens in rural areas. Take a trip into the U.S. midwest, find a farm house, then imagine riding a bike to town to get your groceries.
5) Most mass transit systems in U.S. cities are horribly inefficient. They stay that way because they are government subsidized. Poor ridership, poor routes, expensive vehicles, overpaid workers. But, the mangers like it that way. Cuts costs of maintenance and replacement. If more people started using them, the busses would break down quicker.

People whine about big oil and whine for more bike lanes. But when they build the bike lanes, I NEVER see a bicycle powered cement mixer, crane or bulldozer. Also, the automotive/trucking industry has help reduce the cost of steel and transportation thereof. Imagine the cost of bikes without these reductions.

P.S. In physics class, they said no two object could occupy the same space at the same time. Hogwash! The guy who thought that up never rode a bus in China during rush hour. Now THAT is mass transit. (Glad I never got in an accident there.)

Missed opportunity?

[engagebot]

$570 billion? Who cares? When you consider that we didn't have any of that money in the first place (deficit in the trillions).

It's not a situation of "Too bad we wasted all our money on Thing A, because now we don't have the cash we need for Thing B".

We never had the money for the war on terror. If we really want to change to an alternative fuel source, we'll just do it. When you're that far in the hole, whats another couple hundred billion?

Re:Missed opportunity?

[LS]

I'm sorry, but it IS that situation. The money already spent on Thing A has surpassed $300 billion. The money was there. Why could it have not been used on Thing B?

Re:Missed opportunity?

[fotbr]

The money was NOT there.

The so called "budget surplus" that the media loves to claim was Clinton's legacy, just ment that the government was spending less THAT YEAR. It ment we might have been able to pay off a very small fraction of the interest on the national debt. It did NOT mean the debt was gone, or even reduced.

Example: You owe $50,000 in student loans. You made $40,000 this year after taxes. You spent $35,000 on rent, car insurance, food, bills, and other stuff you wanted or needed. You have a "budget surplus" of $500 but you still owe $50,000. The "Budget Surplus" doesn't mean the money is actually there to be used. It is still owed elsewhere.

To be even more accurate, they spent less than they THOUGHT they were going to spend. They can still spend more than they collected in taxes, etc. Like, "(beginning of fiscal year) We're going to spend $1.5 trillion dollars this year. (end of fiscal year) Hey, look, we only spent $1.3 trillion dollars. We have a budget of surplus of $200 billion!"

Re:Missed opportunity?

[LS]

I'm not following you guys. If the money was not there, what was the $300 billion spent on the war so far? Monopoly money??? I understand that it wasn't there on the positivie side of the balance sheet, but it was there in reality, as money went from the government to the military, weapons manufacturers, contractors, mercinaries, the iraqi government, etc. Regardless of debt or where it came from, there WAS money given to these guys, no matter how much you want to twist words. It may have been borrowed money, but it was still spent, and as long as money is being spent, the point made earlier is that it could have been spent more wisely.

LS

Nice, but...

[Robotech_Master]

...I think I prefer the hybrid scooter shown near the bottom of this page.

Re: $7/gal gas

[Bisqwit]

Same in Finland, according to Google.

Ps: Google calculator rules.

"Hybrid" Scooter

[Master Cougar]

Nice, but I would never call this a hybrid, it's an electric scooter with a built in hydrogen fuelled fuel cell recharger, People over use trendy terms

Re:"Hybrid" Scooter

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it matter, you'll still get killed on it.

Detroit innovation?

[Mille Mots]

I'm as excited about GM's "full/strong hybrid option" as I was about their diesel implementation back in the 70s. Which is to say, "Not at all." There has to be at least one other person here who remembers those PsOS.
--
The usual disclaimers apply.

SUV's Forever

[aplusjimages]

Personally, I think the sooner it arrives, the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

I thought that when gas hit $2/gal, then I thought it again when gas hit $2.50/gal. I bet with gas hitting $3/gal the sale of SUVs has gone up. On a different note I've also heard that the DVD sale of Law and Order SVU has gone up as well. Spooky.

Who Killed the Electric Car

[JoshDM]

It's a movie coming out: Who Killed the Electric Car.

Regenerative braking on the front wheel

[OhHellWithIt]

That's an interesting idea, doing the regenerative braking from the front wheel, but I'd be a little worried about it in slick conditions. I'm wondering if the braking can be modulated adequately to prevent a skid. With a four-wheel vehicle, if your front wheels lock up, you slide or maybe spin; lock up the front wheel on a two-wheel vehicle, you either flip or lose your balance and crash. Of course, I suppose that if they electronically detect that the rear wheel has lost traction, the problem might be (mostly) prevented.

One shortcoming in the article is that they don't tell us how the prototype is powered, just that it's not hydrogen yet.

Re:Regenerative braking on the front wheel

[jholzer]

Around 75% of a motorcycle's breaking comes from the front wheel. Locking the front tire on a street bike usually just causes it to fall over, low-side crash.

Locking the back wheel then releasing it without comming to a complete stop can result in a high-side crash where the rider gets thrown over the bike.

High-side crashes are usually much worse for the rider.

Re:Regenerative braking on the front wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it's regenerative braking... that means the motor has to be spinning in order to produce any braking force. It's inherently anti-lock.

Re:Regenerative braking on the front wheel

[OhHellWithIt]

Agreed, it's inherently anti-lock, but I recall (with some anguish) how little traction there is on ice, and my thinking is that the drag of the motor might be enough to induce a skid on wet or icy pavement. One can skid and still have spinning wheels.

OTOH, I also realized when the first guy replied that my question is kind of dumb. Brakes of any kind invite a skid in slippery conditions, and if no braking is going on, the risk of a skid is the same regardless of the braking system.

The 'other' Hybrid-version.

[EssJay]

I want to test this version (see the three last pictures): http://www.ourlighterside.com/stuff/engineer/
The images are here:
http://www.ourlighterside.com/stuff/engineer/image 01657.jpg
http://www.ourlighterside.com/stuff/engineer/image 01751.jpg
http://www.ourlighterside.com/stuff/engineer/image 01844.jpg

The End of Suburbia

[Anonymous Coward]

A movie was made regarding this issue.

In a nutshell, the idea of the suburbs cannot be supported for long; it depends on cheap energy for transportation, so people will have to -- at some point -- to bunch up togather in cities where there is an efficient transit system.

News Flash!

[bigtimepie]

the prototype lacks one crucial component: the hydrogen fuel cell!

News Flash !! Hydrogen fuel cell STILL NOT invented !!
Scientists still agree that it is a good idea !

Re:News Flash!

[Ardeaem]

Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been around for a while. The space shuttle has been using them since the 1970s.

I'm not holding my breath

[carpeweb]

I've been reading about fuel cells and the potential hydrogen economy for more than twenty years. All the "breakthroughs" seem like the equivalent of re-dating the origin of the universe by few billion years: impressive science, perhaps, but not much practical value, yet. TFA just seems like one more in a seemingly endless chain of hype. Hey, I'd still give the student an A, but I wouldn't publish an article about it, because it's not news that hydrogen has potential.

We won't see production breakthroughs until the economics are radically different. That will either come from a very different kind of scientific breakthrough (e.g., "Researchers Scale 'Cold' H-Cell Fuel Extraction; Energy Stocks Plummet") or a cross-over in economics, where oil is so expensive (try $10-20/gallon or more for gasoline) that some very expensive but non-petroleum based method of extraction then becomes economically viable. That won't be as scary as it sounds if the run-up to $20 gas allows us enough time to build the public consensus it will take to fund more intensive research, including the production engineering. If the run-up is too short, then the war predictions don't sound too far-fetched.

Re:I'm not holding my breath

[Inebrius]

Don't expect $20/gallon gas anytime soon.

What a barrel of crude oil makes (Product Gallons per Barrel)
Gasoline 19.4, Distillate Fuel Oil 9.7(Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel), Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 4.3, Coke 2.0, Residual Fuel Oil 1.9(Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation, and for electric power generation), Liquefied Refinery Gases 1.9, Still Gas 1.8, Asphalt and Road Oil 1.4, Petrochemical Feedstocks 1.1,
Lubricants 0.5, Kerosene 0.2, Other 0.4

Looking at only the gas portion and ignoring taxes and refining costs, at $20 per gallon, a barrel would bring in $388. Including taxes, costs, and the value of the other fuels, a barrel would likely have to get well above $600 for gas prices to actually hit $20.

The exception is if our government decides it wants gas to be more expensive and people agree with it, for the children.

For the US to get above $5 in the next 5 years, it would take a major disruption in the oil industry (2X Katrina), war, or government intervention (taxes).

Re:I'm not holding my breath

[carpeweb]

Thanks for the info (i.e., I support the mod-up). My $20 figure was meant to mean simply "much higher than today". But there must be some point at which expensive extraction/production of hydrogen for fuel cells would be cost-effective, and we're clearly not there yet. Just as clearly, if the supply truly is finite, and we're nearing the peak of production, then we should at least be able to envision $20 gas ...

Only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 60 mpg? My VW Golf gets close to 50 mpg combined (over 50 mpg highway). The VW Polo gets around 60 mpg. And both of these are normal cars that seat 4.

Statistics

[fredmosby]

Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.

Statistically if 1/3 of vehicles are light trucks then 1 - 4/9 or about 56% of crashes should involve a light truck.

ethanol.fi

[Dr. Cody]

Q. How do you know when a Finn is pumping E85 at the petrol station?

A. He licks the pump when he's done.

Re:ethanol.fi

[jsiren]

That's why they're cautious about introducing ethanol-fueled cars here; drunk drivers are already a problem...

:)

--js/fi--

Fuel cell scooters

[Anonymous Coward]

My university does research on fuel cell technology and they have a couple of fuel cell scooters and other low speed vehicles they're investigating. Here's a link from a (2 year old) article: http://communications.uvic.ca/uvicreport/research. html and more detailed recent info (with pics of scooters) here: http://www.iesvic.uvic.ca/research/subsection4.htm

They've had hybrid scooters for years...

[CannedTurkey]

They're called a MOPED.

Don't diss my Escort!

[Radical Moderate]

In over 200K miles I've replaced one clutch, one timing belt, one alternator, and one starter. Paint looks like hell, but the thing will not die!

Re:Don't diss my Escort!

[monsted]

It must've been the german built one. The only thing that could kill those was rust.

The brazilian one i had later was a POS.

electric now

[Bootsy]

I dont get it, why have a doubly complicated system, we all know that means more to go wrong, when a simple electric system would mean absolutely no gas consumption, and a very easy to maintain machine.

Like this:
http://www.gwev.com/wholevtelsco.html
http://www.e-cycle.ca/

Hi-energy battery tech:
http://www.a123systems.com/html/apps/trans.html

What's with the water fetish?

[TheStonepedo]

You don't have to make hydrogen through electrolysis. Hydrogen can be produced far more efficiently from hydrocarbon fuels such as ethanol. I'm doing work on membranes to separate the produced hydrogen from the waste gases so it can be pure for use in the fuel cell. Hydrogen in tanks tends to be produced using the same gas-phase reactions as those involved in my work on a much larger scale.

Jet Scooter

[TheStonepedo]

That jet scooter looks cool.? I don't quite understand what that guy was doing with his punctuation.? The information on the main page regarding the street legal VW New Beetle with a jet engine was pretty cool.?

Vespa's hybrid scooter

[g8oz]

Vespa has recently started making a gas-electric scooter. Why pay attention to this Dutch guy's pipe dream when there is a real production (sortof) model.

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C7428/

http://www.retrothing.com/2006/04/introducing_two. html

http://2strokebuzz.com/index.php/?p=2758

One reason we went to war

[Anonymous Coward]

meullerr1 wrote:

Which is exactly why we went to war instead of building efficient infrastructure at home.

To the contrary, read this from http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/lib era.htm:

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

[...]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

An even better way to spend that money

[GPS Pilot]

Build a lunar-solar power generation system for $50 billion.

took out a blazer with my MR2 once...

[nido]

I had a '91 toyota MR2 - a relatively small two-seat mid-engined car. I had a green light, and noticed half way through the intersection that my velocity vector was scheduled to intersect with that of a red chevy blazer in the middle of the intersection. Later I decided that she was talking on her cell phone and didn't notice that she was supposed to stop. I hit my brakes, kissed her left-rear tire, and had a front-row seat to watch her car flip right in front of me. She'd noticed a bit too late that the light was red, and had her brakes on full. This put all the weight on the front two tires, allowing the light contact to upend her car.

My car was lightly damaged, hers was totaled. Drove it for a few more years, until I kissed another car's rear tire. That was a sedan of some sort, and all it did was spin 90 degrees.

Have a scan of the accident polaroids somewhere... Oughta put them online. :)

Re:took out a blazer with my MR2 once...

[Propaghandi]

Dude-you're my hero!
(now feeling slightly better about driving a Saturn)

Mike

Don't outlaw futures trading

[GPS Pilot]

Yes, futures trading has driven up the price in anticipation of future shortages, but that's a good thing. High prices are the only effective incentive to develop alternatives to crude oil, and to conserve.

Without futures trading, the price would tend to stay artificially low, encouraging overconsumption and discouraging the development of alternatives, right up until the moment we run out. Boy oh boy would we be screwed then.